Determining a book's truth.

Is it possible for a quick summary of the current discussion to be posted? I just registered, and it's kind of a lot to read for a person late at night : ) .As for my thoughts on the overall topic, I think I may be broaching one of the preset rules for the discussion, but I think the Bible has to be an "all or nothing" deal. Because if some is true and some isn't, how do you pick and choose? Who's to say what right and what's not?Personally, I believe in the accuracy of the Bible. I think some support for this can be found in prophecies made that were then fulfilled, in some cases things that seem to be ahead of it's time, and then a lot of little things that verify itself. If desired, I can elaborate in these somewhat vague points.

I think this:2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,If all scripture is not given by God, than apparently this statement is false. Who's then to say what else this author may have said that was false, because apparently if that is the case then we cannot always trust his words. (Keep in mind this was Paul, so we are kind of dealing with the primary part of the NT)I disagree however with the statement that the Bible is contradictory. I think statements of contradiction can be accurately explained (at least the ones dealing with accounts that seem to contradict in overall things, not details of numbers, I can't explain all of those yet). As for the flood, as of so far I believe that it happened, but I have not done personal research on it.I think the Bible can explain itself when questioned, I would not think to just take what one is told by someone else. The Bible contains the message I believe we need to hear:Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.If one such person speaks contrarily, it is then my duty to search out its explanation.An example of what I mean about "How can we interpret what we should and shouldn't do" isn't referring to things such as killing and stealing, but matters of greater subtlety such as the balance of faith and works, How to treat others in different situations, And how to overall live in relation to those around us (such as should we be COs etc). If some of the things said in the Bible are false, then we cannot guide ourselves by it.As for the overall post topic, I'd say the way to determine if a book is true or not would be if it supports itself (ways include prophecy, unique things that ordinary people wouldn't throw in, and an overall proof of something more than just man guiding it).As a final statement, I must stand by my previous post after having explained my self further.

I'm saying I as of so far have not looked into examining as to how such instances can be explained (this in reference to numerical contradictions).I do know, however, of scientists in the scientific community who do believe that there was in fact a world-wide flood, and in fact have published works and/or documentaries on them. I do intend to look into the matter however, so I ask that if possible the flood discussion here be disbanded, as I am in no current state to address this issue.

Sorry for double/triple posts. Such was done so that I could address each post one at a time. apologies At the time of the writing of 2 Timothy, all of the Old Testament existed. Also, I'm not entirely sure as to the order in which books were written, but one of the first epistles was James, and it seems that other writings reference, or were at least written in a similar format to that of James.Also, think about this: God is perfectly capable of putting together what he wants together. WE are missing books. Read the histories (Joshua-Chronicals) and you will find references to books of Seers that we do not have in the current Bibles.
Thus my take on this is that what God wanted to be in his Word, is what is in there now. That is why works such as that of the Book of Enoch aren't included in the typical Bible.Another rendition or meaning of 2 Tim. is Scripture is given, or inspired, words that would give a different twist to the text. (Translation in previous post ESV, other translations KJV, and I believe RSV).Of course many stories have morals, but the question is (at least in my humble opinion) is that if we cannot credit the Bible everywhere, how do we choose. Let me give an example (note, I'd rather not have posted this, but as it is to prove a point, I do not mean to attack anyone with this statement, and ask that I not get replies to this specific thing):1Co 5:9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people--So it is saying do not associate with those people. Now, how should this be interpreted? (Rhetorical, please do not respond to this question as it is more intended to inspire thought)AS for Bible Contradictions, please present them to me and I would be happy to do my best to explain them to you, or if there is already a current thread, please direct me as I'm still a noob.(Apologies for length) And Prophecy. I'll throw a few out there.#1. Daniel 2. Nebs image. Interpretation it is about the world powers. what happens:Gold = Babylon
Silver = Medo-Persia
Bronze = Greece
Iron = Rome
Feet = modern day
Stone = Christ and his return (this part is yet to be fulfilled)#2. Also in Daniel. A retelling with more specifics. Dan. 8Read it. I recommend e-sword if you do not have a current thing you use to read the Bible. Electronic and quick and easy to use (free)Interpretation is given in vv. 17-27. Note the little things as well. Meds &Persians referenced two horns, one higher than the other as in one of the kingdoms was a bit above the other. Greece, it split into four. aka Alexanders Generals. Note also it is referred to as moving very quickly.One last one # 3.Ezekiel 26. Prophecy concerning Tyre. Told it would be scraped bare. When Alexander came through he conquered the island city. how? He scarped everything off of the old wreckage and made a causeway. As for spreading of nets, there are actually pictures of people spreading there nets there. (If you think it is slightly corny, I guess that is fine, but its almost like court evidence of Bible prophecy fulfilled.)

What I disagree with is that you are referencing things of dates much later in time. Aka the council of Trent. I think the Church was corrupted at this time. Largely due to the fact that Constantine screwed around with a lot of doctrine and did a lot of incorporating with Hellenistic culture.True followers of Christ and believers wouldn't have thought to throw out the old law because that is where they get their scripture. Note, the Apostle Paul often quotes the Old Testament. Evidently he believed it to be factual otherwise he would not have bothered to cite it.Jews and tradition is not what is important, rather the written word. The Law that was given by God to Moses on Mt. Horeb (according to the text), and that is what Jesus uses when he teaches. He rebukes the pharisees for forsaking God's law for tradition. Not to say that what the Older generation did is invalid, but rather that they must keep God's word rather than tradition.

Within reason. Like as of right now if an account is one number off, like David numbered at 10,000 here, and then 20,000 there, Probably not, but I would definitely have something to think about. However, if you can give me something more substantial that contradicts, than yes, I would consider the Bible to be perhaps not nonsense, but I would likely not believe it anymore. Did you have an example in mind?

Dead Sea Scrolls and I believe the Septuagint predate the BC times, thus they were written before Christ, and they include those prophecies.As for Tyre, that would be the ancient city of Tyre. It is common fact that Neb. Sacked it, and then Alexander built the causeway. As for the nets, I'm not talking about some phony web photo. My cousin has a friend who personally went there and viewed the location of the ANCIENT city of Tyre, and saw some funny little men down there fishing and took a picture.I don't entirely understand what you mean by Canon.. I'm guessing it is something associated with the RCC? If so I'm guessing it it refering to what books are included or excluded from the book they use as Scripture. Please correct me if I'm wrong as I want to know accurately what you are saying."Another rendition or meaning of 2 Tim. is Scripture is given, or inspired, words that would give a different twist to the text.Sure. A reasonable summation of Scripture but one that can also include Huck Fin and Moby Dick."Please explain, I'm not quite sure what you are getting at.The explination of Gen 1&2 could get complicated since you mentioned that the "Gods" Were different. I can explain this, but the question is do you want me to get into this?Using our brains means using our human prejudices and failings. We take what we want to say because that is how we want to live. Is that what you are saying?Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?Substitute brain for heart as that is what we think with, and ow do you think people will interpret the text?

I read a bit of the post on the Tyre story, and it looks like I had said some of the things faith had said. Let me give a bit more background:Tyre was a two part city. Land Tyre, and Sea Tyre. Sea tyre was an Island off the mainland that was more or less a fortress. So Neb. comes through and attacks the mainland. They defend for a while and then withdraw (evacuate) to the fortress which no one could get to because they would sink any ships that came by, and it was impossible to even land a ship near enough to attack anyway because of how it was built.So Neb moves on after doing the initial destruction of Tyre. Then Alexander comes in. He says to surrender. They basically thumb their noses and say "Neeener Neener Neeeener!" And this ticks him off because he was a proud dude. So he decides to take the city no matter the cost. Note it is the island city he is taking. So he constructs a causeway using the rubble of the old city. This is fact. He lost a lot of men doing this to, but in the end was able to construct a causeway that led to the island city and then took it. Neb started, Alexander completed, some other people rebuilt. It is fact about the causeway, look at pictures and see the underwater strip connecting the two. Much of the causeway has been destroyed due to erosion as well as the fact that Tyre wasn't too keen on allowing it to reach them.

If it is said that a city will be built no more/never be rebuilt refers to reestablishing that former city. A city with the same name doesn't mean it is the same city. Someone would have had to build it with the intent of remaking Tyre and restoring what Tyre formerly was.For example: Twin towers fell. Having a memorial of them is not rebuilding them. Tyre falls. A city built in Africa named Tyre wouldn't be rebuilding Tyre, though the name is shared, and just a city built near the ancient location would not mean it was the same.
The same holds true with Babylon. It is said that it would never be rebuilt, but people have tried to restore what it was (Hanging Gardens, etc) and they all failed. Why? Because God said they would fail. Now, there is a difference with this Tyre. Because evidently God allowed it to be rebuilt. And my proposition is that this Tyre was different than the other one.

Just to clarify, you mean either logical contradictions then, and contradictions involving Principals? Give me an example of each I suppose.

I think they had no reason to lie to me. I've both read from sources and been told that what I have told you as to what happened in Tyre is what happened. I'll look into it on my own time later. For now, as neither of us will be convinced otherwise, I suppose we must agree to disagree.In other words: I must research this for myself because as I had no reason to doubt the person who told me first about Tyre, and yet I have no idea who you are or anything. I propose we disband talking about this until later. By the way, is the discussion you posted in an earlier post closed? If not, I suggest we continue this in there later.In other things, what do you think on the Daniel Prophecies?

I'll continue Tyre later than in that topic. For now, I ask you are you certain of that they are post-hoc?When were the Dead Sea Scrolls found? If they were dated before the time of Alexander, or not to long after, then they cannot be post-hoc because they would have been written before him.I am rather unfamiliar with dating, but I believe that most of the works cannot be post-hoc as you say.

First off:As for Daniel being post-hoc, what would be the point? Put yourself in the writer's situation, and ask yourself, why?The Dead Sea Scrolls were found and date between 200 BC and 200 AD, some even going as far as 400 BC. Now when Daniel is contained in those writings, why would the writer have bothered?If the issue is that since there is no writing dating back to that time to confirm that Daniel was in fact writing from Babylon and Persia, additionally to the question of why he would do that is that if you do that for this, why do you accept things like Socrates? None of his original works exist. And yet do you challenge them?As for why other books aren't defended, it's because if people believe them, for some reason they feel no need to defend them. The fact that someone will defend something, shows that they care about what it says. it's like if someone insulted your family, you feel the need to stick up for them.

Abandon Tyre because we disagree on what happened to it in the past. I've read that it was besieged and taken, and yet you(s) claim otherwise. Until a later time, I will not be discussing this because it isn't getting anywhere.I'll touch on the last questions. Same name, same location means same city. different location means different city. There is one in NY you know. Does that mean it's existence disproves the prophecy? Of course not.Near meaning it was in Lebanon or around the general vicinity. AS in it was in a different location then.As for Egypt, (I'm no Egyptian expert) I assume its safe to say that this hasn't happened yet. It is however possible that this could refer to another city/country if such is the case. If it is in fact Egypt, than I assume it would be sometime in the future, and if other interpretation is correct, then it looks to be near future. What are thoughts on the interpretation of Daniels image. Even if we pretend that it was written 50 years ago, then the part about the feet still hasn't been fulfilled, and then there is the part about the stone...
Any thoughts?

First off, please understand my position:One can pull anything off the internet, I have no idea who anyone here are, and I've seen photos and personal testimonies of people I trust and admire that claim contrary to what has been said.I have seen a photo of the land and island of Tyre, and in it, there was no land connection. Iceage, I looked at the map image on the previous post, and the land connecting the two was huge. Was this something recent that was done? I had seen a picture previously, and what remained of the causeway was a thin strip that was underwater for all but the lowest of tides. Yet here it appears that therer is land connecting the two by a thick strip.AS for rebuilt, consider these things:
Eze 26:4 They shall destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers, and I will scrape her soil from her and make her a bare rock.
regardless of the whole issue at hand here of never being rebuilt, there is a prediction of soil being scraped from her and making her a bare rock. And the fact that that happened in itself is incredible.
Perhaps it is yet to be fulfilled, but regardless of that, this totally specific thing never should have happened. Who would predict that someone would scrape soil off of something? And yet that is what Alexander did when he built the causeway.I'm still of the opinion though that Neb. did in fact destroy the land city. It would have been a foolish military move otherwise, because he left a city inside of himself that was an ideal port that could be used by any enemies he had. That simply does not make sense and so he would have put a lot of effort into conquering it.Anastasia: At the beginning, nothing was wrong with converts. Be they roman, greek, layodecian, what have you. But the thing is, when Constantine "Became a Christian" it was a political move. He saw a group of people within his country that could be won over, and to keep everyone else happy he brought some parts of Hellenism(?) with him. Compare a former Greek temple. The pillars were all greek Gods, so instead the Emperor substitutes "saints" that people pray to instead.What it seems many people fail to understand, is that we need the Old Testament too. Do you understand what I mean by this? Christ is tyed to the Old Testament. Tell me how. Prove to me that you know this. Because this is something that should be fundamental to what people believe.In regards to most of the Church history, look at it yourself. The Great Schism for one. All three of the Popes claimed the other was the anti-christ? Can you look at that and say something is not wrong? The fact of the matter is that anyone who opposes Christ is anti-christ, because that is what the word means."Well, Paul screwed around with Jews and their tradtions, as well as doctrine. So did Jesus, and I believe all of it is important. Do you know where we got the Bible? Tradition."Could you elaborate on this please? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.The thing with Egypt is that it is prophecy, and in prophecy, one thing will often stand for another, otherwise no prophecy would be fulfilled. Look at Ezk. 37 (?) (its around there at least) about Gog and Magog. As far as I know, there is no city/country by those names, and yet they look rather significant in what they will do.Look at Revelation: It speaks of Babylon, and Babylon has been gone a long time, and had been gone a long time when it was written. Thus either the person writing was dumb, because he didn't realize they weren't there, or it stood for something else. I suppose the same is true if Egypt. Look at what it says (for spatial sake I'll try and sumarize, I don't think I'll misquote, but if I do, let me know):A bruised reed because they hurt Israel when they trusted in them.
This would mean a modern thing that Israel trust in, but that trust cripples them in some way. The question would then be to look for what Israel trusts in that could cripple them.My apologies to everyone for this long post. I was trying to answer to some extent a number of replies.