One Verse At A Time...

[Ouroboros]

"For one there is no valid reason to suggest that Moses didn't write the first 5 books of the Bible. It attests to the author (Exodus 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Numbers 33:1-2; Deuteronomy 31:9) not to mention outside of the Pentateuch (Joshua 1:7-8; 8:31-32; I Kings 2:3; II Kings 14:6; 21:8, etc, etc.)."

Okay, those verses are good, I give you that, but they don't state that he wrote the whole Pentateuch though. They state that he wrote parts of it, like the journey, a war with amalekits, and the laws.

 

Secondly it doesn't say who took care of the books after he wrote them. The chain of evidence is brooken, and if God really wanted to impress me or anyone that's skeptical (or the majority of biblical scholars), then the record should have been complete with when and who took care of it. Anyone could have written them or modified them after the fact.

 

The "He" spoken about in the passage in question is God Himself! Moses was given also given a vision (verse 4). Also to note Deuteronomy is primarily sermonic and it drives home what the Jews should have learned from the first four books. Deut. is a recorded message; this accounts for the differences in style and method of expression found in the book.

I know the reference was to "God", but it doesn't say who took care of the books when Moses died. Who cared for them? Who started the process of copying them?

 

Different style and method of expression, you say? That's a hint to different authors.

 

Moses had a vision of his death and recorded it.

 

It doesn't say that.

 

Deu 34:4 And the LORD said unto him, This is the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying, I will give it unto thy seed: I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither.

He got a vision of the land, not his death.

[Ouroboros]

This is funny one:

Num 12:3 KJVA Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.

 

Moses wrote down that he is humble?

 

It's one of those jokes I use myself from time to time: "I'm very humble and I'm proud of it."

 

If Moses wrote that verse about himself, then he wasn't that humble, but if he really was that humble, he would not write that verse.

[Ouroboros]

Or this one:

Deu 34:10 KJVA And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,

How would Moses know that? When the verse use the word "since", it means there has been some time between the event and the writing of the story, it clearly signals a separation between the story and the story teller.

[Ouroboros]

You confuse fear with love. Do you not see a perfect oppurtunity to worship Him, to accept Him into your heart? It is to perserve yourself as you say! Take the oppurtunity. The whole point of believing in Christ is so that we may not perish but have everlasting life! The fact that you do not choose Him and go to hell is your spiritual death, one that God/Christ is trying to save you from.

Doesn't it say we should "fear God"? And love drives out all fear?

 

But then again, your definition of "fear" is different when used in the context of "fearing God", just like you use a different definitions of "love", "justice" and "unconditional". You can make any text into a beautiful little piece when you redefine the meanings.

 

Like this:

All is blue and green,

It's good and serene,

Blood everywhere,

No one really care.

That's a little scripture about how loving, just and fearful the cute Bunny is, glory be his carrots, Salad! Our Lard and Savior. He loves us so much that he let himself die and become rabbit stew for our sins. "Blue and green" is the sky and the grass. Second verse is how everyone now will be okay, since we're getting peace through Him. The blood splatter from Him being run over by a car is there, and it expresses the sacrifice he did. And the last row is about how people reject his salvation and no one really cared when He died for us.

 

I can interpret anything, in any way, I want, just to make it fit my ideas. And that's what you're doing too. Adjusting the context, meaning and definiton of words and ideas in the Bible, just to make it fit what you believe.

 

You are a walking testimony to the fact that you can either CHOOSE to believe and obey or not! The point is, it is true and apparently you are not in your right mind until you choose Jesus!

Sorry, but you have to leave your mind out of the equation when you decide to choose Jesus, or any religion. It's based on faith, belief and emotions, and not your mind.

[NotBlinded]

Notice how the servant is introduced as a person in this chapter (42:1-13), rather than the entire nation of Israel (42:14-25). This is a new and wonderful element of Isaiah's prophecy. Remember that elements of this prophecy baffled men before Jesus and it baffles men today who choose not to see that Jesus is the Servant of the Lord.

He also speaks of the nation of Isreal as a person here:

 

Then Isaiah 66 states this: "7 "Before she went into labor, she had the baby. Before the birth pangs hit, she delivered a son. 8 Has anyone ever heard of such a thing? Has anyone seen anything like this? A country born in a day? A nation born in a flash? But Zion was barely in labor when she had her babies! 9 Do I open the womb and not deliver the baby? Do I, the One who delivers babies, shut the womb? 10 "Rejoice, Jerusalem, and all who love her, celebrate! And all you who have shed tears over her, join in the happy singing."

 

This is a direct reference to the 'son' being the nation.

 

 

God means nothing if you cannot know Him. Through the Bible you read His word to us thus knowing Him on a level far greater than you would have without His word. You see what is concealed in the Old is revealed in the New Testament.

God means nothing if you can know him sub. You are saying that your earthly mind is capable of understanding something that cannot be known. You are mistaking the pointers for god itself and making God human. The only way for God to have any meaning at all is to know that this Being is unknowable!

[NotBlinded]

Here is what I do to solve my little problem that you think I face. You see I take the presupposition that the Bible is the only truth. Than anything that contradicts that on major doctrinal issues isn't the truth. Simple as that!

 

Well..it is hopeless! sub, please save what you said for future reference because one day you might find another truth and laugh at this.

 

As long as you're happy...

[Guest sub_zer0]

Hmm... "In 1992 the Lockman Foundation commissioned a limited revision of the NASB which was intended to improve its English style by allowing a somewhat less literal approach. The revision was published as the "NASB Updated Edition" in 1995." "Less literal"... and according to their ideas, less accurate. No longer a translation, but an interpretation... (and it's still based on the 23rd edition...)

 

Good try, but I am reading out of the NASB updated edition that I have in my hand and it says the 26th edition of Nestle for the NT and the Dead Sea scrolls for the OT.

 

Read this from the official website as it states: “The updated NASB remains the most literally accurate Bible in the English language.”

 

“This means keeping the updated NASB exactly what it has always been and will forever be—literally accurate.” -- http://lockman.gospelcom.net/nasb/

 

The NASB was done in 1971. The updated edition came just recently in 1995, “represents revisions and refinements recommended over the last several years and incorporates thorough research based on current English usage.”

 

Also, not to shoot down your so-called Christian standpoint that the NASB is based on, the Lockman Foundation had this to say, “At NO point did the translators attempt to interpret Scripture through translation. Instead, the NASB translation team adhered to the principles of literal translation. This is the most exacting and demanding method of translation, requiring a word-for-word translation that is both accurate and readable.”

 

But, what is the NASB based on? Well... "As its name implies, the New American Standard Bible is a revision of the American Standard Version (1901). It was produced by a company of conservative scholars who wished to provide a literal and conservative revision of the ASV, as an alternative to the Revised Standard Version (1952), which had proven to be unacceptable to conservative churches. Although the NASB revisers were influenced by the RSV's interpretation in many places, overall the NASB is a good deal more literal than the RSV, and thus it preserves the highly literal character that had made the American Standard Version so useful as a translation for close study. Also unlike the RSV, the NASB deliberately interprets the Old Testament from a Christian standpoint, in harmony with the New Testament."

 

The NASB is the most literal rendering from the Greek and Hebrew; you cannot deliberately make it Christian if it is literal. It is what it is, no different. It is based off of the 26th edition of Nestle and the Dead Sea scrolls…

 

There you go... it's based on the ASV, influenced by the RSV, used 23rd Nestle to sort out the Greek and interprets the OT from a Christian standpoint... For something that makes a lot of noise about being a literal translation, it sure does like to be an interpretive translation.

And again, no possibility of it using ancient manuscripts...

By the way... who had the time machine?

 

I don’t know where you are getting your information.

 

"The publication of the New American Standard Bible began with the Gospel of John in 1960, followed by the four Gospels in 1962, the New Testament in 1963, and the entire Bible in 1971."

Are you sure that they used the 26th edition for that? Considering the 26th edition was a completely different work, I guess the NT part of the NASB UE is also completely different to the original? After all, it's gonna be hard to get an identical literal translation from vastly different sources without a lot of interpretation. So much for the NASB being the most literal translation around...

Secondly, like I said, NASB isn't based off the Dead Sea scrolls in any way... just off another bible. Or are you now going to claim that change to the NA text included the Dead Sea scrolls...?

 

No they used the 26th edition for the NASB updated edition. The updated edition for the OT is Dead Sea scrolls and other sources!

 

You appear to be under the impression that I was never a Christian... allow me to just correct your error.

But now you seem to be accepting the fact that the old laws are still there... you just think that fullfilment means we don't need to follow them.

You do remember the little fact that God declared his laws were eternal, and that man will follow them for all time?

 

Man follows them through Christ’s fulfillment of them.

 

Hasn't been fulfilled though, has it? Not every man has Gods Law written on his heart... We still have people teaching others about Gods Law... His promises have not been fulfilled, have they?

 

Christ has made it possible for that to happen.

 

You're still trying to say that God, despite saying how something WILL happen, has gone and used a different way to bring about a new covenant... a way that matches what he said about false prophets.

See, he warned about people who did EXACTLY what Jesus did, who said EXACTLY what Jesus said, who re-wrote Gods Law EXACTLY like Jesus did... he warned about that, and you want us to believe that he used that method to bring about a new covenant??

 

Jesus didn’t re-write the old law, He fulfilled it.

 

To make matters worse, Jesus himself said that we STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW! When you say Jesus did away with it, that we don't have to follow it, you are calling JESUS a liar!

 

I never said that Jesus did away with it, He fulfilled it.

[thunderbolt]

I never said that Jesus did away with it, He fulfilled it.

You keep on being HIGHLY ambiguous about this. Please explain in no uncertain terms what you mean when you say it's not done away with, but fulfilled. What does it mean in practical terms for you as a follower of Jesus. I can't get your story straight, so it's time to hear it from the horse' mouth. You follow it, or you don't? You keep it, or you don't?

Go!

[Antlerman]

That's not a choice, its force, and even if the whole story was true, who in their right mind would not save their butts from hell? So you see, it ends up being a choice made out of self preservation. Now I can just imagine a God who is thrilled with a bunch of believers who only loves him because they feared the consequence of not loving him more – BibleGod.

 

You confuse love with fear.

 

OK, good it is still a choice then as you say!

 

You confuse fear with love. Do you not see a perfect oppurtunity to worship Him, to accept Him into your heart? It is to perserve yourself as you say! Take the oppurtunity. The whole point of believing in Christ is so that we may not perish but have everlasting life! The fact that you do not choose Him and go to hell is your spiritual death, one that God/Christ is trying to save you from.

 

You are a walking testimony to the fact that you can either CHOOSE to believe and obey or not! The point is, it is true and apparently you are not in your right mind until you choose Jesus!

I haven't posted anything in this thread but I will now.

 

Sub, if they discovered a bona fide gospel that taught clearly that all people went to your heaven, that there was no hell for anyone and Jesus didn't care what you thought, believed, or did, would you still be a Christian?

 

Personally, based on the tactic of your plea above, I am actually quite doubtful of that. Why would you plead with people to accept your doctrines based on fleeing the threat of eternal damnation by an angry god? Is that its best selling point to you??? Is there not one single part of your heart that finds something wrong with this? What does this say about what you believe in and your motives for this?

 

As far as choice: I technically am not making a choice to reject Christ. For me to do this would require there to be enough evidence to make it a credible choice, for or against. This is like saying I am "choosing" to not believe in pink unicorns. No, there is no choice to be made. It's so lacking in credibility it merits no consideration or deliberation whatsoever!

 

I've heard all the arguments made and the types of logical gymnastics that apologists go through (such as yourself) to make a case for it, and in the end - it's as unbelievable as pink unicorns. I have no more chosen to reject Christ than I have chosen to reject the great Bunny (no offensive to you Bunnyyittes). You have to do a much, much better job to make it something worthy of choice. Once you have, then we can discuss choices.

[Open_Minded]

So ... Sub.... you have a problem. Prove to us ... hell prove to yourself ... that Christian sacred literature is TRULY right and everything else is wrong. And don't go pulling out a Bible verse to prove it, because for every Bible verse you get to "prove" that the Bible is the only TRUE word of God ... I can go get Hindu, Muslim, whatever verses to "prove" that their literature is the only TRUE word of God.

Here is what I do to solve my little problem that you think I face. You see I take the presupposition that the Bible is the only truth. Than anything that contradicts that on major doctrinal issues isn't the truth. Simple as that!

 

"You see I take the presupposition that the Bible is the only truth."

 

PROVE IT ... Prove to us that the Bible is the only truth!!!!! Don't just say it, PROVE IT.

 

Sorry... every one... Sub likes to ignore my questions. I just have to keep bumping up the same question over and over again until he decides to answer it. It's almost as if he is a child with his hand in front of his face, shouting, "I'm not listening, I'm not listening....."

 

Come on Sub... just answer the question... it's one question....

 

Prove to us that the Bible is the only truth!!!!!

 

By what authority - outside the Bible itself - do you take the "presupposition that the Bible is the only truth"?

[thunderbolt]

Sorry... every one... Sub likes to ignore my questions.

Yep, that's our subby. He does it to me too. He only answers questions for which he has boilerplate answers.

[Amanda]

Indeed, perfect . Meanwhile all backed up by Scripture and keep in mind the focal point or center of the Bible is Christ.

 

Hi Sub Zero... I'm curious to know how you feel about truth, if it is literally truth... then would it also be able to be validated by outside sources other than the scriptures? I see some valid aspects as to what you're saying on an internal revelation... I just wonder if you might think that perhaps a talking snake and a fruit from a tree called Good and Evil may be more allegorical or metaphorical than literal?

 

Mind you, at one time... not that long ago, I thought that perhaps Noah's Ark could have been real. However, when I really considered the rational thinking of it... could it really have had two of EVERY animal, plants to replenish the earth for food, etc. I now think the whole story is a wonderful metaphor with perhaps a story of a man named Noah superimposed by myth and maybe a real flood to enhance a moral. Perhaps these were teaching stories passed by word of mouth for generations? Now, I'm still in agreement with these wonderful teachings' positive influence for those times, and in no way want to detract from thier inspirational message.

[Antlerman]

By what authority - outside the Bible itself - do you take the "presupposition that the Bible is the only truth"?

OM, wasn't that his answer? He said he takes the presupposition that the Bible is the only truth. In other words hasn't he come out and stated that the reason he accepts it is true is because he just simply presupposes it is that, without requiring any other proof? That's kind of what I'm getting out of that. It's utter blind faith, and he has admitted this in this statement.

 

If this is true then: absolutely everything he tries to put forth and defend is based upon his primary, unsupported presupposition of absolute credibility of the source document. If so, then isn't arguing the specifics of that document acknowledging its validity? Just a thought.

[Guest sub_zer0]

Allow me

 

Matt 5:18-20

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

 

He regarded the pharisees as righteous, and told everyone else to use them as a role model of righteousness*which came for the law".

 

It says, clearly that if your "righteousness shall exceed" that of the Pharisees and scribes and what they think the Law is to be like, "you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."

 

matt 15:3-6

15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

"He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."

15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

 

Jesus here is condemning the pharisees for not following God's OT law about disobedient childrem

 

Exactly, therefore making the Pharisee's wrong in their interpretation of the Law and Christs correct. You are forgetting that the Pharisee's are transgressing the Law because of their traditions not because they weren't following it. The Pharisee's hypocricy of the Law is shown and pointed out by Jesus in verses 5 and 6.

 

"But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God," he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. "

 

John 15:10

10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have

kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

 

You see how Christ says to keep His commandments like the Jews in the OT kept His Fathers?! Jesus is making a distinction between His new covenant and His Father's old one.

 

Matt 19:17

if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

 

It is saying, keep Christ's commandments!

 

Rev 12:17

17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the

remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the

testimony of Jesus Christ.

 

The dragon is Satan, the woman is Israel and the children are the people of Israel. The people of Israel did keep the commandments of God during the OT times before the testimony of Jesus Christ. But you cannot have one without the other. You cannot understand the need for Christ without understanding the OT. They (Israel) still have the testimony of Christ available whether they accept it or not.

 

Rev 14:12

12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the

commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

 

See how it points out that people do keep the commandments of God and still have faith in Jesus.

 

Rev 22:14

4 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the

tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

 

It is pretty clear what commandments Jesus is talking about. Since Jesus did exist in the OT right?

 

But His covenant superceded that of the Old one, so it is His commandments now. As it states in the new testament that "Blessed are they that do His commandments."

 

Matt 7:21(Jesus speaking)

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

 

Jesus claimed that doing the will of the Father is a key element to enter heaven.

According to the Bible, what is the will of the Father?

 

Jesus is the will of the Father in it's most purest and most relatable form. Anything Jesus did or taught about is the will of the Father.

 

Deut 10:12-13

And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul,

To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?

 

Ezek 18:20-21,27

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.

 

Of course the people of Israel, during the times of the Old Testament, were to keep His commandments (Mosaic Law) that He gave them. But Christ is a new commandment a new covenant built on better promises.

 

The instruction is quite clear, unambiguous, and leaves no doubt as to what is required.

 

Walk in all God's ways, which means keeping all of God's laws.

 

If Jesus walked in all of God's law, then so should christians if they consider him to be a ultimate role model.

 

However what they worship is Paul opinions about Jesus.

 

Jesus walked in all of God's laws perfectly. When we believe in Jesus and follow Him we will likewise try to follow the Law of the OT perfectly as well as following Christ's. Obviously nobody can fully keep all commandments like Christ, but through Christ and because He fulfilled the Law of the OT we are forever trying to walk in all of God's laws.

 

I haven't posted anything in this thread but I will now.

 

Sub, if they discovered a bona fide gospel that taught clearly that all people went to your heaven, that there was no hell for anyone and Jesus didn't care what you thought, believed, or did, would you still be a Christian?

 

Yes, because if they found that it wouldn't be a bona fide gosepl because it contradicts what is already in place.

 

Personally, based on the tactic of your plea above, I am actually quite doubtful of that. Why would you plead with people to accept your doctrines based on fleeing the threat of eternal damnation by an angry god? Is that its best selling point to you??? Is there not one single part of your heart that finds something wrong with this? What does this say about what you believe in and your motives for this?

 

Wait a minute here. I am being seen as a cold-heart when I am saying CHRIST WILL SAVE YOU FROM IT?

 

As far as choice: I technically am not making a choice to reject Christ. For me to do this would require there to be enough evidence to make it a credible choice, for or against. This is like saying I am "choosing" to not believe in pink unicorns. No, there is no choice to be made. It's so lacking in credibility it merits no consideration or deliberation whatsoever!

 

I've heard all the arguments made and the types of logical gymnastics that apologists go through (such as yourself) to make a case for it, and in the end - it's as unbelievable as pink unicorns. I have no more chosen to reject Christ than I have chosen to reject the great Bunny (no offensive to you Bunnyyittes). You have to do a much, much better job to make it something worthy of choice. Once you have, then we can discuss choices.

 

You have chosen not to accept Him whether you choose to accept that or not...

 

Okay, those verses are good, I give you that, but they don't state that he wrote the whole Pentateuch though. They state that he wrote parts of it, like the journey, a war with amalekits, and the laws.

 

Secondly it doesn't say who took care of the books after he wrote them. The chain of evidence is brooken, and if God really wanted to impress me or anyone that's skeptical (or the majority of biblical scholars), then the record should have been complete with when and who took care of it. Anyone could have written them or modified them after the fact.

 

Impress you? Apparently your ver existence isn't enough.

 

I know the reference was to "God", but it doesn't say who took care of the books when Moses died. Who cared for them? Who started the process of copying them?

 

Different style and method of expression, you say? That's a hint to different authors.

 

Scribes of the time.

 

 

It doesn't say that.

 

Moses was shown the land in which he was to die in. God says to Moses that "I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not go over there."

 

Since that is what was shown to Moses, it makes sense then that he "died there in the land of Moab" as it states in verse 5.

 

He got a vision of the land, not his death.

 

It says right after the vision showed to him of the land that, verse 5, "Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD."

 

The land of Moab being the land that God showed Moses.

[thunderbolt]

You have chosen not to accept Him whether you choose to accept that or not...

So, the God you appeal on behalf of has no burden of proof? We need to "choose" because you say so? If that's the case, then how do you know you did not choose Satan in Jesus appearing as an angel of light?

[Guest sub_zer0]

This is funny one:

Num 12:3 KJVA Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.

 

Moses wrote down that he is humble?

 

It's one of those jokes I use myself from time to time: "I'm very humble and I'm proud of it."

 

If Moses wrote that verse about himself, then he wasn't that humble, but if he really was that humble, he would not write that verse.

 

No, its purpose is to show the character you should have when you believe in the Lord.

 

So, the God you appeal on behalf of has no burden of proof? We need to "choose" because you say so? If that's the case, then how do you know you did not choose Satan in Jesus appearing as an angel of light?

 

Because Jesus and Satan are seperate throughout the scriptures.

 

Hi Sub Zero... I'm curious to know how you feel about truth, if it is literally truth... then would it also be able to be validated by outside sources other than the scriptures? I see some valid aspects as to what you're saying on an internal revelation... I just wonder if you might think that perhaps a talking snake and a fruit from a tree called Good and Evil may be more allegorical or metaphorical than literal?

 

No, literal.

 

Mind you, at one time... not that long ago, I thought that perhaps Noah's Ark could have been real. However, when I really considered the rational thinking of it... could it really have had two of EVERY animal, plants to replenish the earth for food, etc. I now think the whole story is a wonderful metaphor with perhaps a story of a man named Noah superimposed by myth and maybe a real flood to enhance a moral. Perhaps these were teaching stories passed by word of mouth for generations? Now, I'm still in agreement with these wonderful teachings' positive influence for those times, and in no way want to detract from thier inspirational message.

 

Noahs Ark is true and the sotry is that which is presented in the Bible. By saying Noah's Ark never happened as the Bible says it is to disregard God becaue His hand was guiding it the whole way through.

[thunderbolt]

Because Jesus and Satan are seperate throughout the scriptures.

But you have not been able to prove that outside of the "scriptures" saying so. And you have not been able to show how YOUR scriptures are inerrant. See the problem here?

[Guest sub_zer0]

Or this one:

Deu 34:10 KJVA And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,

How would Moses know that? When the verse use the word "since", it means there has been some time between the event and the writing of the story, it clearly signals a separation between the story and the story teller.

 

It's deliberate. It is to show how special Moses was to Israel. Moses is taking himself out of the picture to tell a story about himself and what happened to him from God.

 

Because Jesus and Satan are seperate throughout the scriptures.

But you have not been able to prove that outside of the "scriptures" saying so. And you have not been able to show how YOUR scriptures are inerrant. See the problem here?

 

That is the point of this forum. You all have me wrapped up in defending core principals of Christianity in Scripture, not the inerrancy or the need for outside sources (there are plenty by the way).

[thunderbolt]

That is the point of this forum. You all have me wrapped up in defending core principals of Christianity in Scripture

Which you have failed to do in every instance.

 

not the inerrancy or the need for outside sources (there are plenty by the way).

Such as?

[Guest sub_zer0]

Such as?

 

You name it, what the Bible talks about in the subjects of archeologically or history are all verifiable.

[thunderbolt]

You name it, what the Bible talks about in the subjects of archeologically or history are all verifiable.

And you say that with a straight face?

[NotBlinded]

Such as?

 

You name it, what the Bible talks about in the subjects of archeologically or history are all verifiable.

So is Bangor, Maine...does that mean that the monsters in Stephen King's books are real? No...what if he said they were real in the book? Would they then be real?

 

 

 

Oh...why do I do this...it is pointless. I'm backing out. You all have fun!

[Asimov]

Such as?

 

You name it, what the Bible talks about in the subjects of archeologically or history are all verifiable.

 

Sub_zer0....how about that debate? You and me, 1 on 1.

[white_raven23]

Tossing verses at this *person* is really getting to be pointless. All he does is interpret, twist, and generally spin doctor each verse to conform to his personal delusion.

 

Sub Zero. It is pointless to argue verses with someone who is incapable of viewing those verses LITERALLY. You cannot do it. You've proven that. For a verse composed of seven words, you use twenty or more words to explain or justify those seven words. And you see nothing problematic about that at all.

 

We do.

 

See, we look at those seven words....and feel that if more words were intended for the verse, they would actually BE there. To explain or justify the way you do is making the bible fit YOUR views.....and not requiring you to make any changes in your comfortable life-view for YOU to actually be in line with what the bible requires of it's followers.

 

You make the bible conform for YOUR convenience......

 

Interesting seeing as it is supposedly the word of god that you would dare to take such liberties as assume what god really "meant", as long as you don't have to trouble yourself with conforming to the word very much.

[Guest sub_zer0]

Tossing verses at this *person* is really getting to be pointless. All he does is interpret, twist, and generally spin doctor each verse to conform to his personal delusion.

 

Sub Zero. It is pointless to argue verses with someone who is incapable of viewing those verses LITERALLY. You cannot do it. You've proven that. For a verse composed of seven words, you use twenty or more words to explain or justify those seven words. And you see nothing problematic about that at all.

 

We do.

 

See, we look at those seven words....and feel that if more words were intended for the verse, they would actually BE there. To explain or justify the way you do is making the bible fit YOUR views.....and not requiring you to make any changes in your comfortable life-view for YOU to actually be in line with what the bible requires of it's followers.

 

You make the bible conform for YOUR convenience......

 

Interesting seeing as it is supposedly the word of god that you would dare to take such liberties as assume what god really "meant", as long as you don't have to trouble yourself with conforming to the word very much.

 

It is called explaining the verse in light of how it is supposed to be interpreted, that is all. Everything that I have said is spot-on and I challenge you to catch me not explaining the verse correctly. Make it so I have nothing to say about it, make it so the verses meaning to you is the only meaning... Until then, I am waiting to be corrected on the Christian interpretation of Scripture.

 

As you guys drop like fly's because apparently you cannot argue with me as you state, I ask again if anybody needs any help understanding any verse in the Bible.