I'll Play The Fundie

[diggin]

diggin-Do a little research on the Beaty Payrus. It dates to the 1st and 2nd centuries, and contains what are probably first-generation vellum copies of much of the "canon" of scripture. For example, the 4 gospels plus acts, the "letters of Paul" which includes Romans, then Hebrews, then all but Timothy, Titus, and Philemon.

 

I did a search on the Chester Beatty Papyrus and checked about a dozen sites, and every one of them date it at 200-250. That's early third century.

Here's a summary from a Probe Ministries

 

P 45 was originally a codex which contained all Four Gospels and the Book of Acts. Unfortunately, what we HAVE are two leaves of Matthew, seven of Luke, two of John, and thirteen of Acts.

P 46 consists of eighty-six nearly perfect leaves, out of a total of 104, which contain Paul's epistles. Philemon and the Pastoral Epistles (I & II Timothy, Titus are missing, but Hebrews is included.

 

P 47 contains Revelation 9:10 to 17:2, except one or more lines is missing from the top of each page. So this is a little under half of the book of Revelation.

 

These three volumes are dated at the early 200s A.D.

 

You are right. A very serious slip of the pen there. (shouldn't go from memory) Sorry.

 

Still early 200s is within 100 to 150 years of when the Bible was written -- and most significantly, well before when Constantine and Athanasius supposedly set the canon. These documents also help us track the history of textual changes. It was the institutional church which began to change the text of scripture to fit their theories, and switched to the Latin translations from the Greek instead of the Greek original language and thoughts. When that wasn't enough to suit their purposes, they made it a capital offense to even READ or POSSESS a Bible! That's what Revelation is talking about when it mentions the "2 witnesses" who were clothed in sackcloth and ashes, and were actually dead for 3.5 years. This exactly corresponds to the 3.5 years of Bible burning and public humiliation in England from November, 1526 to May, 1530.

 

These documents are more useful regarding the canon than what they actually contain, because they have a table of contents revealing what was originally contained -- giving us in essence a canon from the time. Water damage has destroyed many of the actual leaves, but you are correct that the bulk of Paul's writings and the middle chapters of Revelation are intact, while the contents pages and only a few leaves of the gospels survive in the vellums.

 

 

 

 

 

Also there is this diggin,

you said:

"...we can trust that our own hearts are capable of learning some things..."

 

and God said:

 

" Jer 17:9 The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked...".

 

You know the rest. You can't know it. So we see that you have no Scripture that you can trust, no fellows in the Faith that you can trust, and if you have a Bible, it says that you can't trust your heart either.

 

Anyway, again, humor me in this my first thread, and please tell me how it is that we have a Bible we can trust with our eternal souls to be true, accurate, and the Very Word of God.

 

Let me add Scott Adams to my list of non-believers who are great people and who are searching for truth more earnestly than many a "Christian":

 

http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/

 

get strip of the day for July 13, 2006 !

[Ouroboros]

Here's my explanation of the paradox: Jesus was saying in this spot that the man's blindness was not attributible to his sins. Since clearly something like blindness must be the result of some deflection, some missing of the mark of perfection, then where did it come from? It came from the first man's sin. Adam sinned, making all people sinners. It's a hereditary condemnation, which seems unfair, but has one crucial advantage as far as the plan of God is concerned. By making all sin the result of one single act of disobedience by one single man, then a single righteous act, by a single man, can be used in exchange for it. This is the argument of Romans 5.

Doesn't really jive with

Eze 18:19

Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.

18:20

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.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

Yes, we can trust the Bible, but we can't trust the Church. We can trust that our own hearts are capable of learning some things, and that our life journey whether it leads us away from the Church or not, is something God will honor when the 2nd half of our education fills in the holes that only God can fill when the time is right for it.

 

The Bible is confusing on purpose, because God is working with a small group right now. There are people in every denomination whose character fits what the Bible is looking for. But most church leaders, most pewsitters, are either clueless or hypocritical. That's ok .... they provide the tests and resistance that the rest need to develop the character God is looking for.

 

For authentic Christians who really do have the spirit of God within them, faith is having enough confidence in the promises of God for the future, to do the right thing now even though there is not a short-term benefit. They can expect all their disciplines to come in this life. Their ultimate destiny will be determnined by how they respond to this discipline. If they become people of the lie -- a small group, no doubt -- they will forfeit life. Hebrews 6 and 10.

 

 

I am glad to know that although most Christians throughout history have been false brethren - especially those trained clergy in official ministries - diggin himself and maybe a few of his homeys are tight with the spirit of God. It comforts me that diggin, at least, is a safe guide into the otherwise impenetrable mysteries of the scriptures. 'Specially considering that God makes scripture confusing on purpose, as diggin tells us.

 

I guess this also solves the problem of the canon that you alluded to, duderonomy - i.e. with the spirit, diggin and the rest of his small group can discern what books are inspired and what books are not inspired.

[Eponymic]

The idea that the scriptures were decided hundreds of years later by the institutional church is not true. It's a convenient straw man for both higher critics and modern skeptics.

Do a little research on the Beaty Payrus. It dates to the 1st and 2nd centuries, and contains what are probably first-generation vellum copies of much of the "canon" of scripture.

 

So how can you trust a work to be factual & historically accurate, when everything written about, by it, and dealing with it starts 50, 75, 100+ years after the fact. Most other major historical events has writing about it from the time that it happened- even before Jesus' supposed life span. Off of the fact that alone it's amazing that anyone does immediately tweak up there ears & go, huh?

 

I never really went to chruch & discounted the Bible because it wasn't historically or otherwise accurate just by studying. So it's baffling to me how anyone how has studied can claim it to be historically accurate.

 

This is not even getting into the myriad of detailed geological, historical, & other inaccuracies that the Bible contains. Yet you say you support it as a historical tome...how?

[duderonomy]

diggin,

 

Well, I went and derailed my own thread to answer you, so game over and I'll play the fundie another time.

 

Anyway, you didn't answer me as to how one can trust the Bible. You can explain away the plain words of Jesus concerning the man born blind, but that will not ever change the plain words of Jesus. I can't believe that as a 'teacher' you are authorized to paraphrase the plain words of Jesus.

 

So then, where did the Bible come from, God, or the Church?

 

If you say God, I will ask about errors/contradictions, and if you say the Church, I will point out that by your own admission that it is then rendered untrustworthy as a Holy Book.

 

So many points to discuss, I hate when seventeen other things come up and obsure the seventeen we were already working on! So please, tell me where we got the Bible...God or Church?

 

I can tell yer a pretty smart person, and I haven't made one of these posts while sober, so I invite Rhem, Han, and whoever else to jump in (Christians too!), but please, let's stick to this one point.

 

God, or the Church?

[diggin]

Here's my explanation of the paradox: Jesus was saying in this spot that the man's blindness was not attributible to his sins. Since clearly something like blindness must be the result of some deflection, some missing of the mark of perfection, then where did it come from? It came from the first man's sin. Adam sinned, making all people sinners. It's a hereditary condemnation, which seems unfair, but has one crucial advantage as far as the plan of God is concerned. By making all sin the result of one single act of disobedience by one single man, then a single righteous act, by a single man, can be used in exchange for it. This is the argument of Romans 5.

Doesn't really jive with

Eze 18:19

Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.

18:20

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.

 

There are lots of contradictions, or paradoxes, in the Bible. Jeremiah 31 states that the proverb will no longer be stated, "Fathers ate a sour grape, childrens teeth are set on edge". So I take the Ezekiel statement to mean that God's ultimate plan and his guiding principle is that each is responsible; however, in Exodus he himself states that he visits the sins the fathers on the children. And Romans 5 states that by one man, and one sinful deed, death passed upon all. This seems to be the meaning of the text in Ephesians 2 about children of wrath. We are all children born under this one judicial sentence or wrath of God. Again, I submit it is a temporary thing (albeit, from a human perspective, so far it is the constant, defining characteristic of human history since the beginning.)

 

 

diggin,

 

Well, I went and derailed my own thread to answer you, so game over and I'll play the fundie another time.

 

Anyway, you didn't answer me as to how one can trust the Bible. You can explain away the plain words of Jesus concerning the man born blind, but that will not ever change the plain words of Jesus. I can't believe that as a 'teacher' you are authorized to paraphrase the plain words of Jesus.

 

So then, where did the Bible come from, God, or the Church?

 

If you say God, I will ask about errors/contradictions, and if you say the Church, I will point out that by your own admission that it is then rendered untrustworthy as a Holy Book.

 

So many points to discuss, I hate when seventeen other things come up and obsure the seventeen we were already working on! So please, tell me where we got the Bible...God or Church?

 

I can tell yer a pretty smart person, and I haven't made one of these posts while sober, so I invite Rhem, Han, and whoever else to jump in (Christians too!), but please, let's stick to this one point.

 

God, or the Church?

 

God, not the church.

 

If God did not inspire the Bible, and protect the Bible, then it's worse than a waste of time because it claims he did.

[duderonomy]

diggin,

 

You said, "God, not the church.

If God did not inspire the Bible, and protect the Bible, then it's worse than a waste of time because it claims he did."

 

Good, then let me go to the next logical step and beat it to death, if you will...

 

You have to know that most here will jump on this, but what you said is circular logic at its finest (it sounds more like an expose of Christian circular logic though).

 

The Quaran was written by God, it says so. The Old Testament is established forever, but stops at Malachi and that's it...it says so (more or less), and of course what we are talking about as 'the Bible' also claims God's authorship. So which God wrote the thing?

Or better, which God wrote the Old Testament; the Jewish G-d, the Muslim God, or the Christian God?

 

As for inspiration, to which version are you refering? The Catholic version? The King James? The NIV, Webster's version? Or maybe He inspired a version in another language altogether, far before the English language? If so, which one? The 'originals' aren't around any more it seems, so every single Bible in the world is a copy. Which of these did God protect??

Did God inspire the translators too? The Bible doesn't claim that God did so, so how do we know He did?

 

You can say it doesn't matter, but it does, as none of the versions agree one with the other. If not one jot nor one tittle shall pass away from the Word, then there can be only one...and even IF one of the versions we read is the real Bible, how do we know which one? We rely on books, sermons, and lessons in school, but that's all of men. As in Church.

 

You can 'know' you have the correct Word of God by faith, but then, your faith is an extension of that book, and it may not be the correct book.

 

So for now, who wrote the Old Testament...The Jewish G-D, the Muslim God, or the Christian God?

[diggin]

diggin,

 

You said, "God, not the church.

If God did not inspire the Bible, and protect the Bible, then it's worse than a waste of time because it claims he did."

 

Good, then let me go to the next logical step and beat it to death, if you will...

 

You have to know that most here will jump on this, but what you said is circular logic at its finest (it sounds more like an expose of Christian circular logic though).

 

The Quaran was written by God, it says so. The Old Testament is established forever, but stops at Malachi and that's it...it says so (more or less), and of course what we are talking about as 'the Bible' also claims God's authorship. So which God wrote the thing?

Or better, which God wrote the Old Testament; the Jewish G-d, the Muslim God, or the Christian God?

 

As for inspiration, to which version are you refering? The Catholic version? The King James? The NIV, Webster's version? Or maybe He inspired a version in another language altogether, far before the English language? If so, which one? The 'originals' aren't around any more it seems, so every single Bible in the world is a copy. Which of these did God protect??

Did God inspire the translators too? The Bible doesn't claim that God did so, so how do we know He did?

 

You can say it doesn't matter, but it does, as none of the versions agree one with the other. If not one jot nor one tittle shall pass away from the Word, then there can be only one...and even IF one of the versions we read is the real Bible, how do we know which one? We rely on books, sermons, and lessons in school, but that's all of men. As in Church.

 

You can 'know' you have the correct Word of God by faith, but then, your faith is an extension of that book, and it may not be the correct book.

 

So for now, who wrote the Old Testament...The Jewish G-D, the Muslim God, or the Christian God?

 

People wrote the Tanach, and people wrote the OT. God was not the author, but the "inspirer". He in some cases almost dictated the words as to a prophet. But in most cases men wrote as though moved by an invisible influence, guiding them to write things that were meaningful and relevant to their own time and place, but also surprisingly relevant and connected to other times and places.

 

They wrote in the language they were familiar with, in some cases compiling earlier records, such as the "5 books of Moses" for which apparently Moses was the editor and compiler of those portions which recorded history which predated him. As you know, much of the Bible is simply history, recording eyewitness accounts -- primary sources.

 

People also did the copying and preserving, and at various times in history people destroyed many of these records. The Jewish scribes appear to have made surprisingly effective efforts at preserving the original writings accurately. The NT copyists were less careful, and also appear to have introduced interpolations and occasional deletions or reorderings that suited their biases.

 

The textual critics have done all people who read the Bible a great service by comparing and analyizing these textual variants to see which were more recent, which were accidental copy errors and which were intentional interpolations, etc. There is no perfect version, and there probably never will be. However, the areas of question are remarkably small.

 

The jot or tittle refers to the little ornamentations that were customarily added to the copies of the texts used in Jesus day. I don't think he's saying that a perfect manuscript exists anywhere. I don't even think he's talking about the ornaments, etc. I think he's saying that the sense of each written idea is a living thing, with its origin from an immaterial mind, and that the principles and regulations are to last until fulfilled. Fulfillment is the manifestation of what they mean. For example, everybody in Israel was supposed to select a lamb, bring it into their household for several days, and then kill it and eat it with certain other foods, and sprinkling the blood in certain ways, etc. I think Jesus was saying that the Passover regulations were to last until the real thing they were designed to illustrate would take place. And in point of fact, the whole national practice of eating lamb ended with the Roman conquest of Judea. After that time, lambs were not used.... and of course, the temple ended and the priesthood ceased to operate as well. The "until all be fulfilled" had apparently happened.

 

The Apostles were aware that in certain of their letters, they were adding to "the scriptures" -- the writings of men that were "inspired" by God.

 

I think the same God was involved in the inspiration of Hebrew and Christian scriptures, and the NT is in large part a commentary on the OT, picking up earlier themes and applying them to present and future events in a way that helps illuminate the earlier purpose. Also, NT quotes intertwine the NT characters with OT records, so that they all stand or fall together. For example, Jesus verifies that he believes in a historical Adam, a historical Jonah, etc.

 

I think the evidence for inspiration of the Q'ran, the Book of Mormon, etc. is quite lacking.

 

By the way, in a sense I'm now playing the Fundie because I'm really not here to try and convince anyone of the validity of the Bible or the need of their salvation, "or else".

 

My interest is in agreeing with the criticisms of Christian traditionalism, and stating that there are a few Christians out there who think God is not mad at atheists, but does have a bone to pick and a desire to expose the arrogance and historic evils of these bold Christian institutions and the individuals who support them -- who present a picture of God that is angry, ineffectual, and unfair. I see most of the visitors to this site as the victims of this horrendous "Christian" machine. In fact, I think the biblical use of the term "antichrist" is actually referring to this quasi-Christian set of institutions.

[NotBlinded]

For example, Jesus verifies that he believes in a historical Adam, a historical Jonah, etc.

Could you please cite verses that allude to this?

[Ouroboros]

Humans invented God, wrote the Bible and created the institution, Church, to protect the investments of faith. Human, human, humans...

[Vigile]

Humans invented God, wrote the Bible and created the institution, Church, to protect the investments of faith. Human, human, humans...

 

I agree with you that humans created the Church, but disagree with the reason you stated. Ever heard of "Divine right of kings?" The church was created to legitimize authoritarian rule and a developing fuedal economy.

[Ouroboros]

Humans invented God, wrote the Bible and created the institution, Church, to protect the investments of faith. Human, human, humans...

 

I agree with you that humans created the Church, but disagree with the reason you stated. Ever heard of "Divine right of kings?" The church was created to legitimize authoritarian rule and a developing fuedal economy.

Well, yes, that too. I agree. Church Religion is Politics, Politics are Idealized Beliefs too. People tend to paint the world in black and white, and then of course always claim that themselves are the good ones.

[diggin]

For example, Jesus verifies that he believes in a historical Adam, a historical Jonah, etc.

Could you please cite verses that allude to this?

 

Jonah: http://bible.cc/matthew/12-40.htm

Adam & Eve: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...amp;version=31;

(quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24)

 

Another supposedly mythical OT record validated by Jesus is Sodom & Gomorrah: Matthew 11:23, http://www.blueletterbible.org/Mat/Mat011.html

Note that here Jesus confirms that Sodom and Gomorrah will be resurrected -- which Ezekiel predicts in 16:63. Yes, they will have been humbled, yes, they will remember their mistakes, and yes, in the end God will be at peace with the wickedest people recorded in the Bible.

 

This claim -- Sodom's resurrection -- also indicates that "the vengeance of eternal fire" (Jude 1:7) does not refer to eternal hell, but agelasting destruction -- which ends when the time of judgment, regeneration, and resurrection supplant it.

 

Notice also that though homosexuality, one of the favorite finger-pointing sins of mainstream Christians, is a part of Sodom's evil, the real sins that God was angry about in Sodom according to Ezekiel were "pride, fulness of bread, abundance of idleness, and not strengthening the hand of the poor and needy".... which every quasi-Christian nation and church could easiliy have laid to their charge, according to the message to the Laodicean church in Revelation 3 and 18.

[diggin]

Humans invented God, wrote the Bible and created the institution, Church, to protect the investments of faith. Human, human, humans...

 

Add an S to God, and I agree with you, Han...

 

Here's what the Preacher said:

http://www.biblekeeper.com/jewish-1917/ecclesiastes_7.php (verse 29)

 

 

My claim is that all Gods beside the Original, and most concepts of the Original, are utterly the inventions of men (along with, I would argue, certain other invisible beings).

 

Most things done in God's name are either self-delusions or fraudulent.

 

"Many, many", according to Jesus, "will say... didn't we do many wonderful works in your name" and he will say, "I never knew you." http://bible.cc/matthew/7-22.htm

 

So the burden of proof definitely needs to stay on the side of the Xtians, as you correctly assert.

 

Don't let those arrogant fellows put you on the defensive for a minute!

 

Humans invented God, wrote the Bible and created the institution, Church, to protect the investments of faith. Human, human, humans...

 

I agree with you that humans created the Church, but disagree with the reason you stated. Ever heard of "Divine right of kings?" The church was created to legitimize authoritarian rule and a developing fuedal economy.

 

Completely agree. The heaven-supervised destruction of this church-state system is described in detail in Revelation chapters 17 to 19.

 

The Bible has much to say prophetically about this "divine right of kings" mentality, where it comes from, how it will evolve, who it will deceive, who it will exploit, and precisely when and how it will end.

[duderonomy]

diggin,

 

I mean no disrespect to you. You are obviously much better educated than I, and I don't mean this in a mean spirited way.

You are a talented dancer with words and facts.

A bit smug perhaps, but certainly no bigger a fault than any one of my several.

 

For example, I know of course that God didn't literally write the OT with a pen in His hand. But it must be as accurate as it would be if He had, or we have the church, if I may, writing the books, and that certainly wouldn't be 'the Word of God'. I meant which God does it represent, the Christian, the Jewish, or the Muslim God.

 

You believe the Christian God inspired it.

 

OK, but you also said,

"The textual critics have done all people who read the Bible a great service by comparing and analyizing these textual variants to see which were more recent, which were accidental copy errors and which were intentional interpolations, etc. There is no perfect version, and there probably never will be. However, the areas of question are remarkably small."

 

If the OT is established forever, and if 'all scripture' is of God and good (New Testament), then we are certainly left with a guessing game, by your admission. The areas of question may be remarkably small, but if I am to stake the preservation of my eternal soul on it, small suddenly becomes very large.

 

If there is no Church that can be trusted, and no perfect version of the Bible one can lay hold of, then Christianity has nothing, really, that can be counted as 'how firm a foundation'.

 

You want me to believe in an all powerful God, an all knowing and eternal God, and all I have to go by to believe this is an imperfect Book (you said version, but I'm sure you will understand that if I buy a Bible, it's a version, and also a book).

 

You may dance all about this, diggin, but how do I really really KNOW? I can't trust you, no matter how articulate, any more than I can trust the catechism of the Catholic church, or the TV preacher, or the Pentecostal preacher at the church on the corner.

 

All I have is an imperfect book. You may trust feelings, goose-bumps, or textual critics (who somehow have done us a favor), but all I have is an imperfect book.

 

You are a pretty arrogant fellow yourself, as it were, to claim to know which is the 'Original' God, when all you have is an imperfect book to go by!

 

I guess I could still be playing the Fundie here, and perhaps I should be, as you are still bent on believing an interesting blend of circular logic, new age-ism, and wishful hopes based on nothing beyond your strong conviction that what you believe is true. Again, a hybrid faith based on an imperfect book, and all alone too, as men certainly are not to be trusted as you have said, even the men learned in Christianity.

 

If it's OK with you, and with all of the above in mind, why don't you choose the next round? Unless you disagree with what I just said. If so then please just choose one point and we'll hammer on it with our respective brains.

 

Just don't quote to me from an imperfect book, as that can't be trusted.

[RHEMtron]

dude!! or how bout.... since he himself isnt a fundamentalist, or a conservative Christian, argue with him as a fundie

 

or not... actually think i mightl jump in and play the role

[duderonomy]

Rhem,

 

By all means please jump in.

 

But let diggin choose the next round.

[RHEMtron]

Welp, diggin, there you have it. You can either start the next round, continue with the topics you and dooooode we discussing, or you can finally respond to my response to your original post :

 

At the moment I feel like the old man in Moonstruck at the end... "I'm Confused" ....

yeah brother... you quoted the wrong person. All Amy said was that me and duderonomy are better fundies than her. If you look above her post, she was quoting me. It was me responding to Julian. I was the one giving the analogies of child molesters and prison. Im agnostic, but i was playing the fundie for fun argumentive purposes.

 

In the spirit of the opening post/thread, ill try to respond.

 

Amy(actually RHEMtron), your notion of eternal punishment for temporary crimes is straight out of Augustine, who was a Manichean before embracing Christianity. He brought those ideas with him, and sold them to the church.

I am very familiar with Augustine and his lies.

 

he wrote: "It is lawful, then, to him that discusses, disputes and preaches of things eternal, or to him that narrates of things temporal pertaining to religion or piety, to conceal at fitting times whatever seems fit to be concealed." Augustine, On Lying, c. 19

 

I did not get ideas from him. They were of my own. If we share the same ideas, it is because we are filled with the Holy Spirit... afterall, in John 16:13, Jesus said the Spirit of Truth will guide us into all truths. Praise the Lord for that!!!!!

 

Augustine said some pretty outrageous things

Irrelevant since Augustine is not to topic at hand, but for the sake of argument...

 

for example, he argued that God was so perfect, so exquisitely sensitive to every slight and every affront of his righteous heart, that even the slightest sin by a human caused God infinite suffering. Therefore, any sin we commit deserves endless waves of fierce agony so that we can feel what God feels when we sin.

Thank you for pointing this out. Then that's one of the reasons why a sinner deserves infinite punishment. I bet if someone molests a parents child, that parent would want that person to suffer. Guess that's what God wants to do when another one of his child harms his brethren. But of course God the Lord Our Father Who Art in Heaven is fair by forgiving us by just saying sorry, and i believe in Jesus.... Hallelujah for that... Aaaaaaamen!!!

 

You have suggested that God merely does what human courts do - lock em up and throw away the key.

I did that? Yes and no.... Yes i used the court system as an analogy. No, because you misinterpret the intention of my analogy. Julian was saying he fails to see a "justice system" that can do such a thing; that is, punish someone for the entirety of their existence. My analogy was to show that there is a "justice system" that does that. The justice system we have today can punish people with a lifetime sentence, which is the entirety of their existence.

 

Well, God in that view does far worse. Human courts feed and clothe the child molester, try to give them an education, let them watch TV (without censoring out sexual content, no doubt), and then only until their term is up. If they die in jail, their term is up in, say, 50 years.

Then the human justice system really isnt punishing is it? Besides... God's punishment is bad, but the price of bail, and the option youre giving during your "court hearing" balances the punishment. During your "court hearing" (the trials of life), all you have to say is im guilty, and im sorry. The price of bail is free!!! Meaning all you have to do is accept the "free gift"!!!

 

Or, you could try believing the Bible.

I do believe the bible. That's why i said repent and believe... like the bible says.

 

Where, for example, it says that God will "seek out their wickedness until he finds none." (Psalm 10:15).

Again i do believe. But first off, Psalms is not a book of catechism or doctrine. It's a book of praise, or songs rather.

 

But again for the sake of argument, ill address it. If i were to Read Psalms 10:15, i must read the entire Psalms 10. Starting with verse 1, it says Why do you stand afar off, O Lord? Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble? That shows the Lord can at times leave us alone. No interference from the government so to speak. That also can answer the question of when non-believers ask "Then where is your God when there's so much suffering in the world?" So again, yes, i believe in Psalms 10.

 

The whole Psalms speaks of God leaving us alone, then calling for him to come, and asking him to help and punish wrongdoers. Let's read what the ENTIRE 10:15 verse reads: Break the arm of the wicked and the evildoer, seek out his wickedness until You find none. Apparently you failed to mention that the verse says "Break the arm of the wicked and evildoer". You are worse than my fellow Christian brethrens who cherry pick verses.

 

Or where it says, "the soul that sins, it shall die" (Ezekiel 18:5).

This one i concede. You got me on this one. Ill get back to you. I shall pray and pray about this to ABBA, and he will show me the answer

 

Or where it says, "the whole earth will be devoured with the fire of my jealousy" *snip* "then will I turn to the people a pure language, so that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent". (Zephaniah 3:8,9)

If you read the next verses, he's speaking to his worshippers, not everyone. In verse 11, what does he say about the those who transgress against God?

 

In that day you will feel no shame because of all your deeds by which you have rebelled against Me; For then I will remove from your midst Your proud, exulting ones, and you will never again be haughty on my Holy Mountain.

Take it however you want it, but no matter how you do, he's going to separate the good from the bad.

 

"The Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces." "When thy (God's) judgements are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness." (Isaiah 26:9)

You say that's from Isaiah 26:9... Do you even know what Isaiah 26 is about? Read the first verse of the chapter: In that day this song will be sung in the land of Judah: Again you are quoting a song that is quoted to be sung. That is not meant for catechism or doctrine. Still cherry picking and using verses out of context i see...

 

What about the sinners, all those folks who rejected God? Well, they asked Jesus that question in John 12:44 and he said, "I judge him not -- because I did not come to judge the world, but to save it."

John 12:44 says, And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in me does not believe in Me but in Him who sent me.

 

God is working with a small group right now, and those are the ones he is judging. Mainstream Christianity has it exactly backwards -- they are the ones on trial, not the world.

Yes John 14 says he is addressing his disciples, but in John 14:22, Judas Iscariot asked why Jesus was saying it to him and not the world. Jesus then replied If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word;. This implies that the message is for anyone and everyone, but it's their choice to love him or accept him. You can accept him now my friend! Take the "free gift". All you have to do is love him.

 

-Rhem

[diggin]

diggin,

 

I mean no disrespect to you. You are obviously much better educated than I, and I don't mean this in a mean spirited way.

You are a talented dancer with words and facts.

A bit smug perhaps, but certainly no bigger a fault than any one of my several.

 

For example, I know of course that God didn't literally write the OT with a pen in His hand. But it must be as accurate as it would be if He had, or we have the church, if I may, writing the books, and that certainly wouldn't be 'the Word of God'. I meant which God does it represent, the Christian, the Jewish, or the Muslim God.

 

You believe the Christian God inspired it.

 

OK, but you also said,

"The textual critics have done all people who read the Bible a great service by comparing and analyizing these textual variants to see which were more recent, which were accidental copy errors and which were intentional interpolations, etc. There is no perfect version, and there probably never will be. However, the areas of question are remarkably small."

 

If the OT is established forever, and if 'all scripture' is of God and good (New Testament), then we are certainly left with a guessing game, by your admission. The areas of question may be remarkably small, but if I am to stake the preservation of my eternal soul on it, small suddenly becomes very large.

 

If there is no Church that can be trusted, and no perfect version of the Bible one can lay hold of, then Christianity has nothing, really, that can be counted as 'how firm a foundation'.

 

You want me to believe in an all powerful God, an all knowing and eternal God, and all I have to go by to believe this is an imperfect Book (you said version, but I'm sure you will understand that if I buy a Bible, it's a version, and also a book).

 

You may dance all about this, diggin, but how do I really really KNOW? I can't trust you, no matter how articulate, any more than I can trust the catechism of the Catholic church, or the TV preacher, or the Pentecostal preacher at the church on the corner.

 

All I have is an imperfect book. You may trust feelings, goose-bumps, or textual critics (who somehow have done us a favor), but all I have is an imperfect book.

 

You are a pretty arrogant fellow yourself, as it were, to claim to know which is the 'Original' God, when all you have is an imperfect book to go by!

 

I guess I could still be playing the Fundie here, and perhaps I should be, as you are still bent on believing an interesting blend of circular logic, new age-ism, and wishful hopes based on nothing beyond your strong conviction that what you believe is true. Again, a hybrid faith based on an imperfect book, and all alone too, as men certainly are not to be trusted as you have said, even the men learned in Christianity.

 

If it's OK with you, and with all of the above in mind, why don't you choose the next round? Unless you disagree with what I just said. If so then please just choose one point and we'll hammer on it with our respective brains.

 

Just don't quote to me from an imperfect book, as that can't be trusted.

 

Thank you for a thoughtful reply, and I apologize that the dramatic little bombshells I've been lobbing convey a picture of arrogance on my part. I'll cut back on the exaggerations "to make a point".

 

Since I'm on deadline at the moment, I'll just say a couple of things:

 

1. The imperfections I refer to are in the versions of the Bible that we have. For example, I mostly use the King James for my study, because I'm familiar with it and because most of the concordances are based on it. For years I thought Romans 8:1 read, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

This implies that there is a condemnation for those Christians who walk "after the flesh", whatever that means.

 

A couple of years ago I discovered that practically all textual critics agree that the "who walk" clause was added much later, perhaps by a scribe who wanted to avoid the concept of "once in grace always in grace".

 

Now, I don't believe the Scriptures teach once in grace always in grace, but it was important to me to realize that there should be a period after "Christ Jesus." in that verse. Why? because it reassures each of us that our sins in the life as a Christian do not result in condemnation.... not until we have had full opportunity to repent again and be renewed. We are told we can boldly enter the presence of God in times of need, (Hebrews 10:19-20) and find grace to help us when we find we have not been walking "after the spirit".... which for most of us, is most of the time. Now, there's an example where the text is a bit in question, and I'm thankful that guys who often don't even really believe in it as a living document, have taken the trouble to compare notes to see what the originally penned words actually were.

 

Here's another example. In Revelation 20:5, it says in King James (and therefore in the Received Text, which is the Latin version King James was translated from) "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection."

 

At least one of the strongest and oldest manuscripts omits the entire sentence, "but...finished". Many other reliable manuscripts leave out the "but" and the "again". It would appear that according to the preponderance of evidence, the sentence in question should read "The rest of the dead did not live until the thousand years were finished." This is significant, because it confirms what I believe other scriptures state -- that those resurrected at the beginning of the millennium are resurrected perfect, having already experienced their trial for life in this life; while those resurrected during the millennium are awakened nearly perfect, but are not technically "alive" during the period of their trial, so that they can work out the imperfections in their character and actions. THey are tried at the end, (Matt 25:42ff) and if they pass that test, they are then alive forevermore.

 

So the textual criticism helps to confirm a tentative insight gleaned from several other passages.

 

Anyway, my point is that the actual areas of question are extremely small -- probably not one word in 10,000 or 100,000 has even the slightest ambiguity associated with it, in regard to whether we have the ancient manuscript from which to work.

 

Is that impure? Is that unreliable?

 

I don't think so. When I'm climbing a mountain and I need a drink of water, I don't think twice about dipping my canteen into a glacier stream. The closer I get to the glacier, the more sure I am that the water is pure and safe. In the woods, where it's slower and not so bubbly, I would drop some vitamin C into it to make sure it doesn't have giardia. And down in the valley, I wouldn't drink it without boiling it first, to make sure it didn't have e-coli.

 

They say visitors to many parts of the world shouldn't drink the local water, because there are bugs in there that they don't have a resistance to -- while the locals have developed antibodies to those bugs. Sometimes, Christians who pay attention to the little nuances of scripture have developed a resistance to the discovery that here and there a few verses may be inauthentic or at least questionable in some details; while other Christians unprepared for this ambiguity insist that, say, the King James is the PERFECT word of God. They are sadly mistaken, but it comes from the same all-or-nothing mentality that you seem to advocate when you say that there's not a "firm foundation" for belief. I would disagree. There is a very firm foundation... for FAITH. That is, there is a firm foundation for the kind of attitude which is capable of sorting out the preponderance of evidence, testing it with reasonable checks of its veracity, and then proceeding to adjust one's life choices in harmony with what one believes to be true.

 

It is not dissimilar to the investigations of a scientist who will try and use experiment to test hypotheses, but will not throw out the hypothesis when some or even many of the tests seem to contradict portions of the assumptions. On the other hand, he wouldn't be much of a scientist if he held to the hypothesis in the face of repeated experimental evidence to the contrary.

 

It is also not dissimilar to the efforts of an investor, who will research a company, look at its core business, look at market conditions, consider the quality of its leadership, and then decide how much money to invest -- and stay with that investment even if there are setbacks in the stock price in the short term.

 

My message to the X-Xtian community is that God, contrary to the constant drumbeat of "evangelists" and "apologists" over the last few centuries, did not ever intend to use the Bible and the few miracles performed by Jesus 2000 years ago as the last, best witness to the human race, which if they spurned, would be their only hope of escape from a fiery, perpetual doom.

 

My point is that the Bible was intended to be convincing and refreshing to a small percentage, and it was intended to be contradictory and very difficult to understand. Does anyone who really studies the Bible disagree with that observation? Folks who can't see that the Bible as a whole, and practically every teaching in it, is difficult to grasp hold of with certainty -- well such folks are the ones who become finger-pointers and self-righteous hypocrites. If you want to get a belly-full of that, just listen in on the endless Calvinism vs Arminianism debates, where they actually discuss whether the other could even be "saved" or not. Ugh!

 

Now, there are a few unambiguous facts that the Bible is very, very clear about. At least, it seems so to me! :-) It is clear to me, from the Bible, that in the beginning God created the world. It is not clear how long ago the beginning was.

 

It is clear that there is such a thing as moral authority, and that it comes from the One who created us, and that no one who violates those clear principles can do so without damaging themselves both now and in the future, when they'll be trying to get it right. Those principles are simple, though -- love and serve other people with an attitude that puts them on an equal par with yourself. And acknowledge God as the creator, the one who is worthy of our full devotion and appreciation. These are the simple precepts of both Judaism and Christianity, and I have no quarrel for this part of what any Christian person or group teaches.

 

But, if you hang around Christian denominationalism much, you find that the mainstream church finds all sorts of ways of making themselves special, or setting aside true obedience to God, or making God into a monster, or allowing themselves to feel superior to all the other people in the world because God in his sovereign grace chose them for salvation and rejected the others, etc. etc.

 

Going back to what is ambiguous and unambiguous in the Bible, surprisingly, it is clear and quite unambiguous about the fact that God plans a salvation from sin, a restoration and instruction period, for all people -- and that ultimately the opportunity for life will be a free individual choice -- "whosever will, let him take the water of life freely". That is not just a promise that is available at today's camp meetings, and that if you happen to get hit by a drunk driver (or you happen to be a drunk driver!) your opportunity to gain life is snuffed out forever. No, the Bible is really quite unambiguous, an it's just that orthodoxy has gotten really good at explaining those things away. God says things like "I created the earth not in vain. I formed it to be inhabited." "All tears will be wiped away". "Death itself will be destroyed". etc. etc.

 

It's a very interesting exercise to take the first 3 chapters of Genesis and write down the things that happen, the characters and perhaps metaphorical places, such as fruit, gardens, rivers, serpents, curses, etc. and then go to the last 3 chapters of Revelation and look for those terms -- to see how the issues claim to be resolved. It's a true "they lived happily ever after" kind of story.

 

I know that in the Zephaniah text that Rhemtron challenged me about, it mentions a group who are not redeemed. There will be such a group. But they will be ones who consciously choose that path, of their own free will, AFTER they have been part of the "whole earth" who hear God's pure speech (Zeph 3:8,9), or the Ransomed of the Lord who return, Isaiah 35, or the "feast of fat things for ALL people) (Isaiah 25:8), etc. All eyes will have their tears wiped away. Revelation 21:1-4. These promises are unambiguous. What is equally unambiguous is that people will be free to choose, and if they choose to omit loving service to others from their pattern of life (ala the goats in Matt 25), then they will have to lose the privilege of living. But the downside is not torment, just the end of their existence. Perishing as it puts it in John 3:16.

 

I am not the least bit worried about folks like HanSolo or the other avowed atheists who frequent this site. They have a high degree of integrity, as far as I can see, and they are justifiably angry at the abuses of the God Squad. They see reasons why the Bible is not iron-clad, not absolutely impressive. They see the historic hypocrisy and horrendous abuses of those who claim it. He and Mark Twain and many others are looking for this supposed God to stand up and quit "hiding himself" as the Bible itself says he does. If he's God, let him prove it. Not an unfair request, if what God wants is to convince us he's in charge.

 

The fact is, the Bible promises he'll do just that, after he finishes exposing and "tormenting" mainstream Christianity's sins. And by the way, he's also wanting to give ample opportunity for the humanists to try and make the world livable by their own attempts at tolerance and consensus building... and he wants to let the atheists attempt to live their lives without any religious stuff, and see how that goes.... and he wants the Jews to try and form a secular state that doesn't really believe the promises that the land belongs to them; etc. etc. God is a wise parent. He wants everybody to get a fill of doing their own thing. At the last possible instant, when we've just about destroyed ourselves and the planet, after we've messed up our climate, used up our resources, poisoned our water, killed an ocean full of fish, armed ourselves and moved to the woods to try and survive in isolation .... in other words, when we as a planet are ready to listen to what he has to say .... that's when God will stand up and impose a thousand years of corrective discipline, gracious blessings, and sensitive, reasonable, explanatory counsel. And his most useful agents in that administrative era will be folks who got to know how merciful and loving and fair he is during this life, and who put their religious fervor, not into changing everybody else and pointing fingers, but in practical goodness and inner transformation by the renewing of their minds.

 

Those folks will be the ideal leaders ... they will be patient, humble, and definitely not trigger-happy. The exact opposite of all the caricutures of leaders we have today ... from George Bush to John Kerry to Pat Robertson to Newt Gingrich to Idi Amin to Saddam Hussein to Pope Benedict.

 

I have absolutely no idea who the ones that are going to be "kings and priests" in that age will be (Revelation 2:27ff). I believe that anyone can aspire to that position, if God places that hope in their heart, and I have known a few who seem to have that air about them. I hope that before my life is over I will be found "in him, not having a righteousness of my own, which comes from the law (a list of dos and don'ts) but derived from a faith in Christ. http://bible.cc/philippians/3-9.htm

 

I am confident that here and there one can find someone who God is working with to that end. But for the majority of mainstream Christianity, the Bible is clear that unless the standards of humility and love are what they pursue, they will be disappointed. That's the great weaping and gnashing of teeth Jesus kept talking about -- the disappointment among Jesus' putative servants when they realize they've missed the boat. Still, they won't be lost. They'll just catch the next train, the long train, the Peace Train that a great now-Islamic songster wrote about.

 

I probably won't have a chance to carry on this dialog until early next week... and then only briefly.

 

As far as a topic, I'm not very good at picking them.

 

But if someone wants to ask the question, "What would a good God be like?" I'd be interested to hear and comment on a discussion.

[diggin]

 

Here's another example. In Revelation 20:5, it says in King James (and therefore in the Received Text, which is the Latin version King James was translated from)

 

 

 

OOPS - Received Text is a Greek text, compiled mostly by Erasmus, which helped us all break away from the Latin translations of original manuscripts. But still, it didn't have access to many older manuscripts that were found later.

[RHEMtron]

wow.... talk about filibuster!

[NotBlinded]

For example, Jesus verifies that he believes in a historical Adam, a historical Jonah, etc.

Could you please cite verses that allude to this?

 

Jonah: http://bible.cc/matthew/12-40.htm

Adam & Eve: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...amp;version=31;

(quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24)

Thank you for the links. I will have to say that I don't see where Jesus claims they are historical figures, but is making reference to what THEY believe. I have said before (not that you would know that, but for the sake of arguement ) that Jesus was trying to get them to understand the messages in their own bible whether he believed they were historical or not. I don't think it mattered to him.

 

If you look in Matthew 3 in the Message Bible, it is stated once again as "haven't you read in YOUR Bible..." He does this in John also when he is referring to Isaiah.

[duderonomy]

Rhem,

 

Of a truth I percieve that diggin's last post is not only a 'filibuster', but one based entirely on smoke and mirrors, with a heavy dose of double talk.

 

diggin,

 

No offence to you by what I said above, although I stand by it...

you said,

 

"At least one of the strongest and oldest manuscripts omits the entire sentence, "but...finished". Many other reliable manuscripts leave out the "but" and the "again". It would appear that according to the preponderance of evidence, the sentence in question should read "The rest of the dead did not live until the thousand years were finished." This is significant, because it confirms what I believe other scriptures state -- that those resurrected at the beginning of..."

 

What makes a manuscript strong, or reliable? Again, they are all copies. You seem to know how the sentence 'should' read. You wouldn't be re-writing God's Holy Word, now would you? Or adding to it or taking away from it? Be careful!

 

Again, in this quote, you ask me to base my eternal existance on a 'preponderance of evidence'. That's fine in most civil courts, diggin, but this is (eternal) life or death, and even we fallen and wicked humans call for a unanimous verdict in such cases.

 

You still seem to be hitching your star to a galaxy explained by men (i.e. The Church), and not on the Word of God. Of course, this is understandable as by your own admission, and I concur with you on this, there is no perfect reliable Bible.

 

If you can't be around much for a while, that's understandable. I hope to continue this discussion with you at your convenience, if you so desire. The thread will be here when you are ready and able to continue.

 

(back to) Rhem,

 

diggin leaves it to us to choose the next logical step in this. What say you?

 

Duder

[duderonomy]

Not Blinded,

 

A lot of the New Testament shows that not only Jesus, but the entirety of the Twelve, spoke in the same vein that you bring up; that they were seperate and above the very Scriptures that they often quoted for their gain, and that they quoted no verses to their peril. In other words, they quoted the parts of God's Word (the Old Testament, back then, if you will), that would further the particular beliefs that they held as true, and ignored the rest. The rest, that they ignored, would show that Jesus and the Twelve could not possibly be correct in their assertions.

 

Or were you saying that Jesus was throwing Scriptures in the face of the learned in Scriptures, to show them that their traditions were based on the.....of MEN, not on the Scriptures themselves?

 

Or that even the leaders of the religion that God gave them with promises didn't have 'a Bible' that they could trust, without the Annointed One to interpret it, and thus explain verses that they took at face value, because they were too serious about the whole God thing lean unto their own understanding of it?

 

But Alas! diggin assures us that the Christian God also wrote the Old Testament!

 

I think we should choose ONE point and beat it until it's dead.

 

I'm not sure diggin can do this, as he seems to be very passionate about his faith. Crap, I can't even do it!

 

But we should try.

[NotBlinded]

Not Blinded,

 

A lot of the New Testament shows that not only Jesus, but the entirety of the Twelve, spoke in the same vein that you bring up; that they were seperate and above the very Scriptures that they often quoted for their gain, and that they quoted no verses to their peril. In other words, they quoted the parts of God's Word (the Old Testament, back then, if you will), that would further the particular beliefs that they held as true, and ignored the rest. The rest, that they ignored, would show that Jesus and the Twelve could not possibly be correct in their assertions.

 

Or were you saying that Jesus was throwing Scriptures in the face of the learned in Scriptures, to show them that their traditions were based on the.....of MEN, not on the Scriptures themselves?

 

Or that even the leaders of the religion that God gave them with promises didn't have 'a Bible' that they could trust, without the Annointed One to interpret it, and thus explain verses that they took at face value, because they were too serious about the whole God thing lean unto their own understanding of it?

 

But Alas! diggin assures us that the Christian God also wrote the Old Testament!

 

I think we should choose ONE point and beat it until it's dead.

 

I'm not sure diggin can do this, as he seems to be very passionate about his faith. Crap, I can't even do it!

 

But we should try.

Hi duder!

 

I think he saw the literalists as being hypocrites as we even do today. It's just my opinion of course, but I don't think he saw himself as being above them, just that they didn't understand the message when they took it literally. He was trying to slap some sense in them. I see him as an Essene. There were many time, IMO, he wanted to do just as we do here with the literalists...

 

Here are a few quotes from here:

 

Since the archaeological discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1946, the word "Essene" has made its way around the world--often raising a lot of questions. Many people were astonished to discover that, two thousand years ago, a brotherhood of holy men and women, living together in a community, carried within themselves all of the seeds of Christianity and of future western civilization. This brotherhood--more or less persecuted and ostracized--would bring forth people who would change the face of the world and the course of history. Indeed, almost all of the principal founders of what would later be called Christianity were Essenes--St. Ann, Joseph and Mary, John the Baptist, Jesus, John the Evangelist, etc.

 

The Essenes considered themselves to be a separate people--not because of external signs like skin color, hair color, etc., but because of the illumination of their inner life and their knowledge of the hidden mysteries of nature unknown to other men. They considered themselves to be also a group of people at the center of all peoples--because everyone could become part of it, as soon as they had successfully passed the selective tests.

 

They thought, and rightly so, that they were the heirs of God's sons and daughters of old, the heirs to their great ancient civilization. They possessed their advanced knowledge and worked assiduously in secret for the triumph of the light over the darkness of the human mind.

 

They felt that they had been entrusted with a mission, which would turn out to be the founding of Christianity and of western civilization. They were supported in this effort by highly evolved beings who directed the brotherhood. They were true saints, Masters of wisdom, hierophants of the ancient arts of mastery.

 

They were not limited to a single religion, but studied all of them in order to extract the great scientific principles. They considered each religion to be a different stage of a single revelation. They accorded great importance to the teachings of the ancient Chaldeans, of Zoroaster, of Hermes Trismegiste, to the secret instructions of Moses and of one of the founding Masters of their order who had transmitted techniques similar to those of Buddhism, as well as to the revelation of Enoch.

Bold is mine.

 

And speaking of Jesus, they say:

 

The Master had given very precise directives for this work, and during some very beautiful communal ceremonies--notably the washing of the feet--he had made it understood that each one of them was becoming one with him in the Christ, that each one of them was becoming a part of the Christ on the earth, and that the final incarnation of the Christ inside all humans depended on the work of each one of them.He had also transmitted songs, sounds, words, dances and movements which had to be done in a particular state of mind and with a great inner purity in order to produce certain effects within oneself and within the soul of the earth.

 

He taught that, in this way, certain very pure spiritual beings who live inside the soul of man and of the earth could be awakened, nourished, and strengthened in the will of the Heavenly Father.

Bold is mine.

 

At the time when the Master Jesus was present among his disciples, he had already named the Master St. John as the leader of and the person responsible for this inner and secret School. It is the Master St. John who was put in charge of teaching in this School and of ensuring that the exercises were done correctly.

 

Thereafter, the Master St. John continued his task, even after Jesus' departure. He remained faithful and opened inner Schools in most European countries. These Schools continued to exist in secret and have propagated themselves right up to our own time, keeping Christ's teaching pure, exactly as the Essenes had kept pure Moses' secret and authentic teaching. Today, parts of this Teaching and of its techniques are being extended to the outside world because a new time of harvesting and sowing has arrived.

Bold is not mine.

 

And, to answer your question here:

 

Or were you saying that Jesus was throwing Scriptures in the face of the learned in Scriptures, to show them that their traditions were based on the.....of MEN, not on the Scriptures themselves?

Yes... Their traditions were based on the words of men (of course), but when they took these words at face value, they were missing what these men were trying to convey through the scriptures by use of myth, metaphor and allegory. He was throwing their scriptures in their face in order to get them to understand that what they understood literally was not what was supposed to be understood. That is my understanding anyway.

 

If God did not inspire the Bible, and protect the Bible, then it's worse than a waste of time because it claims he did.

Forget the claims...It only becomes valuable when it's understood that it wasn't inspired by God, but by people that were inspired to tell what they understood God to be like. The inner meaning can then be seen.