|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: 'Some still living' disproves literal truth of the bible | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5046 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
In Matthew 16:27-28, Jesus says (ESV) :-
quote: If the bible is inerrant, then Jesus said this. Not only that, but if Jesus said this, it must be true, by the divine nature of Jesus. This is impossible to reconcile with reality. If taken literally, the implication is that some of Jesus' audience are still alive today OR that Jesus has already come again, neither of which are true. This is a challenge to a literal interpretation of the bible. How do those who believe the bible is inerrant respond to this? Edited by Peepul, : No reason given. Edited by Peepul, : to improve opening post
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
If you want this in the accuracy and inerrancy thread, please explain why you feel the quote cannot be literally true. Also provide what literalist views you feel this statement needs to be reconciled with.
If you want it in faith and belief, I still feel you need to flesh it out a bit with support for your position and not just fish.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5046 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
amended - please review and let me have your feedback
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
Thread copied here from the 'Some still living' disproves literal truth of the bible thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
How do you know that some of the 'some of you standing here' that Jesus was talking to are not dead?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5242 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
This is impossible to reconcile with reality. If taken literally, the implication is that some of Jesus' audience are still alive today OR that Jesus has already come again, neither of which are true. It was fulfilled, in part, in the experience of the apostle John who saw the kingdom come in Revelation. Some of the other disciples got a glimpse of it also. Check out Pauls words in II Corinthians 12:2. The 'man in Christ above 14 years ago' was actually himself. But even if one doesn't take that as Paul himself, whoever it was saw the kingdom. Best wishes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 830 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
..or it was a dream
2 corinthians 12:2 writes: (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth.) The writer says basically he can't tell if it was a dream, only god knows. See 2 Corinthians 12:1
2 Corinthians 12:1 writes: It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. So there, he's talking about a vision. or is this portion of the bible the parable part? Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
It was fulfilled, in part, in the experience of the apostle John who saw the kingdom come in Revelation. So where is the evidence that John wrote revelation and that it wasn't written much later from compilations of earlier writings? Edited by bluescat48, : typooo There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5242 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
So where is the evidence that John wrote revelation and that it wasn't written much later from compilations of earlier writings? Why would it be in question to begin with?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5046 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
quote: Well they haven't sold their story to Hello - that's pretty good evidence. Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Because people here put everything into question. Even the very existence of Jesus.
But anyhow, Bluescat, the original post wanted to disprove the bible by assuming it is true, nd then showing that it is inconsistent with itself. It is therefore completely adequate that calypsis shows that it is using oher parts of the bible as reference. Wanting to descredit the Bible by taking Matheu 16:27-28 as the true words of Jesus, only to go around and doubt the biblical answer as genuine won't convince anyone about it but your own self. It would be like saying: ''The bible says that John the Baptist would open the way to the messiah, but in fact he never did''. And when someone replied ''Well in christianity, Jesus is the messiah and so he did in fact open the way for him'' only for you to reply ''Oh, but I don't think Jesus is the messiah''. The conversation could even go on and yo ube asked ''why don't you believe that jesus is the messiah'' and you would answer ''Because the bible is inconsistent, as with my earlier example of John The Baptist'' The reality is, as to show a book is inconsistent, you have to assume all of it is true and show how it is, not take away the parts that would be the answers to the dilemnas. It is the simplest and easiest thing to do to reveal inconsistencies in a book where you take away parts ... Hell, you can probably do it with every single book on earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5046 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
quote: Thanks Calypsis. I've read that passage and found it interesting. It seems to me that John and Paul (or someone else) had a 'preview' of the kingdom, but that Jesus is talking about the arrival of the kingdom in real time, on earth, for everbody. This is clear from the linking of the two sentences in the quote I gave above. The first sentence is about the real arrival of the kingdom
For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. For your interpretation to be true, the second sentence must then not be referring to this real arrival, but to the 'previews'.
Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. But read the two together and it's clear that they are linked.
For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 830 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
No. That's called circular reasoning. You can't prove your source...with your source. To prove ANYTHING in the bible is true, you need an outside, unbiased source, which has yet to be accomplished for all but the minor portions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5242 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
the kingdom in real time What, pray tell, is the 'kingdom in real time'? Where did Jesus use that phrase? Check out John 5:25, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, AND NOW IS, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live." How can something be 'coming'(future) and yet be 'now is'(present)? The concepts of past, present, and future, have a different meaning for those in eternity. God is a tripartite Being who exists in the past, present, and future all at once. And when we see Him we shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He is.
[thumb=400]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/RG306_klok_horloge_relatiegeschenk_.jpg[/thumb=400]<!--AB--> <span class="szs f-link"><i>Edited by Calypsis4, <script>if (getCookie('UseUserTimeZone')) {printDateTime(1255454438000, 'US', '-', 4, 'AMPM');} else {document.write('10/13/09 1:20 PM');}</script>: enlargement.</i></span><!--AE-->
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I know what circular reasoning is, but you will have to explain to me how presupposing the bible to be true only to show that it is inconsistent with itself is circular reasoning.
Because that is exactly what the OP is doing, and it then becomes perfectly legitimate to defend a given worldview from aspects within that worldview, as to show that it is consistent with itself. This would be circular reasoning if it was to show that it is true. This is not the case here, since all calypsis was doing was showing that it was consistent. These are vastly different concepts, and atheists usually mix them up quite easily when biblical innerancy, presuppositions, biblical axioms, etc. are being discussed. I hope my little explanation has helped you to grasp the difference between truthfulness and self-consistency, as this is very elementary philosophy. Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024