One Verse At A Time...

[Amanda]

Hi Asimov... I think there is evidence to suggest there was an actual catastrophic flood at one time. See evidence found here. Not that I'm saying that Noah's Ark and incidence really happened, yet I do think that mythology has been superimposed on actual occurrences to emphasize a moral lesson. This site states this:

 

5600 BC Noah's flood (?); catastrophic flood of the Black Sea (science);

With rising global sea levels, salt water from the Mediterranean and Aegean seas apparently burst into the Black Sea, then a landlocked freshwater lake. The Black Sea rose with terrifying swiftness, inundating more than 60,000 square miles of coastal plains and giving the body of water its current size and configuration. ("Plumbing Black Sea for Proof of the Deluge")

 

Geological research finds reason to believe there was indeed a vast, sudden, and deadly flood around 5600 B.C., close enough to the possible time of Noah to fascinate biblical literalists and liberals alike. ("Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries About the Event That Changed History" by William Ryan and Walter Pitman, adjunct geology professors at Columbia University and senior scientists at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory)

 

And concerning the very nice Sub Zero, I think he probably believes in a literal hell that he will go to if he believes otherwise. That's a powerful motivator to keep one's beliefs. He has said that these beliefs are the foundations of his life. I agree with NBBTB, in how can he change? How can he step off these foundations if he knows of nowhere else to stand?

[Guest sub_zer0]

No it doesn't use the theory of evolution to explain why Noah didn't have to get as many animals on the Ark.

Yes, it actually does. I just listened to the debate with the unltra fundi guy from Dinoland amusement park and he said exactly those words. He just believes that evolution does happen within a species (or "Kinds"), but not from species to species.

 

I'll provide the link to the debate if you require proof?

 

No that is right. But not the evolution being pushed as in species from species. The evolution between kinds is observable today and explains exactly how the "flood happened" in that aspect.

[scitsofreaky]

Amanda it says there is, "Geological evidence," yet it doesn't seem to actually cite any anywhere. Am I just missing it?

I don't know if that statement speaks more to arogance or ignorance. Either way - if he's for real - he's got BIG problems.

I agree. It is probably a mix of ignorance and arrogance, perhaps arrogant of his/her/their(I'd guess this was probably taught) ignorance.

This is not a position I even understand. Doesn't The Bible say something about testing its words? Blind faith, which leads to blind obedience, is a dangerous thing (and this isn't just an opinion, just look at the Mid. East!).

[Antlerman]

So sub, now that you're back I would really like to know your answer to this: Is OM and the millions of others who consider themselves Christians and feel they have a relationship with God and Christ, true Christians? If not why do you conclude this? If not, do you believe part of being saved is having the right interpretation of scripture? If not, how come they are sincere in their desire to know God, yet see things differently? Are they blinded by some sort of flaw that you aren't, even though they're genuine people, genuinely seeking to know God? Are you predestined for salvation and them for damnation? Please tell how you reconcile this?

 

If yes... than will you admit to yourself and to us that there are a lot of different, valid ways to understand things that may not necessarily be what you see, or even more, that you may actually be, just possibly be, however remotely possible.... wrong about some things? BTW, if you do this, you will have moved up about 20 notches on the respect scale, IMO.

 

Please for the sake of your respect in the eyes of everyone you are witnessing to here, please answer this openly and truthfully, whatever your answer may be?

[Guest sub_zer0]

So sub, now that you're back I would really like to know your answer to this: Is OM and the millions of others who consider themselves Christians and feel they have a relationship with God and Christ, true Christians? If not why do you conclude this? If not, do you believe part of being saved is having the right interpretation of scripture? If not, how come they are sincere in their desire to know God, yet see things differently? Are they blinded by some sort of flaw that you aren't, even though they're genuine people, genuinely seeking to know God? Are you predestined for salvation and them for damnation? Please tell how you reconcile this?

 

You are a Christian if you believe what the Nicene Creed has to say about Christianity and believe the Bible displays that inerrantly.

 

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/h...reed.nicene.txt

 

If they don't believe in what that says, chances are they are not a Christian. Nobody is blinded as Christ's name is almost covered this earth, nobody is with an excuse. Everybody will make a choice. It is nothing more than a choice.

 

If yes... than will you admit to yourself and to us that there are a lot of different, valid ways to understand things that may not necessarily be what you see, or even more, that you may actually be, just possibly be, however remotely possible.... wrong about some things? BTW, if you do this, you will have moved up about 20 notches on the respect scale, IMO.

 

Please for the sake of your respect in the eyes of everyone you are witnessing to here, please answer this openly and truthfully, whatever your answer may be?

 

I could be wrong, but that is what I am here for. I am testing my own beliefs by defending them.

 

Amanda it says there is, "Geological evidence," yet it doesn't seem to actually cite any anywhere. Am I just missing it?

I don't know if that statement speaks more to arogance or ignorance. Either way - if he's for real - he's got BIG problems.

I agree. It is probably a mix of ignorance and arrogance, perhaps arrogant of his/her/their(I'd guess this was probably taught) ignorance.

This is not a position I even understand. Doesn't The Bible say something about testing its words? Blind faith, which leads to blind obedience, is a dangerous thing (and this isn't just an opinion, just look at the Mid. East!).

 

It is nothing you have said this far. It is satisfaction to what has been presented to me. It is faith!

 

Hell no ... I do not accept Sub as interpreter of scripture for me, or for 90 fricken percent of the Biblical scholars who view documentary hypothesis as valid.

 

You're on your own, Sub.... you're interpretations wouldn't hold water in the average seminary discussion. Hell they wouldn't hold water in my mainstream congregation.

 

If you do not believe in what I am saying you are not a Christian, point blank.

[Fweethawt]

I could be wrong, but that is what I am here for. I am testing my own beliefs by defending them.

You're not defending your beliefs.

 

If you were, you wouldn't have given that neat little schpeal for the Nicene Creed like you did up there. No, you aren't defending your beliefs. You're defending beliefs that have been developed by other men, plain and simple - err, umm... point blank.

[Guest sub_zer0]

It validates that the places and names in some of the events depicted in the bible is accurate, it doesn't validate that the Bible is true.

 

Accuracy is dependant upon the truth. If it is true in those areas, which it is and you imply it is as well, I can do nothing but presuppose the rest is true until otherwise refuted. That burden of proof is on you.

 

I could be wrong, but that is what I am here for. I am testing my own beliefs by defending them.

You're not defending your beliefs.

 

If you were, you wouldn't have given that neat little schpeal for the Nicene Creed like you did up there. No, you aren't defending your beliefs. You're defending beliefs that have been developed by other men, plain and simple - err, umm... point blank.

 

No it is mine and every other Christians belief based on CHRIST and His ways, not mans.

[Fweethawt]

If you were, you wouldn't have given that neat little schpeal for the Nicene Creed like you did up there. No, you aren't defending your beliefs. You're defending beliefs that have been developed by other men, plain and simple - err, umm... point blank.

No it is mine and every other Christians belief based on CHRIST and His ways, not mans.

Oh! Okay. All of those "I believes" and "We believes" sort of through me off there. It sure looks like it was written by men who are desparately looking for any way at all to validate their beliefs.

 

The entire Creed™ makes no reference to facts or reality.

 

You are right about one thing though. It is based on CHRIST and His ways.

 

Ooooo, you make it sound so legit!

[Guest sub_zer0]

Oh! Okay. All of those "I believes" and "We believes" sort of through me off there. It sure looks like it was written by men who are desparately looking for any way at all to validate their beliefs.

 

The entire Creed makes no reference to facts or reality.

 

You are right about one thing though. It is based on CHRIST and His ways.

 

Ooooo, you make it sound so legit!

 

Faith is the belief in things unseen. That is why you need it to accept what the Bible says in all things. Christ was fully man and fully God, yep.

 

Acts 3:16

"And on the basis of faith in His name, it is the name of Jesus which has strengthened this man whom you see and know; and the faith which comes through Him has given him this perfect health in the presence of you all."

 

Romans 1:17

For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, " BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."

[Fweethawt]

That is why you need it to accept what the Bible says in all things.

I don't have this particular need.

[Guest sub_zer0]

That is why you need it to accept what the Bible says in all things.

I don't have this particular need.

 

My post was specifically in response to "The entire Creed™ makes no reference to facts or reality."

 

It takes faith before facts or reality. In the case of the Bible and faith in God and Christ my Savior, it just so happens the faith is accompanied with facts and the Bible represents the truth of reality.

[Fweethawt]

That is why you need it to accept what the Bible says in all things.

I don't have this particular need.

My post was specifically in response to "The entire Creed™ makes no reference to facts or reality."

 

It takes faith before facts or reality. In the case of the Bible and faith in God and Christ my Savior, it just so happens the faith is accompanied with facts and the Bible represents the truth of reality.

I see.

 

Which brings us back to the talking serpent again and how in that one specific part of the bible, it couldn't possibly have anything at all to do with facts and a representation of the truth of reality.

 

Never mind. It's plain to see that you've not made one single bit of progress since you started this thread. I was hoping for a pleasant surprise or something.

[Guest sub_zer0]

sub_zer0, it appears that you have made a number of assertions that are unsupported by you:

 

1) That Christianity is true.

2) That Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

3) That archaeology and history (Do you mean historical writings?) support the validity of the bible.

4) That a global flood occured.

5) That evolution does not occur.

6) That the Bible is entirely true.

 

So...I have to ask, when are you going to back up anything you say? Are you going to keep ignoring our requests and run the risk of looking like a fool?

 

Once again, sub_zer0, I am not making any claims to my intelligence or ability to debate. I am not automatically declaring victory or assuming that I'm right.

 

You are.

 

Allow me to ask you a question:

 

Are you interested in bringing people to Christ?

 

1) Christianity is based on the Bible, if the Bible isn't true when Christian theology and doctrine is question than Christianity isn't true. Prove the Bible wrong and you prove Christianity wrong. That is what I am here for, challenge the Bible and the Christian interpretation.

2) Because He claimed to be so, nothing more. I choose to follow that truth.

3) Yes archeology and history in the view that nations were really called what the Bible says they were called, Christ lived during the Roman Empire days, things like that.

4) Prove to me the Bible is not true, ;p...

 

 

I see.

 

Which brings us back to the talking serpent again and how in that one specific part of the bible, it couldn't possibly have anything at all to do with facts and a representation of the truth of reality.

 

Never mind. It's plain to see that you've not made one single bit of progress since you started this thread. I was hoping for a pleasant surprise or something.

 

When the Bible cannot be validated by facts or what the world accepts as fact, faith is what you need and that is why it is important.

[Fweethawt]

I see.

 

Which brings us back to the talking serpent again and how in that one specific part of the bible, it couldn't possibly have anything at all to do with facts and a representation of the truth of reality.

 

Never mind. It's plain to see that you've not made one single bit of progress since you started this thread. I was hoping for a pleasant surprise or something.

When the Bible cannot be validated by facts or what the world accepts as fact, faith is what you need and that is why it is important.

How can it possibly be important, when this very same method of determining Biblical Truth™ also works for say - Bugs Bunny?

[scitsofreaky]

It is nothing you have said this far. It is satisfaction to what has been presented to me. It is faith!

Why did you put your faith in The Bible in the first place?

[Guest sub_zer0]

Hmmm, and do you give the same courtesy to those who presuppose their beliefs are true because they can justify their holy books and correct contradictions that say their religions aren't true? You know, one BIG HUGE phrase that could very well be put in the "over-used" category that I heard often as a Christian was: "You can't put God in a box." I think that fundementalists beliefs of any kind and of any god/gods and especially in Christianity have done just that. Saying that your belief in God is the only and correct way is indeed "putting god in a box." and a miniscule one at that. How sad and how egotistical of one religion to claim they have a corner on the truth.

 

I do give the other person the same courtesy to presuppose their beliefs, I believe that is being displayed quite clearly on this forum as well. But I will be quick to tell them their contradictions to my presupposition on the Bible as well as proving mine speaks of my side in favor and contradicts yours.

 

The belief isn't just in God, in the case of Christianity, but in Christ, that needs to be always considered.

 

 

It is nothing you have said this far. It is satisfaction to what has been presented to me. It is faith!

Why did you put your faith in The Bible in the first place?

 

Because I have asked people to prove me wrong and they haven't.

[scitsofreaky]

Because I have asked people to prove me wrong and they haven't.

That doesn't answer my question. I asked why you put your faith in The Bible in the first place. I'm guessing from this answer that you were raised christian and therefore have had faith as long as you can remember.

What would it take to "prove you wrong"? I don't see any way it could happen because you automatically presuppose anything that goes against The Bible is wrong.

Seriously man (woman?)! Think about what you are saying. Instead of looking for proof, you are looking for disproof(we'll pretend this is a word because I can't think of a better one), which you automatically will dismiss because it goes against what you believe.

[Guest sub_zer0]

That doesn't answer my question. I asked why you put your faith in The Bible in the first place. I'm guessing from this answer that you were raised christian and therefore have had faith as long as you can remember.

 

That as well is why I have my faith. Granted recently there have been spirited debates within my family of certain elements that are taught in the Bible explicitly.

 

What would it take to "prove you wrong"? I don't see any way it could happen because you automatically presuppose anything that goes against The Bible is wrong.

Seriously man (woman?)! Think about what you are saying. Instead of looking for proof, you are looking for disproof(we'll pretend this is a word because I can't think of a better one), which you automatically will dismiss because it goes against what you believe.

 

Really, it isn't about proving me wrong. I see the proof all around me, creation itself proves to me there is a God. The Bible has been validated time and time again from outside sources. Even when the odds were stacked heavily against this sacred text, it wound up being correct in what it spoke upon. That leads me to believe, as well as my faith within me thanks to my family, that when it speaks of spiritual or any other type of thing it is correct.

 

The point of this topic to begin with is to show the correct understanding of the Bible, which is in light of Christ, another is to show you that no contradictions are in the Bible in any way shape or form. That is why I asked if anybody had any trouble understanding the verses.

 

I again ask that same question if anybody is interested.

[thunderbolt]

The Bible has been validated time and time again from outside sources. Even when the odds were stacked heavily against this sacred text, it wound up being correct in what it spoke upon.

Please name two.

Thanks

 

 

another is to show you that no contradictions are in the Bible in any way shape or form.

So, do you feel you have adequately debunked the contradictions? If so, how do you account for the fact that we don't think you have done any such thing?

 

 

That is why I asked if anybody had any trouble understanding the verses.

 

I again ask that same question if anybody is interested.

Why should we entertain you any further if the only thing you do is answering based on your doctrinal understanding, and not based on the facts of the texts?

[SkepticOfBible]

 

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. "

 

 

vs

 

You are a Christian if you believe what the Nicene Creed has to say about Christianity and believe the Bible displays that inerrantly.

 

Now look who is following tradition. When did god ever come to these meetings and gave his approval for these doctrines.

 

In any case the the nicene treaty favours the roman catholic chruch, than protestant christianity.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

 

Matt 19:17

if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

It is saying, keep Christ's commandments!

 

No it doesn't, stop rewriting the bible. Obviously you don't take the commands of your god very seriously.

 

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.

 

So you are saying that Jews are saved by default.

 

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.

 

But do you keep keep the commandments of God?Cause it clearly says you need both.

 

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."

 

How do eternal law and perfect law get supersceded?and why?

 

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?

 

 

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.

So you saying that God's moral law will change according to the time a person is living in. That moral relativism written all over .

 

Once again there isn't anything in the OT that says these laws would "superceded" or would need not be followed in the NC.

 

Why would Eternal and perfect law be superceded? If they are gonna be supersceded that means you are agreeing that there was something wrong in the older laws.

 

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.

 

So you are telling me it is tough to do the following

 

1)Keeping the sabbath on the saturday

2)Not eating Pork and shellfish

3)Go through the process of circumsicion

4)Not wear clothes of mixed fabric

5)Abstain for celebrating pagan holidays of christmas and easter

 

Right, they are too tough, but christ fulfilled these laws, so you are free to ignore them.

 

I guess homosexual can make the same excuse then. After all Jesus fulfilled the homosexual laws.

 

And as far Christ keeping all the commandments, you still haven't answered as to why was Jesus participating in the pagan ritual of baptism.Please answer in the "Did Jesus Sin" Thread.

 

As far NASB remaining true to the orginal manuscripts, would you mind tell me why does it contain Mark 16:9-20, when it is clearly not there in the original manuscripts.

 

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...20;&version=31;

 

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))

 

Don't tell me that this not a important verse. You do know a lot of churches handle snakes because of these verses.

 

And please tell me, when NASB are looking at the manuscripts, and if they come across a difference in the words, how do they know which word to pick?Aren't using their theological bias when pick between the verses?

[Asimov]

Accuracy is dependant upon the truth. If it is true in those areas, which it is and you imply it is as well, I can do nothing but presuppose the rest is true until otherwise refuted. That burden of proof is on you.

 

sub_zer0, this has got to be the most fallacious argument you have yet made.

 

Not only do you not even provide argumentation for your beliefs, you then shift the burden of proof onto me?

 

What am I supposed to refute when an argument is not provided, sub_zer0? You must present argumentation, including evidence to support your assertions, and then I refute. If you provide nothing, then there is nothing to rebut.

 

The burden of proof is on you who claims that the Bible is true.

 

"An evidentiary burden or burden of leading evidence is an obligation that shifts between parties over the course of the hearing or trial. A party may submit evidence that the court will consider prima facie proof of some state of affairs. This creates an evidentiary burden upon the opposing party to present evidence to refute the presumption"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_pro...incing_evidence

 

As you can see, you have submitted no evidence or argumentation to support your claim that the bible is in fact 100% true.

 

All you've stated is "If some of the bible is true, all of it is true."

 

Unfortunately, that easily works for everything else. "If some of the Koran is true, all of it is true." and "If some of the Iliad is true, all of it is true", and "If some of the Book of Satan is true, all of it is true." Which you must accept presuppositionally as true or run the risk of committing a double standard.

 

If you submit that I am wrong, then you have to provide evidence that I am wrong (which would require you to submit evidence the bible is 100% true. If you submit that I am right, then you have conceded that you cannot presuppose that the bible is true until it is verified to be so.

 

Unless you're intellectual dishonesty is so great that you cannot even accept basic logic. If that is the case then there is no point in discussing with someone who can't even accept reality and who only adheres to logic when it suits him.

[SkepticOfBible]

The point of this topic to begin with is to show the correct understanding of the Bible,

And offcourse you think your understanding of the bible is infallible

[Asimov]

I do give the other person the same courtesy to presuppose their beliefs, I believe that is being displayed quite clearly on this forum as well.

 

The difference is that I can provide argumentation and evidence for my beliefs, you cannot/will not.

[Fweethawt]

All you've stated is "If some of the bible is true, all of it is true."

 

Unfortunately, that easily works for everything else. "If some of the Koran is true, all of it is true." and "If some of the Iliad is true, all of it is true", and "If some of the Book of Satan is true, all of it is true." Which you must accept presuppositionally as true or run the risk of committing a double standard.

I was trying to get to this with my Bugs Bunny comment on the previous page, but he didn't say anything about it.

 

I mean, we all know that Bugs Bunny eats carrots, right?

 

Carrots are real.

 

Bugs Bunny is real too.

 

Bugs is always making the wrong turn at Albuquerque!

 

Albuquerque is an actual place.

 

Bugs Bunny seems more real to you now, doesn't He?

 

Elmer Fudd is always after Bugs Bunny.

 

I know that hunters exist.

 

Therefore, Bugs Bunny exists.

 

If you don't believe this, you will burn.

 

 

 

So yeah, SZ, if you're basing your beliefs on that type of "logic", your beliefs and logic are quite weak.

 

Like I said, you haven't grown a bit from day one.

[Fweethawt]

Ooops! I almost forgot!

 

Bugs Bunny can put his finger into the barrel of a shotgun as it goes off, and he doesn't suffer so much as a scratch.

 

He can burrow through the ground with amazing speed as he travels from one place to another. (See? you can picture this stuff in your mind, so it must be true, right?)

 

Then there is His most amazing feat ever! He can walk on AIR! That's right! I've seen it with my own eyes! Heck, I'd even bet my left nut that you've seen it too!

 

Humph! Your Jesus never walked on air. He had to use water.

 

 

Bugs Bunny is the way, the truth and the life! Behold!