 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
ragman13
German Shepherd
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 325
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:41 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Airyman wrote: | | For instance, Deu 23:3 states Moabites could not be part of Israel, yet the most famous king of the OT was a Moabite (David). |
| Quote: | | Now David was the son of an Ephrathite of Bethlehem in Judah, named Jesse, who had eight sons. In the days of Saul the man was already old and advanced in years. |
ESV (1 Sa 17:12).
How do you figure that David was a Moabite his genealogy traces back to Abraham not to Lot? Plus 1 Sam. 17:12 states that he was an Ephrathite.
| Airyman wrote: | | Also, the prophet Jeremiah pretty much says the Torah was one big fat lie (Jer 7:22, 8:8). |
About Jer. 7:22
| Quote: | | Not contradicting the divine obligation of the legal sacrifices. But, “I did not require sacrifices, unless combined with moral obedience” (Ps 50:8). The superior claim of the moral above the positive precepts of the law was marked by the ten commandments having been delivered first, and by the two tables of stone being deposited alone in the ark (De 5:6). The negative in Hebrew often supplies the want of the comparative: not excluding the thing denied, but only implying the prior claim of the thing set in opposition to it (Ho 6:6). “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice” (1Sa 15:22). Love to God is the supreme end, external observances only means towards that end. “The mere sacrifice was not so much what I commanded, as the sincere submission to My will gives to the sacrifice all its virtue” |
Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. On spine: Critical and explanatory commentary. (Je 7:22).
Jer. 8:8
| Quote: | | Possessing the law, on which they prided themselves, the Jews might have become the wisest of nations; but by their neglecting its precepts, the law became given “in vain,” as far as they were concerned. |
Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. On spine: Critical and explanatory commentary. (Je 8:8).
| Airyman wrote: | | Jesus knew that the various laws of the Torah were man-made and were put in place to support the priest class and keep the people in check. |
Support please!
Matt. 5:17-18
| Quote: | | Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished |
| Airyman wrote: | | the bible is full of opposing ideas. . . . The idea that the bible is infallible and inerrant keeps its readers confused. |
No you just have to study it a little. The Bible is inerrant and infallible.
Would you like to give some more "contradictions" of the Bible?
_________________
If Jesus Christ were to come today, people would not even crucify him. They would ask him to dinner, and hear what he had to say, and make fun of it. —Thomas Carlyle
Shh. Don't tell anyone that I am a Fundamentalist! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nobby
Board - Admin
Joined: 16 Sep 2002
Posts: 5301
Location: Missouri
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eleven wrote: | In Genesis it states:
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
My question to you is this -
What was the light?
It couldn't be the sun because that wasn't created until days later, so what was the light? Do you know? I sure don't! |
Maybe God used Cosmic Light? 
http://cosmiclight.com/index.htm
_________________
Much Love Nobby
CVP Smilies
dictionary Bible |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Airyaman
Tadpole
Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eleven wrote: | | Airyaman wrote: |
The bible is contradictory in several areas, and I'm not talking about your usual set of contradictions. The bible is not really a literal history, but a book compiled using the propaganda of several different factions of the Hebrew priest classes. |
Well then, we seem to agee.
Here try this.......the Bible is NOT contradictory, but incomplete. If there appear to be contradictions, (and I agree with you, on the surface, this appears to be true) it's only because the information is incomplete, not wrong.
For example:
In Genesis it states:
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
My question to you is this -
What was the light?
It couldn't be the sun because that wasn't created until days later, so what was the light? Do you know? I sure don't!
But my point is this. If I can't explain the Bible IN THE FIRST 3 LINES, how in the world can I explain the rest of it? The book, or rather the collection of 66 books is obviously incomplete! But that doesn't make what is written there , incorrect. Do you see what I mean? |
The bible is not a book of unified theology. It is a book of the reflections of various factions' theologies. The best way to approach ALL of it is as mythology with a message. That is, it is like those movies that state "based on a true story". The rest is added in to convey various polemics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eleven
King of the Jungle
Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Posts: 1561
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mythology? How wrong you are! There is no mythology here. All the books tie together. that's what makes it so incredible, because these writings are centuries apart.
The Bible goes way beyond "coincidences".
_________________
Pain is inevitable;
misery is optional. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Airyaman
Tadpole
Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ragman13 wrote: | | Airyman wrote: | | For instance, Deu 23:3 states Moabites could not be part of Israel, yet the most famous king of the OT was a Moabite (David). |
| Quote: | | Now David was the son of an Ephrathite of Bethlehem in Judah, named Jesse, who had eight sons. In the days of Saul the man was already old and advanced in years. |
ESV (1 Sa 17:12).
How do you figure that David was a Moabite his genealogy traces back to Abraham not to Lot? Plus 1 Sam. 17:12 states that he was an Ephrathite. |
Who was David's great grandparents? Ruth and Boaz.
Rth 4:5 Then Boaz said, "The day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you also acquire Ruth the Moabite, the widow of the dead, in order to perpetuate the name of the dead in his inheritance."
| Quote: | | Airyman wrote: | | Also, the prophet Jeremiah pretty much says the Torah was one big fat lie (Jer 7:22, 8:8). |
About Jer. 7:22
| Quote: | | Not contradicting the divine obligation of the legal sacrifices. But, “I did not require sacrifices, unless combined with moral obedience” (Ps 50:8). The superior claim of the moral above the positive precepts of the law was marked by the ten commandments having been delivered first, and by the two tables of stone being deposited alone in the ark (De 5:6). The negative in Hebrew often supplies the want of the comparative: not excluding the thing denied, but only implying the prior claim of the thing set in opposition to it (Ho 6:6). “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice” (1Sa 15:22). Love to God is the supreme end, external observances only means towards that end. “The mere sacrifice was not so much what I commanded, as the sincere submission to My will gives to the sacrifice all its virtue” |
Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. On spine: Critical and explanatory commentary. (Je 7:22).
Jer. 8:8
| Quote: | | Possessing the law, on which they prided themselves, the Jews might have become the wisest of nations; but by their neglecting its precepts, the law became given “in vain,” as far as they were concerned. |
Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. On spine: Critical and explanatory commentary. (Je 8:8). |
Apologetics. Sheesh, take off the Christian glasses.
| Quote: | | Airyman wrote: | | Jesus knew that the various laws of the Torah were man-made and were put in place to support the priest class and keep the people in check. |
Support please!
Matt. 5:17-18
| Quote: | | Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished |
|
Mat 15:11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person."
An obvious rebuke against the dietary laws of the Torah. Also, Jesus disregarded the Sabbath on several occasions. In fact, it seems he went out of his way to break Sabbath!
Finally, when he overturned the money changers booths, he was showing that the sacrificial system was just a ploy to line the pockets of the Levitical priesthood.
| Quote: | | Airyman wrote: | | the bible is full of opposing ideas. . . . The idea that the bible is infallible and inerrant keeps its readers confused. |
No you just have to study it a little. The Bible is inerrant and infallible. |
Is that why Jesus said "hahaha" to the dietary and Sabbath laws of the Torah?
| Quote: | | Would you like to give some more "contradictions" of the Bible? |
These will suffice nicely for now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Airyaman
Tadpole
Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eleven wrote: | Mythology? How wrong you are! There is no mythology here. All the books tie together. that's what makes it so incredible, because these writings are centuries apart.
The Bible goes way beyond "coincidences". |
Is this the best you can respond with? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eleven
King of the Jungle
Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Posts: 1561
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Airyaman wrote: | | eleven wrote: | Mythology? How wrong you are! There is no mythology here. All the books tie together. that's what makes it so incredible, because these writings are centuries apart.
The Bible goes way beyond "coincidences". |
Is this the best you can respond with? |
Nope. Here is the best I can respond with:
The Bible is truth.
Now what is so wonderful about that is this-
Truth stands for itself. You don't have to defend it, you don't have to explain it, you don't have to make apologies for it. It stands alone because nothing can defeat it, change it, or compromise it.
I just get to sit back and enjoy it.
So go head, tell me any one principle in this collection of books that is not true.
_________________
Pain is inevitable;
misery is optional. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Airyaman
Tadpole
Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eleven wrote: | | Airyaman wrote: | | eleven wrote: | Mythology? How wrong you are! There is no mythology here. All the books tie together. that's what makes it so incredible, because these writings are centuries apart.
The Bible goes way beyond "coincidences". |
Is this the best you can respond with? |
Nope. Here is the best I can respond with:
The Bible is truth. |
Prove it.
| Quote: | Now what is so wonderful about that is this-
Truth stands for itself. You don't have to defend it, you don't have to explain it, you don't have to make apologies for it. It stands alone because nothing can defeat it, change it, or compromise it.
I just get to sit back and enjoy it. |
Or pretend it is truth so you can say such nonsense.
| Quote: | | So go head, tell me any one principle in this collection of books that is not true. |
Science, history, and archaeology have already disproven a world-wide flood (unless your science comes from "Answers in Genesis"). Need we go farther? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Siam
Bear
Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 675
Location: middle of oz
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well first things first…
The question asked on this post was: Why do you believe the bible is true?
I think as “part time bible scholars” we are all aware enough not to try to espouse the viability of “the book” based on a purely historical of scientific approach.
I believe that is why this has become an interesting thread. It has been dealing with why we believe in the bibles truth.
We have been sharing and discussing what that truth means to us.
My stance on the Bible is actually not up for argument.
I see it as an inner tool to a higher life possibility that is given to us when we accept that we are God.
I can prove this with out a doubt in the universe, it’s obvious and the reason I believe it with all my heart is because it makes sense and it works.
To me God is never a man, the Father is our soul, the Son is our soul on earth, Christ is when we accept that we have a Father in Heaven and the Lord is the heavenly Law giving to and taking away from, as required.
I must love this Law with all my power.
And I must love you as I love me.
And that is all in the bible.
And, I couldn’t care less about prophecy, Jesus blood line or if the John of the Gospel is the John of Revelation!
Because I know this.
The kingdom of God is within.
Cheers.
Siam.
_________________
http://iamchristlord.webs.com/
It's the best that my web provider can do at the moment though it is still not working right! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eleven
King of the Jungle
Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Posts: 1561
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Airyaman,
You misundertood my question. I said give me a PRINCIPLE that is in the Bible that is not true.
Siam summed it all up beautifully-
| Siam wrote: |
I can prove this with out a doubt in the universe, it’s obvious and the reason I believe it with all my heart is because it makes sense and it works.
I see it as an inner tool to a higher life possibility that is given to us when we accept that we are God.
To me God is never a man, the Father is our soul, the Son is our soul on earth, Christ is when we accept that we have a Father in Heaven and the Lord is the heavenly Law giving to and taking away from, as required.
I must love this Law with all my power.
And I must love you as I love me.
And that is all in the bible.
|
_________________
Pain is inevitable;
misery is optional. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ragman13
German Shepherd
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 325
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Airyman wrote: | Who was David's great grandparents? Ruth and Boaz.
Rth 4:5 Then Boaz said, "The day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you also acquire Ruth the Moabite, the widow of the dead, in order to perpetuate the name of the dead in his inheritance." |
There are answers to your questions but I can tell by your quote below that you are not interested in answers. I hope that you enjoy your time here.
| Airyman wrote: | | Apologetics. Sheesh, take off the Christian glasses. |
_________________
If Jesus Christ were to come today, people would not even crucify him. They would ask him to dinner, and hear what he had to say, and make fun of it. —Thomas Carlyle
Shh. Don't tell anyone that I am a Fundamentalist! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Siam
Bear
Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 675
Location: middle of oz
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eleven wrote: | | Siam summed it all up beautifully. |
Orrrr Shucks... 
Not often people accept that there God on this forum eleven...
_________________
http://iamchristlord.webs.com/
It's the best that my web provider can do at the moment though it is still not working right! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Airyaman
Tadpole
Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eleven wrote: | Airyaman,
You misundertood my question. I said give me a PRINCIPLE that is in the Bible that is not true. |
What principles are you looking for? That a women who has a female child is unclean for twice as long as one who had a male child? Or that it is fine to beat a slave to death as long as the slave does not die immediately? Or that it is a sin to divorce an abusive spouse as long as they don't cheat on you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Virbate
Rattlesnake
Joined: 20 May 2008
Posts: 436
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Airyaman wrote: | | eleven wrote: | Airyaman,
You misundertood my question. I said give me a PRINCIPLE that is in the Bible that is not true. |
What principles are you looking for? That a women who has a female child is unclean for twice as long as one who had a male child? Or that it is fine to beat a slave to death as long as the slave does not die immediately? Or that it is a sin to divorce an abusive spouse as long as they don't cheat on you? |
Is this response basically your attempt to shout so loud that people forget what the question was? You have ignored the question. Eleven has asked about the distinction between the letter and the spirit of the law, and you have gone right back to the letter, not even attempting a real response to the issue.
Well, for the record, the distinction made by Eleven is still clear. Are you really interested in honest discussion at all? If so, you should deal with the issue. Not to try ganging up, but what Ragman said about you not wanting to really discuss is seeming more probable. Still, it's not too late to change pace. Let's give it a try. Let's talk about the distinction between the letter and the law, and let's reapproach the Bible message to see what really happened. How does that sound?
... or is that your way of simply saying that you feel the old testament shows a different morality to the new. I guess it is. Sorry for not understanding until now, but you should just state it clearly next time. I'm sure that there are many people out here who are happy to explain how the issues you have raised do not contradict the message of love. For now, let me just ask, do you believe in discipline, or do you think it's right to allow someone you love, who is in error, to make their own mistakes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eleven
King of the Jungle
Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Posts: 1561
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Siam wrote: | | eleven wrote: | | Siam summed it all up beautifully. |
Orrrr Shucks...
Not often people accept that there God on this forum eleven... |
aahhhhhh.......the sheep.
They keep flocking it up.
_________________
Pain is inevitable;
misery is optional. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
