Bible DISCussion [Archive] - PDGA Discussion Board

playtowin

Mar 06 2008, 11:22 PM

First of all, thanks for welcoming me back (on the 'Obsession' thread). You're welcome. I missed being on. My country coordinator had better send those forms earlier next year! (Incidentally, Lowe asked me to post that he did not renew this year and will not be joining us for these discussions. It's a shame. I think his calm and cool-headedness will be missed.) I know, he was bummed about that choice he had to make. But he's still reading and praying for you and me! ;)

Second, I think starting a new thread about this topic is a good idea. We're going to discuss it; we may as well do it on its own thread.

So, to ask a question that I posed elsewhere:

Which of the 4 resurrection stories do you believe? They are all four quite different and contradict themselves on several points.

It�s a few pages, but I would highly suggest reading this before you read my short answers:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/506

 This is a good one too :

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/555

 I want you to know that I take this very seriously. I believe the Bible is from God (as it claims to be�2nd Timothy 3:16-17; 2nd Peter 1:20-21) and as such, it is not full of contradictions and mistakes, simply put, because He is God! If it were, it would not be a trust worthy document because who�s to say which parts are accurate if it isn�t ALL accurate? The way you worded your question presumes guilt before the evidence is even introduced! Do you do that in everyday circumstances, or just biblically?

Apparently, you have googled �misconceptions� and have found sites that are anti-bible and have picked out a few that support your general disbelief. Or perhaps in the back of one of your Dawkins books, there is a list of such sites! :oI highly doubt that in your daily bible reading yesterday, you noticed what seemed to be a discrepancy in the four gospels and you thought to yourself �I better let the world know what I discovered!�

You are trying to discredit a very important document that has endured countless attacks with information that you have taken at face value. I presume this because if you were actually investigating the bible for yourself, instead of just pasting and posting these allegations, you would have discovered for yourself the massive amounts of web sites dedicated to answering them. You would already know the answers to these questions. It�s ok and very understandable, just don�t think for a second that I don�t see what you are doing. This is not your research. That�s ok, in your mind I am sure you think it shows the bible in a bad light and because you don�t believe, you want to show others what you�ve come across. But let me ask you a question. Don�t you think it would be a little more genuine, or mature, to look at it for yourself before you lay such bold claims out?

Like I said, if you have, you would know, or at least have a good idea, exactly what I am going to say because you would have done the investigating already? Is it my job to do the work for you? If so, how much work do I need to do Dan? Is one sentence of evidence enough? A paragraph, a page, a book dedicated to answering what you can look up on your own? Would showing you where you are at fault on any given subject convince you of what Jesus is offering you? I can and will give you an answer to your specific questions, but it�s not my job to give exhaustive research analysis concerning this topic.

Personally, like so many other things related to the bible, I did the research that satisfied my questions a long time ago. I don�t sit here everyday and try to find things to discredit my belief! Generally speaking, my biblical studies have evolved beyond the realm of skepticism. It�s a non-issue with me. But I will give you the short answer version to these questions and give many web sites and pages for you and anyone else who may allow these so called contradictions to keep them from trusting in Jesus.

These so-called contradictions are not new. Personally, I first came across this particular one about 15 years ago. I will BREIFLY reply to each of these, but be assured, for every web site dedicated to saying the bible is full of contradictions, there is an equal amount of web sites dedicated to defending the bible.

Also, keep in mind that the answers to your questions of contradictions do not need to make you believe the bible, they only need to give a POSSIBLE answer.


1) Was there one angel (Matthew), two angels (John), a young man (Mark), or two men (Luke)? As in many so called �bible contradictions�

 I believe there were two angels. If the text said that there was ONLY one angel and another writer said that there were two, that would be a problem. But it doesn�t say that.

The entire bible refers to angels taking the form of man. Most references to angels in fact are talking about them taking on the form of man. One of my favorite scriptures talks about this topic in Hebrews 13:2. The fact that one writer would describe what he SAW and another writer describes what it inherently WAS does not mean the bible contradicts itself.

2) Who was there? Some women (Mathew)? Mary Magdelene, Mary - mother of James, and Salome (Mark)? Mary Magdelen, Mary - mother of James, Johanna, and other women (Luke)? Or, was it Mary Magdelene, Simon Peter and another disciple (John)?

 You are assuming that these narratives said �only� two women. But none of them ever did. If they did, there would be a contradiction. Simply because your mind inserts the word �only� where it was never said, doesn�t mean there is a contradiction. Obviously each writer considered what facts they felt were important to share. Otherwise, all four gospels would be identical. There are many accounts in one gospel, that are not mentioned at all in another! They each had written it from their own perspective. We simply don�t know why one writer would include details that another would not. Nor do we have the right to demand it. Grab two different newspapers from today and read the same story. You will quickly realize how different the choice in details varies from writer to writer. 

3) Was Jesus there at the tomb? (Not his body, his 'ghost'. We know the body had been stolen. ;)) Matthew, Mark and John say yes. Luke says no.

 Yes, the text in John clearly states that Jesus appeared at the tomb to Mary. Also, where in the text do you read that He appeared to her as a �ghost?� You have no evidence that the body was stolen, either in secular writings or especially in the bible. We�ve been over this elsewhere:

http://www.scripturessay.com/article.php?cat=books&id=7&pagenumber=8

Nine paragraphs down to be exact. Your complete refusal to admit that your theory doesn't fit the text is very peculiar to say the least. Lastly, Luke never said �no,� as you just said. In fact, he never even mentioned it. It simply wasn�t included in his account. There is no contradiction here, only an assumption on your part, that if Luke didn�t mention it, he must have been saying �that Jesus wasn�t there!� That makes no sense. That is a two stroke penalty and you must retee! 

4) Who went into the tomb? Matthew says no one. Mark says all 3 of the women there. Luke says all the women. John says only Mary Magdelene went into the tomb.

No where in Matthew does it say, �no one went into the tomb.� That hasn�t stopped you from saying it though! In fact, in 28:6 �the women� (vs.5), were invited to look into the tomb!

 Once again, simply because one writer focuses on one person in the story, it doesn�t make it a contradiction that another writer focuses on others. Once again, you are putting words into the bible that aren�t there. John NEVER SAID, �only Mary Magdelene went into the tomb.� His perspective was with an eye on her in particular, so he only mentioned her, not the others. This is not a contradiction, it is simply four different writers telling the story from there perspective. 

If these are accurate historical documents, shouldn't they agree on the events. yes, and they do. You can word a question in a way that presumes anything Dan, that doesn't make it true or accurate. If they do not agree on these events, we must assume that at least part of three of these books is wrong. If they did not "agree" as you put it, you are right. But they do "agree!" If we assume that at least three of these 'historically accurate' books are wrong on this point....well, I think you see where I'm going. I know exactly where you are going. But I've feel I've explained why your assumtions and adding to the Word of God is not right. 

And this is only one story. All 4 of the gospels contradict each other on numerous occasions. That's your opinion and the so-called "contradictions" that you've listed so far do not contradict anything. They are simply accounts that don't have identical details and you have added the word "only" to most of them. Which one should we believe? All of them! :D

switzerdan

Mar 07 2008, 08:40 AM

If you saw an angel, would you say, 'I saw an angel.' or would you say 'I saw one angel only .' Just because 'I saw an angel' and 'I saw two angels' don't technically contradict each other, doesn't mean they're the same thing.

To put it terms we can all understand, if you were playing a round of disc golf and you made two aces during the round, would you tell your wife later that you made an ace or would you tell her that you made two aces?

You can bet anything you own that if I saw two angels, I would say 'I saw two angels and not 'I saw an angel'.

But, for the sake of argument, let's ignore these semantical points for a bit and focus on the real argument at hand. According to you, every word in the Bible is true. That means every word of the 4 gospels is true, right?

Now, I read these gospels myself. I didn't go to a website to research. I just picked up my Bible and started reading. After reading, here�s what I think they say happened on the morning of the resurrection.

According to Matthew, there was an earthquake and an angel appeared, rolled back the stone covering the entrance and then sat on it. This frightened the keepers (guards?) so much that they �became as dead men�. (Passed out?) Mary Magdalene and the other Mary showed up and the angel told them that Jesus was risen and they should go tell the others. Jesus then appears to the women after they had gone from the tomb.

According to Mark, Mary Magdalene, Mary � mother of James and Salome were there and the stone was already rolled away when they got there. They entered the tomb and saw a young man sitting on the right side. They left and then Jesus appears to Mary.

According to Luke, Mary Magdalene, Johanna, Mary � mother of James and the other women went to the tomb. (Meaning that there were at least 5 women there on that morning.) They went in and suddenly there were two men standing amongst them. Then all 5 women went to tell the disciples and Peter ran to the tomb and saw the clothes that were there.

According to John, Mary (he doesn�t say which one) saw the stone rolled away from the tomb and then went to tell Peter and one other disciple. All three ran back to the tomb. The unnamed disciple got there first, looked in and saw the clothes but, was scared to go in. Peter went in and looked at the clothes then the unnamed disciple follows him. They leave and Mary stays outside the tomb crying. She then looked in the tomb and saw two angels standing there. She then turns around and sees Jesus. She then goes and tells the other disciples of the things she saw.

Now David, I�d like to put this all together into one story that makes sense and keeps all the �facts� intact. But, I want to make sure that we agree on the stories. Before I go further, I want to make sure that you agree that these are the 4 stories told in the 4 aforementioned gospels. Do you agree with my interpretations or should I make some changes?

playtowin

Mar 07 2008, 01:54 PM

Advancing the idea that the historical aspect to Christianity is not important is one of the reasons why we have such a splitered body of believers or "denominations." It has influenced many to take this vein of thought "all the way" to total disbelief. The study of historical reliabitly is nothing more than apologetics, "the defense" of the gospel. This is NOT a new thing, in fact it started as soon as it was introduced. Read 1st Peter 3:15 and you tell me whether it's a new thing or not? You can't defend something without looking into it! Because of technology, the vastness of this field of study is new to us, but not the study itself.

Disreguarding the historical reliability of the bible leads to a "relative theology" where everyone picks and chooses passages as they see fit. It has slithered into the thinking of nearly everyone. Catholics now have a pope who teaches a mixture of intelligent design AND evolutionary theory! Pulpits around the world that teach homosexuality is normal. And for cryin' out loud, you've got Billy Graham teaching that "everyone will be saved whether you believe in Jesus or not!"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/ar...in_page_id=1811 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=447930&in_page_id=181 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axxlXy6bLH0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC2WPR7q4pU&feature=related

At least in part, this warped sense of theology stems from the theory that this book, the bible, is not historically reliable. That we can't trust it COMPLETELY. It leads to religious and moral relativism where there is no standard, no rule, all is up to the individual. God's way is pushed aside for human ideas of "fairness," logic and reasoning. Whether Jesus actually lived or died is not important to this way of thinking because after all, "what parts do I believe and not believe?" Before you know it, you have people adding words to the bible. You have endless misconceptions and delusionary assumptions. People eventually fight harder to discredit God's Word than to understand it.

I agree with you Devo, that ultimately the bible has endured because it is from God. But practically (meaning in space and time, in the human free-will), it has endured because it is a historically reliable text. You take away that aspect and you have exactly what the atheist and skeptics call it, "nothing but lies" or a "power trip" for politcal or financial gains rather than "God's own devised system of redemption."

 Colossians 2:8 - "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."

mugilcephalus

Mar 07 2008, 02:03 PM

So it is or it isn't an absolute truth?

playtowin

Mar 07 2008, 02:28 PM

I am really curious to know from anyone (but especially from believers! lol) "Why do you believe or not believe the bible?"

playtowin

Mar 07 2008, 02:33 PM

Steve, "sea-mullet" (I like that one!), I believe "it is," if by that you mean completely reliable...

playtowin

Mar 08 2008, 06:03 PM

If you saw an angel, would you say, 'I saw an angel.' or would you say 'I saw one angel only .' Just because 'I saw an angel' and 'I saw two angels' don't technically contradict each other, doesn't mean they're the same thing.

 My guess is that both of us have NO CLUE what we would say, let alone what we'd write if someone told us that they saw ANY number of angels. Whether they took the form of mankind or not. In this post you say, "it doesn�t contradict." But the post before you said they are �all different and contradict.� Now, I am asking you, who�s contradicting himself? Please explain to me how that isn't contradictory? This is a perfect example of how, when I show you something, or point out an error in your statements, you just ignore it and move on. Are we not here to discuss these things?

To put it terms we can all understand, if you were playing a round of disc golf and you made two aces during the round, would you tell your wife later that you made an ace or would you tell her that you made two aces?

Your analogy may be simple to understand but it doesn�t reflect ANY of the aspects or show any similarity to the Gospel account. It makes a bold leap from similar math (two angels, two aces) on to different actions by the gospel writers. It's like a forced analogy. This might be more of an accurate analogy or simular story: If four men (4 apostles) followed the pdga tour around for three years straight (the length of Christ�s ministry). Then several years later wrote down first hand eyewitness accounts of what happened (like the Gospel accounts) on one day during a tourney (the day He arose) where a guy hit two aces (resurrection), I believe we would have four distinct perspectives (just like the 4 Gospels) describing the two aces you are talking about! Do you see how your analogy doesn't align itself with the story? It only goes as far as the math goes? Do you see how you have assumed that the writers said things that they never claimed? Can I get an Amen brutha? lol

 You can bet anything you own that if I saw two angels, I would say 'I saw two angels and not 'I saw an angel'.

 That is a bet I would take any day, and twice on Sundays, because in Hebrews 13:2 it indicates that you may have already met angels and didn�t even know it! I've already told you, that most of the recordings of angels in the bible were dealing with angels that took on the form of a human being. Therefore, you have no clue what you'd say. I don't think you know what you'd say if they came in an angelic form, whatever that is.

Also, the writers NEVER SAID, �they saw the angels.� Once again, you have added words and thoughts into the bible to support your preconceived belief that it is contradictory and ultimately a lie. While recording the accounts, they just say, "this or that happened." Dan, I can make any document say what I want it to if I just add words to it! The question is, will you ignore this logical conclusion, or address it? They just wrote what had happened from eyewitness accounts. Dan I am asking the question, do you not see how you are interjecting words and thoughts into the writers acounts that are not there?

But, for the sake of argument, let's ignore these semantical points for a bit and focus on the real argument at hand.

 These are serious charges you are making. And now that I�ve answered your specific questions and have offered more than adequate possibilities you say �lets ignore these �semantical� points? I�m sorry, but that�s not how it works. I really don�t mean to be an attack dog here. I really do pray that you would come to believe in God. Daily! But are we not discussing this? Why do you pose the questions and throw out bold claims if you are just going to ignore the answers and avoid admitting anything when your claims are shown to be false? If my responses are too long for you, then simply ask fewer questions and make fewer bold claims! These are not just semantics, they were and are your claims that the bible is ultimately �a lie� (your words, not mine) and not to be trusted. I've shown you that they don't contradict each other, only show diferent details of the same story from the perspective of each writer. When are you going to say you understand that? You can pm me if you like... 

According to you, every word in the Bible is true. That means every word of the 4 gospels is true, right?

I believe in the Word of God, cover to cover, absolutely. Can I explain it all? Heck no! Do I understand it all? NO WAY! I don't even like it all! I like what Mark Twain said:

 "It's not the parts I don't understand that bother me, it's the parts that I do!" 

Now, I read these gospels myself. I didn't go to a website to research. I just picked up my Bible and started reading. After reading, here�s what I think they say happened on the morning of the resurrection.

 I am not being ugly by saying this Dan, but I seriously doubt that. The day before you posted these so-called �biblical contradictions,� you posted two web sites dedicated to so-called �biblical contradictions.� Are you now saying that you copied and pasted those two web sites without even reading them? Do you always post web sites that you've never read? They just somehow appeared on your computer screen and you decided to post them? You didn�t do any �research at all? The timeline alone doesn�t make sense. If these are your own questions and so called �biblical contradictions� than you must be a psychic, because that is almost word for word what those sites are saying! Mmm Kay Hmm? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif 

According to Matthew, there was an earthquake and an angel appeared, rolled back the stone covering the entrance and then sat on it. This frightened the keepers (guards?) so much that they �became as dead men�. (Passed out?) Mary Magdalene and the other Mary showed up and the angel told them that Jesus was risen and they should go tell the others. Jesus then appears to the women after they had gone from the tomb.

According to Mark, Mary Magdalene, Mary � mother of James and Salome were there and the stone was already rolled away when they got there. They entered the tomb and saw a young man sitting on the right side. They left and then Jesus appears to Mary.

According to Luke, Mary Magdalene, Johanna, Mary � mother of James and the other women went to the tomb. (Meaning that there were at least 5 women there on that morning.) They went in and suddenly there were two men standing amongst them. Then all 5 women went to tell the disciples and Peter ran to the tomb and saw the clothes that were there.

According to John, Mary (he doesn�t say which one) saw the stone rolled away from the tomb and then went to tell Peter and one other disciple. All three ran back to the tomb. The unnamed disciple got there first, looked in and saw the clothes but, was scared to go in. Peter went in and looked at the clothes then the unnamed disciple follows him. They leave and Mary stays outside the tomb crying. She then looked in the tomb and saw two angels standing there. She then turns around and sees Jesus. She then goes and tells the other disciples of the things she saw.

Now David, I�d like to put this all together into one story that makes sense and keeps all the �facts� intact. The only question is, with or without ANY conjecture of inference. Remember, you ARE dealing with a historical issue, not a scientific one! But, I want to make sure that we agree on the stories. Before I go further, I want to make sure that you agree that these are the 4 stories told in the 4 aforementioned gospels. Do you agree with my interpretations or should I make some changes?

 I believe I know exactly where you are going. This isn�t my first rodeo Dan. Just go ahead, you don�t need me to affirm your synopsis to do what you are about to do. The slight differences in your �gospel accounts in a nutshell� as compared to �my take� won�t make a bit of difference in what you are going to do. Your upcoming attempt to "put it all together is only going to reveal your disregard for what has already been explained. It won't show contradiction, but it will show 4 different men, with 4 different sets of details concerning the same story. Once again, simply because one writer chooses to focus on one aspect of a story, doesn't mean it is contradictory of another. However, this will not stop you from trying to make it look that way! If I am wrong and you somehow aren�t going to string all 4 accounts together to give the mere appearance of contradiction, then I will be surprised and will look forward to reading something completely different from you. I will admit that I read you wrong and also explain why, by quoting you! :eek:

Thank you for your interest in these and many other topics Dan. I enjoy discussing it with you and appreciate the opportunity to share in more ways than you know. As you continue to ask questions, I hope that these answers are helping if only to spark more interest. As we go along though, I would really appreciate it if you wouldn�t ignore the answers so quickly before you come up with more. I rarely if ever hear back from you as specifically as I do for you. It�s as if you don�t really want answers, you simply want to �rattle the cage� and watch what happens, then rattle it some more. You have made some very serious charges concerning the bible; it�s writers and God in general. I hope that intellectually, if only for yourself, if only in your private thoughts, you can begin to see how you have been inaccurate concerning these specific questions and claims.

lux4prez

Mar 09 2008, 12:25 AM

Why is it that whenever someone asks "why do you believe in God" that non-believers come out of the wood work to try and break down the Bible and the religion? This person was simply asking "why do you believe". I am neither a believer nor atheist, but I think a person has the right believe in a higher power, no matter what the deity is.

switzerdan

Mar 09 2008, 04:40 AM

switzerdan

Mar 09 2008, 06:04 AM

We're going to have to agree to disagree here.

They saw one man/angel/ace is not the same as they saw two men/angels/aces.

At the very least one of them is not telling the whole truth. If something is not the truth, it is a lie - even if it's a lie of omission. And a lie by omission - consciously or not - is still a lie.

You're right, there should certainly be some difference in the stories of 4 men who are writing about the same things. However, there should also be agreement on the most important details - especially details about the event that is the foundation of Christianity. And whether there were two angels or one angel is a pretty big detail in my mind. As are such details like who was there and was Jesus there or did he show up later.

Those links that I posted were on another thread in respnonse to another question/comment. They have nothing to do with what I have asked here.

However, what I wrote about the 4 gospels on this thread were my conclusions after I read the biblical accounts. Sorry to burst your bubble but, before I posted that last part about the resurrection stories, I specifically read Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24 and John 20. Maybe it sounds a lot like something on a website because it's a correct reading of the resurrection accounts in the gospels. At least I think it is.

So if all this happened that morning, what is the whole story? I'd really like to know what you think happened. What is the story that works to make all of the acounts true? (Please read that as a serious question and not as an attempt to be a smart###. I really would like to know what you think happened.)

playtowin

Mar 09 2008, 07:51 PM

We're going to have to agree to disagree here.

They saw one man/angel/ace is not the same as they saw two men/angels/aces. The four Gospel writers were not sitting outside the tomb with pen and paper Dan! They recorded the eyewitness accounts of those who saw what took place. Once again, you have four different writers, four different perspectives, four different sets of details written down. None of them discredit the others, they simply tell the story from a different person. Once you understand that, you will understand my answer to your question at the bottom of this post... 

At the very least one of them is not telling the whole truth. If something is not the truth, it is a lie - even if it's a lie of omission. And a lie by omission - consciously or not - is still a lie. "At least one?" Try none! Not one of Gospels tell the WHOLE true account. My book shelves could not hold all the details of His life and ministry. I believe there is a scripture that says something to that effect, I'm drawing a blank... Oh well, ya can't include all the details! ;)

If I told someone that the Molinari-rail system is how people got around in your home town in Switzerland, would I be lying? No! I simply wouldn't be giving every detail that there is concerning ALL the modes of transportation in Wiesendangen! Doesn't make me a liar! 

You're right, there should certainly be some difference in the stories of 4 men who are writing about the same things. Thank you! However, oh boy! there should also be agreement on the most important details - especially details about the event that is the foundation of Christianity. And whether there were two angels or one angel is a pretty big detail in my mind. As are such details like who was there and was Jesus there or did he show up later. Dude! lol, I know this has been said about ten times now, but you are still ignoring it. Even after you just said "there certainly should be differences." these are four different writers recording eyewitness accounts of an event that took place many years before they wrote it down! Four different people! They didn't all tour together! They didn't all throw for "Gateway!" (had to pick one! Sounded biblical!) They were all four writing different details from different perspectives from different sources. Also, they wrote seperately, not all in one room! Over several years between them, nearly 40 years from the first, to John! You are not dealing with science, you are dealing with history. Different realm of study, different methods deductive reasoning.

Let me ask you a question: Have you ever stopped to consider the incredible amount of simularity of the Gospels, let alone the bible as a whole? Even under your definition of what is "similar" it blows the mind! The exactness of prophecy, sometimes over thousands of years? How each book works together to unfold the story, by writers from different generations, decades, even centuries apart? These weren't professional writers. Over 40 writers with diverse backgrounds over a period of about 1,500 years!!! Think about that? There were fishermen, a tax collector, a tent maker, a shepard, priests, kings, and prophets. All writing about the one true God. ( http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-authors.html ).Not only that, have you ever stopped to think of what would have been needed to pull all these men together and colaborate such a devine hoax? Seriously, in light of all the evidence, I believe it takes a lot more faith to believe it's a lie than the truth! 

Those links that I posted were on another thread in respnonse to another question/comment. So? Does that mean you never read them before you posted them? If you did, then you read exactly what you wrote here a day later! Did you, or did you not read them before you posted them on the obsession thread? Dan, you either read them before you posted here and what you posted here is the exact thing in those links! Or, you didn't read them, but posted them as links to offer up evidence for biblical contradictions! Which is it? They have nothing to do with what I have asked here. Sure doesn't look that way... oh well, doesn't really matter. 

However, what I wrote about the 4 gospels on this thread were my conclusions after I read the biblical accounts. That's funny, cuz they read just like the links on THAT THREAD! Sorry to burst your bubble but, before I posted that last part about the resurrection stories, I specifically read Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24 and John 20. Maybe it sounds a lot like something on a website because it's a correct reading of the resurrection accounts in the gospels. At least I think it is. I never questioned whether you read the Gospels or not, only whether you read the links you posted or not. 

So if all this happened that morning, what is the whole story? I'd really like to know what you think happened. What is the story that works to make all of the acounts true? (Please read that as a serious question and not as an attempt to be a smart###. I really would like to know what you think happened.) All four of the Gospels combined still do not contain everything that Jesus did. He did a lot! Each contain different perspectives and varying amounts of details about the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. Together we get a very detailed look into the life of Jesus. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16) It's all you need burtha...

As always, thanks for being here and letting me share with you. I hope you can begin to respond more directly to the things I've taken the time to ask you about and coment on. You continue to ignore many questions and corrections that I've made clear. I make it a point to reply to your posts with specific and intentional answers. As I've said, if my posts are too long, just say so, you seem to forget or simlpy gloss over alot of material that is very useful to the point we are discussing. You ask questions and are given answers, but there is no response to most of them. You make bold biblical claims, but when you are shown how they don't fit into the text, you simply get quiet on them. What's up with that? Anyway, thanks for being here, and thanks for the opportunity to share a few things...

switzerdan

Mar 09 2008, 08:23 PM

switzerdan

Mar 09 2008, 08:44 PM

The links I posted were in response to the links you posted about contradictions in the Qu'ran. Have you read the Qu'ran? Do you know those contradictions exist? Have you gone to any other sites and seen Muslim apologetics try to defend them? Or did you find the link, read the contradictions and simply decide the Qu'ran is a flawed book? At any rate, those links are a red herring. They have absolutely nothing to do with the one issue I have brought up on this thread.

I'm sorry that you don't approve of my choice of words regarding what happened in the four gospels. But, like it or not, they are my words based on my readings.

All I've tried to talk about on this thread is the morning of the resurrection based on the biblical accounts. Can we please stick to this one point?

You still haven't answered the one real question I've asked. What do you think happened on the morning of the resurrection? That's it. Nothing else. I'm not talking about other issues in the Bible. I'm not talking NT God vs. OT God. There's other things in the Bible we can discuss but, for now, the only thing I want to know is your detailed opinion about what happened on the morning of the resurrection. How did it happen so that all that the four gospels say is true?

playtowin

Mar 09 2008, 11:40 PM

If I told someone that the Molinari-rail system is how people got around in your home town in Switzerland, would I be lying? No! I simply wouldn't be giving every detail that there is concerning ALL the modes of transportation in Wiesendangen! Doesn't make me a liar!

Actually, in this case, you would be lying. Molinari is a small company in Wiesendangen that has absolutely nothing to do with the one train line we have in Wiesendangen.

Molinari, founded in 1994, builds small private train lines. Our train line in Wiesendangen is public, is operated by the SBB, and was first built in the late 19th century.

 Actually, in that case, I'd be mistaken, not a liar! I obviously was just trying to relate an analogy to something you are familiar with. Anyone could see that. My intentions were obvious and your blatant disregard for them is very juvenile.

playtowin

Mar 09 2008, 11:57 PM

Your ACTIONS were juvenile, NOT YOU personally. I've been down this road with you before, you have made it to where I HAVE TO clarify everything I say.

playtowin

Mar 10 2008, 02:38 AM

The links I posted were in response to the links you posted about contradictions in the Qu'ran. So? I never questioned WHY you posted them, neither has anyone else. Have you read my posts? The answer to your question is there. Have you read the Qu'ran? Yes, I have studied it off and on for about twenty years, how about you? Do you know those contradictions exist? Yes, do you know? I also know WHY I believe the Quran to be false and have shown that on the "obsession" thread. Have you gone to any other sites and seen Muslim apologetics try to defend them? Yes, have you? Many years ago, I began reading in book form the things I now find on websites that support the Quran. Likewise, back then of course, the anti-information was in book form too. Now a days, I can find much more of it, and in much more researchable forms like: ( http://www.carm.org/islam/Koran_contradictions.htm) The majority of my study of Islam has been in book form or conversations with Muslims or former Muslims who have turned to Christianity. That is, until recent years, the computer has made it much easier to study, but also much easier to be misled. I'll be honest with you though, I think you retain more information by reading books then the internet. You also are more particular in what you read when you have to buy the book with your own money. Or did you find the link, read the contradictions and simply decide the Qu'ran is a flawed book? No, I've known why I don't believe the Quran for about 20 years now. The reasons why it is a flawed book are not hard to point out. How 'bout you? At any rate, those links are a red herring. They have absolutely nothing to do with the one issue I have brought up on this thread. No one said they did! If you actually read my last two posts then you would plainly see exactly what I said, and what I did not say concerning you and those links you posted. Your attempt to put words in my mouth is very odd since all you or anyone has to do is scroll back and read! 

I'm sorry that you don't approve of my choice of words regarding what happened in the four gospels. I never said "I don't approve of your choice of words." How can you keep doing this? But, like it or not, they are my words based on my readings. I know, and have never said otherwise!!! I simply pointed out, three times now, that you said those things A DAY AFTER you posted those links. So you either didn't read them, but posted them anyway. Or you read them, and a day later, wrote exactly what those links say! Stroke! Retee! 

All I've tried to talk about on this thread is the morning of the resurrection based on the biblical accounts. Blatantly not true... Can we please stick to this one point? Funny, those questons above don't have anything to do with the gospels! Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle! 

You still haven't answered the one real question I've asked. What do you think happened on the morning of the resurrection? I sure did! You even said you read it! That's it. Nothing else. I'm not talking about other issues in the Bible. I'm not talking NT God vs. OT God. No one ever said you did. There's other things in the Bible we can discuss but, for now, the only thing I want to know is your detailed opinion about what happened on the morning of the resurrection. How did it happen so that all that the four gospels say is true? Your question has already been answered, repetedly. You obviously own a "detailed" copy of my opinion! By the way, if you have a copy of the NIV, ASV or NASV you will be reading an exact copy of my personal opinion of the Gospel accounts and how they all fit together. I study mostly from the NIV Thompson Chain Reference bible and the NIV "Study Bible." I would prefer NASV but most people use the NIV and that is close enough in most cases so I try to stick with what others are reading.

Dan, you keep avoiding any of the answers I give you. You avoid answering any of my quesitons. You keep putting words in my mouth, when anyone can clearly look back and read that I never said these things. You keep putting words and thoughts into the Gospel accounts. I've given you my answer, it is the combination of the 4 Gospel accounts that gives you the most complete picture of what happened. You used to get under my skin, now I just feel for ya, you don't know what you are missing, and by your last response, I doubt you've made the slightest effort to understand the answers to your questions. You prove this point repetedly by asking a question, then ignoring the answer. You did this over and over on the "Jesus" thread too. Why do you ask the questions if you aren't going to read the answers?

lauranovice

Mar 10 2008, 11:42 AM

I believe the Bible was written by men inspired by God to write what they were inspired to write. I believe the Bible was written many hundreds of years ago and has been translated serval times.
I believe that many of the stories contained in the Bible remained the same throughout these translations. Of course some details or words are different because of the different translations. I have not studied the ancient translations. However, in some church classes, we have heard that the original word for such and such was thus and such.
Sometimes, when you put something in the context of that day in time it will change the meaning of what you would natually think putting something in today's context. Additionally, you can find differences throughout the Bible in some details. However, you can also find some similariites in the Bible and also in the books other religions (Judism and Muslim) are based upon as well.
Additionally, much of what is written has been proven to have happened with some scientific evidence to back it up.
Some of what I believe differs slightly from what others believe. However, the core belief is the same.
God created the world and all that is within it.
God did so out of love.
God created man in his own image. I choose to believe that not to mean that we all look like God, but that we were given free will and the ability to make choices, like God.
Because God gave us this capability, we sometimes make bad choices. This began waaay back in the Garden of Eden. God tried punishment, taking priliges away...banishment from the Garden. That didn't work. People still make bad choices. Even after the great flood, the children of Noah still sometimes make bad choices. We all fall short of the glory of God and sin. Therefore, out of this love He has for us, He gave His Son to take the punishment for all our sin and die a horrible death on the cross. If we have faith and believe in Him, we will not perish, but have eternal life in Heaven.
So, in answer to your question, Dave, I believe the Bible for the following reasons:
1) faith
2) nothing to disprove it -- some to prove it
3) so many others believe
4) I like what it says

lauranovice

Mar 10 2008, 12:11 PM

Dan, I don't know. I guess what we choose to take as the important details differ.
I don't really know whether there was one, two or twenty angels at the tomb. I don't really know whether it was just Mary, mother of James, or if Mary Magdelene was there too, and possibly a couple other Marys.
I don't consider who and exactly how many were there to be as important as what they experienced.
Dave brought the comparison of an ace or two.
I differ. I've only had one ace...it would probably get me into the papers again if I had two in one round. :D
However, I would compare the Bible and its contents to the writings of Elie Wiesel. In just another generation there will be no one left to give an eyewitnes account of the Holocaust. Will our great-grandchildren think that Nazi Germany was just blown out of proportion? Will it matter how many people died in the gas chambers? What if Elie Wiesel's numbers and experiences differ from those of Viktor Frankl or any other survivors that wrote of his or her experiences? Would that mean that the Holocaust did not happen? There are some that claim that already. This is just as real to me and just as important. We cannot forget it happened! What if some claim that Frankl only spent 3 days at Auschwitz? Does that mean that nothing bad really happened there? So what if some argue on the numbers? There were still many that died in those camps.
Jesus still died for my sins and then rose from the dead so I may have eternal life in Heaven with our God, no matter the numbers.
BTW, I welcome you back also :) and hope all is well with you.

switzerdan

Mar 10 2008, 02:01 PM

Perhaps the fault lies with me for not wording my question properly. Let me try again.

Imagine you are a film director and you are trying to film an accurate depiction of the events on the morning of the resurrection. How would you block this? Where would everyone be when the scene is taking place? When do the characters enter and exit the scene?

Would you please do me a favor and describe, in your own words as much as possible, how this scene should be done.

Lyle O Ross

Mar 10 2008, 03:42 PM

playtowin

Mar 10 2008, 04:09 PM

No, the fault lies with you not reading the answers you are given. There's no need for you to try to reword your question. It was fully understood and answered. Your complete refusal to read the answers and ignore the implications of them, IMO, is the reason why you keep asking the same questions in different ways.

Imagine you are a bible student and not just an antagonist. You are trying to understand the Gospel story concerning the events on the morning of the resurrection. How could you do it? Where would you find the pieces to the puzzle that you are having a hard time understanding? Is there anywhere you could, I don't know, "scroll back" and find the solution? Has anyone shown you, recently, how to explain the specific problems you personally see with the narratives? Have you even tried to understand the answers you were given?

The issues you have with the so-called "contradictions" in the Gospels were fully explained to you earlier. YOU HAVE COMPLETELY IGNORED THEM THOUGH. You really expect me to construct a synopsis of the Gospel accounts? Give me a break! You haven't listened to a word I said about this, what difference would it make? I could be wrong, but IMO you are an antagonist. I don't believe you are looking for answers. If you were really looking for answers, guess what, you've been given them, but you refuse to look at them. This isn't a matter of "you just don't agree with the answers" because you don't even respond to the answers you are given! There is nothing in your responses that would lead me to believe you are actually looking for answers. Just exactly what you are doing isn't clear, but this much I can see.

The Gospels as a whole contain all that we have available to explain what happened in the life and ministry of Jesus. They are enough for us to know what happened and believe. I have explained ad nauseam how the writers never intended for all four gospels to be strung together like a Hollywood script. Rather all four apostles wrote their accounts from their individual perspectives, from firsthand eyewitness accounts with varying details, which any four writers would do. Over a time span as much as 40 years apart as in the case of Luke a.d.50 vs. John a.d.80 - 90. Each writer had their own distinct writing style and way of describing what was seen and reported to have been seen. You Dan, have completely ignored all of this and much, much more to pose the question once again.

Get this, please! If you really are in fact wanting to know the answers to these questions that you keep rewording, then simply go back and read! When I made the intentional decision to let my faith be known on this thread the idea that these words would still be here to be looked at, scrutinized and examined came to mind. That hasn't changed Dan. I take the time to answer your questions with that thought in mind. If you think my answers are long, you have no idea how long they would be if I gave you all the info that is relevant. Someone who is actually wanting the answers and not just antagonizing and playing "intellectual 52 card pick up" (wasting time) would know that they have plenty to study and reflect on. You do not take the time to investigate and consider any of this. That's what an antagonist does! The answers don't seem to matter to you as much as your ability to provoke a response. I would suggest you move on to another topic because this one, at least the "morning in question" has been answered. Just because you refuse to read and study the answer doesn't mean it wasn't given.

lauranovice

Mar 10 2008, 04:14 PM

SCARY! It is proof that the Relgious Right is still in power in the Republican party.
How many more wars are we going to start or intensify?
There is a difference, by the way, between being a Christian and being a part of the Religous Right.
The liberal left has Christians too. I think one of the biggest differences between the typical Republican and the typical Democrat is that the Republicans tend to march lock-step, whereas the Democrats are more like herding cats. We think for ourselves and have as many ideas as there are members. Our meetings, caucuses, tend to last longer because it takes longer to get to a consensus on platform issues.
Most of this post belongs on another, more politically charged, thread. I apologize. Religion and politics, two of my favorite subjects. I tend to identify more with the sojourners. See their website: www.sojo.net. (http://www.sojo.net.) Like myself, they believe our God is a God of love and compassion and therefore try to behave in a like manner.

playtowin

Mar 10 2008, 04:20 PM

Lyle O Ross

Mar 10 2008, 04:35 PM

Lyle,

John Hagee does not represent me or anything presented thus far on this thread Lyle. Your attempt to "fuel the fire" is pathetic, but nothing new! You've done it elsewhere and it's been shown to be a very feeble attempt to distort what is being discussed. You are consistent though. However being illogically consistent isn't much to be proud of.

YAWN!

I don't recall addressing my post to you Player? Perhaps this is the reason you think Dan isn't reading your posts, you're not reading his? Since this thread is for "Biblical discussion" if I so chose to cover the topic with another poster here, that is my business. As for discussing it with you, I'd rather not.

Anyway Dan,

This piece shows how the conservative right is reading and interpreting the bible these days. It shows how they view Catholicism (as non-Christian); it is truly dogmatic and scary but very informative.

playtowin

Mar 10 2008, 04:49 PM

John Hagee is a tv evanglist that does not speak for anyone I know of thus far on this thread. He is a part of the ever growing so called Christian "mega church" movement. Some call it the "emergant church" some simply call it "false doctrine." I simply avoid it at all cost.

http://falseteachersexposed.blogspot.com/2008/01/john-hagee-claims-jesus-did-not-come-to.html

lauranovice

Mar 10 2008, 04:54 PM

You didn't address it to me, either, but thanks...I knew McCain could not make it without the endorsement of the RR. The RR has stated Catholicism is not Christian. My dad always lived by there being only two ways to do something...his way or the wrong way. These guys do the same thing. There are way too many gray areas in everything for anything to be completely that black and white. The Bible is full of discrepencies. The Bible was written in a manner in which many parts may be interpreted many ways. Dan is correct on that.
That is the reason that part of the equation has to include faith.

playtowin

Mar 10 2008, 05:04 PM

That's what a PM is for Lyle! This is a public forum. Do not expect your attempts to trash "Biblical Christianity" to be ignored in a public forum, where it is anyones business who chooses to read. Dan is ignoring my posts because he chooses to. I have read every word of his posts and have responded publically to every question he has asked. A common courtesy that he does not show towards me. You are not covering the topic of biblical discussion, you are balatantly trying to make a connection between Hagee and anything remotely considered "Christian" or "conservative." That is obvious to anyone! You, however would never admit it, even if your post were right there for all to see! You weren't "discussing" anything. You were "slinging mud" around and you know it.

playtowin

Mar 10 2008, 05:29 PM

Laura, the biblical evidence simply doesn't support such a "loose" view of scripture. It says you can "know" the truth. Not "I think, you might, I suppose, maybe, sometimes, in my oppinion, wonder what it is." lol That reasoning is exactly why you have radical folks like Hagee. There is a pattern or standard in the Word of God. There is an "identity" which can be duplicated (II Tim. 1:13) and that is why God has given it to us. Why else would they continue in the apostles teaching? (Acts 2:42) Jesus didn't just pray that the apostles who wrote the words to be unified, but for those who read it. (John 17:20-21) Read this scripture in John and ask yourself "these people Jesus wanted to be united, how were they to do that?" Through the Word!

Lyle O Ross

Mar 10 2008, 05:34 PM

Yes, but your reply indicated that you thought I was addressing the post to you. If I recall, you came back with, I have nothing to do with Hagee or his ministry, or some such, almost as if you thought I was linking you to this movement. I simply pointed out that I wasn't. My post wasn't addressed to you nor did I mention your name. I'm glad you think the ministry is appalling, so do I.

As for the nature of the post, yes, I intended it for public consumption, yet again though, I wasn't addressing you or your beliefs. Hence my comment that you may not be understanding as much as you think you are.

Do you think Mr. Hagee's ministry is irrelevant? His church has 18,000 members and he claims to reach another 100,000. He has letters from our President and has endorsed John McCain in person in public. He is the founder of CUFI, an organization that has great political influence. He does indeed interpret the bible, possibly very differently from you, and he scares the be-jesus out of me. That makes him a very interesting topic for the Bible DISCussion thread IMO.

Perhaps it's that you think anything posted on this thread should be addressed to you, or indeed is posted to you? If so, let me apologize, I thought this was a public forum?

Lyle O Ross

Mar 10 2008, 05:40 PM

BTW - Since you've opened the discussion, Hagee believes the bible was inspired by God also, he believes his interpretation is clear and infallible. He speaks out clearly on his message and believes there is no interpretation possible, i.e. the bible is literal, and yet he comes to a very different conclusion than you do. Perhaps you can comment on his view from your perspective. Why is his view wrong and less than yours? Is he being misled?

switzerdan

Mar 10 2008, 05:40 PM

lauranovice

Mar 10 2008, 05:55 PM

Oh, I know the truth. I apologize if I indicated I don't. However, I believe that having a relationship with God AND reading the whole book is what allows me to know the truth. I don't think anyone could read parts or even the whole Bible and by doing that alone without the faith and relationship have knowledge of the truth.
The Bible is written in a manner in which Hagee, et al, can interpret as they wish. It is written in a manner in which it has been used to support atrocities against humanity...the Crusades, slavery, the subordination of women...
Of course, most written words can be used to mean whatever the reader wants to use them to substantiate. It is just that stating it is the word of God that helps to lead such movements.
I can't imagine exactly what it would be like to read the Bible with the sole intenet of finding scriptures to have someone follow me and lead them away from God, but I know it can be done because it has been done. Let's just go to my junior year in high school when the guy I lost my virginity to found scripture to show that we should have sex.
It takes more than just reading scriptures. It takes prayer and a relationship with God to fully understand the scriptures and the truth.

playtowin

Mar 10 2008, 06:16 PM

Perhaps it's that you think anything posted on this thread should be addressed to you, or indeed is posted to you? If so, let me apologize, I thought this was a public forum?

Line of the day!

playtowin

Mar 10 2008, 06:18 PM

switzerdan

Mar 10 2008, 07:02 PM

Dan is ignoring my posts because he chooses to. I have read every word of his posts and have responded publically to every question he has asked.

One more time. In your own words, please tell me what happened on the morning of the resurrection. Please give as many details as are needed to include all aspects of this story as contained in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

I don't want a link. I don't want an explanation of why you think this isn't necessary. I am simply asking you to put together this timeline for me. Will you or won't you?

 I won't, and here is why: I ALREADY DID!

I've reread all your posts on this thread just to make sure I didn't miss something. Sorry, but not once in all your posts on this thread have I seen, in your own words, what you think happened on the morning of the resurrection in a timeline or story form that makes all the gospels true.

I saw this:

The Gospels as a whole contain all that we have available to explain what happened in the life and ministry of Jesus. They are enough for us to know what happened and believe. I have explained ad nauseam how the writers never intended for all four gospels to be strung together like a Hollywood script. Rather all four apostles wrote their accounts from their individual perspectives, from firsthand eyewitness accounts with varying details, which any four writers would do. Over a time span as much as 40 years apart as in the case of Luke a.d.50 vs. John a.d.80 - 90. Each writer had their own distinct writing style and way of describing what was seen and reported to have been seen. You Dan, have completely ignored all of this and much, much more to pose the question once again.

but no timeline. Sorry, David. Yell until you are blue in the face if you want. However, you have not answered my question as it was asked..

switzerdan

Mar 10 2008, 08:03 PM

playtowin

Mar 10 2008, 10:56 PM

but no timeline. Sorry, David. Yell until you are blue in the face if you want. However, you have not answered my question as it was asked..

 Just because I didn't answer your question with the answer YOU wanted, doesn't mean I didn't answer it!

You have all the information to piece it together if it means this much to you. Even "as I would" because, once again, I've answered your so-called "contradictions." All you would need to do is read the Gospels and when you get to what you call a "contradiction," just refer to my answers. Then you can attempt to make my "detailed version" look as contradictory as you want! Then, when I show you how they aren't contradictions, you can ignore me AGAIN? No thanks...

BTW, using caps isn't "yelling" at you IMO! It is simply to get the point across because I don't know how to use the "bold" option. Like: Why can't you answer any of MY QUESTIONS?

switzerdan

Mar 11 2008, 03:39 AM

David, you answered my contradictions by posting a link to a website that I went to and read. It gave me the semantical argument for there not being contradictions in the 4 resurrection stories. I then asked if you combine the 4 stories into 1 cohehrent story that fits. You have refused to do this. It's not that you've haven't answered my question the way I want - it's that you haven't answered my question.

You really expect me to construct a synopsis of the Gospel accounts? Give me a break!

I have explained ad nauseam how the writers never intended for all four gospels to be strung together like a Hollywood script.

Yes, David, you have posted links that attempt to explain the discrepancies. You've said, at least, that you think there were two angels there. (Not where they were, but at least that they were there.) But, other than that, you have not answered my questions.

(To put things in bold letters, use the UBB code.)

playtowin

Mar 11 2008, 04:41 AM

Dan,

I found some well done narratives of all four Gospel accounts put into one. They are narratives of "just what took place that morning." Nothin' else! After reading and researching their work, I don't think you have a clue what you have been demanding of me! I could have come up with something quickly, but in order to do it properly, it would have taken about a week. Sorry man, but the job is already done by someone else and I can't improve on it! Nor would I like to try, or even come up with "my own version." It's just not an issue with me.

You were NOT just asking me "a question." In reality, you were demanding me to do a lot of work. I'm sorry, but judging by the way you treat everything else I share with you, why would I do that? You don't even have the common courtesy of answering my simple questions. Or even responding when you are shown to be wrong about anything. Now, you are demanding that I take the time to put together a single story by stringing together all four of the Gospels? All of that so you can twist it around and say it contradicts itself when it doesn't? All of that so you can ignore any principals of historical study, not to mention any understanding of what the Gospel accounts are? Seriously, you've got to be kidding me!

You don't need to be demanding anything from me Dan, you need to humble yourself before God and seek His Wisdom, not petty debates with me. You told me "you wish you could believe in God." Well, you can, but you have to stop hiding behind whatever it is that means more to you right now. He rewards those who seek after Him with humility...

If you care to push "reset" between you and me, I'm all for it. I just think you should treat the answers HALF as importantly as you want poeple to think the questions are. I've got no regrets concerning my dealing with you, even if you never agree with one word I share. It's never for nothing...

Grog

Mar 11 2008, 07:41 AM

Hey Dan,

Here's something for you to watch. It's a PBS piece on a televangelist named John Hagee. Mr. Hagee is the current face of evangelicalism in America. You will be glad you're where you are after you watch this...

www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03072008/watch.html (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03072008/watch.html)

Hell Lyle, you need to be in this town with those 17000 followers. Can you say baaa! The man lived in a guarded, gated, community with all the other top 2% income earners in this town and these people were concerned for his safety. I guess they were afraid some one would beat him with stock certificates or something. I just wonder what is next for him. The private self named university or the private compound in Waco.

switzerdan

Mar 11 2008, 10:43 AM

Sorry if I was demanding a lot of work from you. I assumed (incorrectly as it turns out) that, since you accepted these events as fact and since you realized that the 4 accounts differed, that you would have already combined these events for yourself at some point and would just have to type it out for me in your words.

At the very least, could you post a couple of links so I can read what you think a good harmonization is. I've read some on my own. All I have to say about the ones I've read is that there are a lot of liberties taken and assumptions made to fit all the events into one cohesive story. Perhaps the ones you've read are better.

switzerdan

Mar 11 2008, 11:18 AM

And now for something completely different.

Matthew 2:1 says, "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem."

Luke 2:1-7 clearly says that when Jesus was born Quirinius (Cyrenius) was the governor of Syria.

Fact 1: Herod died in 4 BC.

Fact 2: Quirinius(Cyrenius) was the governor of Syria only from 6 AD until 12 AD.

How is this not a contradiction?

Lyle O Ross

Mar 11 2008, 11:45 AM

lauranovice

Mar 11 2008, 12:02 PM

I appreciate you bringing these to discussion.
not that I normally use Wikipedia as a source of information, but we are short two people at work and everyone here knows I only go on the PDGA site while at work. So, according to Wikipedia, most historians argue that Luke is in error.
However, if the census was the first order of business that was carried out when Quirinius became governor and Jesus was born at the end of Herod's reign, it was only a matter of 10 years. To someone that is arguing the validity, 10 years may seem like a lot. However, when viewed in comparison of the thousands of years that have passed, what is one decaade?
Remember, I am one of the people that states the Bible was inspired by God, written by men that were inspired by God and translated many times before dervied at a language and dialect to which I understand it. I expect some details to be different. Is there anywhere in the Bible where the key plot/story is contradicted?
Also, Luke was not one of the twelve apostles. He was a follower after he heard Paul preaching. Therefore, I would think that Matthew, one of the apostles that saw Jesus and followed Jesus personally would have a more accurate account of Jesus' birthdate. It is also agreed by most that December 25 is most likely NOT the date of Jesus' birth, but just a convenient date to celebrate. It is my understanding that it was produced to compete against the Roman pagan celebration of Saturnalia. Actually, Dan, not to connect too many threads here, but some of the illegal aliens from Mexico I know don't know their own birthdate. Many would not be able to give an accurate birth year for themselves. Can't deny they were born, however, and to hit the age within give or take 10 years.

Lyle O Ross

Mar 11 2008, 12:25 PM

I appreciate you bringing these to discussion.
not that I normally use Wikipedia as a source of information, but we are short two people at work and everyone here knows I only go on the PDGA site while at work. So, according to Wikipedia, most historians argue that Luke is in error.
However, if the census was the first order of business that was carried out when Quirinius became governor and Jesus was born at the end of Herod's reign, it was only a matter of 10 years. To someone that is arguing the validity, 10 years may seem like a lot. However, when viewed in comparison of the thousands of years that have passed, what is one decaade?
Remember, I am one of the people that states the Bible was inspired by God, written by men that were inspired by God and translated many times before dervied at a language and dialect to which I understand it. I expect some details to be different. Is there anywhere in the Bible where the key plot/story is contradicted?

I think your view on the subject is a good one Laura, but I think the discussion at hand is that the bible is to be taken literally. That those who wrote it were so divinely inspired that the bible is in actuality, the word of God. There is no room for interpretation. Player, is that interpretation on my part correct?

switzerdan

Mar 11 2008, 12:34 PM

Hi Laura,

The point is that it is argued that the Bible is infallible, when in fact, it is not. If one is going to argue that the Bible is the 100% accurate truth, then one can't say, "Except for that part."

I've got a couple of minutes, so I'm going to preempt a couple of arguments that David is going to throw out - if he's done his research.

1) Quirinius was the governor of Syria twice. This is not true. He was governor one time from 6 AD until 12 AD.

2) Quirinius may have been in Syria during Herod's time and may have helped conduct a similar census in 8 BC. However, Luke specifically says Quirinius was the governor of Syria. He only became governor 10 years after Herod's death. Additionally, in 8 BC Syria did not belong to Rome and would not have been subject to its laws - including a census for tax puposes. Syria only came under direct Roman rule after the death of Herod.

3) Luke has been mistranslated. If this is this case, are there other translations that could also adversely affect the stories?

ANHYZER

Mar 11 2008, 12:48 PM

Lyle O Ross

Mar 11 2008, 01:15 PM

Speaking of Jesus, anyone reading Dilbert this week. Too funny. They have a new employee, Jesus (He-sus). This one could spread across multiple threads including the illegal immigration thread. What would we do if Jesus came to America, after all, he's not a citizen? Let me guess, we make exceptions for deities? :)

playtowin

Mar 11 2008, 02:07 PM

Quoting Dan: 

"Now David, I'd like to put this all together into one story"

"I am simply asking you to put together this timeline for me "

"They... (the Gospels) contradict each other"

"You're right, there should certainly be some difference in the stories of 4 men who are writing about the same things"

"I don't want a link" (concerning a synopsis of the Gospels) 

"could you post a couple of links?"

 All this concerning BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS?

Yeah, I'll get right on your new list of questions! Thanks for ignoring mine by the way... I'm going to play some golf, I've got two C tiers this weekend...

lauranovice

Mar 11 2008, 02:44 PM

It's pronounced hA-sUs.
one of the many reasons I feel we should treat everyone with compassion and respect.
Or are you referring to Jesus from the Middle East? If so, he'd end up in Guantamano Bay.
It kind of reminds me of a song...so lets connect this to even one of John My-Hero's threads and sing-along...

If God had a name, what would it be
And would you call it to his face
If you were faced with him in all his glory
What would you ask if you had just one question

And yeah yeah God is great yeah yeah God is good
yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah

What if God was one of us
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to make his way home

If God had a face what would it look like
And would you want to see
If seeing meant that you would have to believe
In things like heaven and in jesus and the saints and all the prophets

And yeah yeah god is great yeah yeah god is good
yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah

What if God was one of us
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to make his way home
He's trying to make his way home
Back up to heaven all alone
Nobody calling on the phone
Except for the pope maybe in rome

And yeah yeah God is great yeah yeah God is good
yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah

What if god was one of us
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to make his way home
Just trying to make his way home
Like a holy rolling stone
Back up to heaven all alone
Just trying to make his way home
Nobody calling on the phone
Except for the pope maybe in rome

switzerdan

Mar 11 2008, 07:04 PM

Quoting Dan: 

"Now David, I'd like to put this all together into one story"

"I am simply asking you to put together this timeline for me "

So I asked you to do something for me. That doesn't mean that I wasn't continuing to work on it on my own at the same time. Sorry, these don't contradict each other. 

"They... (the Gospels) contradict each other"

"You're right, there should certainly be some difference in the stories of 4 men who are writing about the same things"

 'The boy is tall' and 'The boy is fat' don't contradict each other but, they sure are different. Sorry, don't see the contradiction here either.

"I don't want a link" (concerning a synopsis of the Gospels) 

"could you post a couple of links?"

As always, you are the master of context. One only needs to re-read the thread and see when these were posted and under what circumstances to see that, after apologizing to you for causing you extra work in writing your own synopsis, I asked you to send me some links as you told me you you weren't going to write your own synopsis.

Again, no contradiction here. Simply a change of request with an explanation as to why.

 All this concerning BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS?

 The difference is that, even if the above were contradictions, I have never claimed to be infallible and mistake free 100% of the time.

playtowin

Mar 11 2008, 07:24 PM

So you do know how to go back and read a post and respond to each point! I get it now! You just choose not to respond to posts that don't fit your agenda or ask you questions. I see...

switzerdan

Mar 11 2008, 08:02 PM

switzerdan

Mar 11 2008, 08:20 PM

So you do know how to go back and read a post and respond to each point! I get it now! You just choose not to respond to posts that don't fit your agenda or ask you questions. I see...

David, I apologize if I haven't answered every single question you've asked on this thread. To be perfectly honest, many of them didn't have to with the the topic at hand (the resurrection) in my opinion and many of the ones that did were rhetorical and didn't warrant an answer. If you would like me to answer every question you ask from here on out, I will.
Additionally, I simply realized that we were going down a path of discussion that would have strayed off of one main point and watered down the conversation to the point of uselessness. I don't place the blame for this on you alone but, on both of us. I think the conversation would be more productive if we could focus on one or two issues at a time. That is why I stopped responding in whole to your comments and tried to focus on the resurrection.

Can we agree to limit the conversation to one or two topics at a time?

If we can do this, do you have any comments about the problems with the dates in Matthew and Luke?

And, could you post some links to those harmonizations of the resurrection story? I'm still interested.

playtowin

Mar 12 2008, 02:02 AM

David, I apologize if I haven't answered every single question you've asked on this thread. Smart aleck! To be perfectly honest, many of them didn't have to with the topic at hand And neither do MANY of yours!!! So, does that make this statement of yours hypocritical, or just contradictory? Nevermind, it's "rhetorical!" (the resurrection) in my opinion and many of the ones that did were rhetorical and didn't warrant an answer. If you would like me to answer every question you ask from here on out, I will. That would make a lot of sense. I would, thanks for offering, I will hold you to your word. 
Additionally, I simply realized that we were going down a path of discussion that would have strayed off of one main point and watered down the conversation to the point of uselessness. I wouldn't be to worried about a more complete answer "watering down" the topic. I'd be more concerned with your antagonistic ignoring of questions and evidence that supports my answers. I said it before, I'll say it again, if you aren't going to listen to the answers or the evidence that supports them, then there is no need to ask the questions. I don't place the blame for this on you alone but, on both of us. The blame for what? You not being able to paint me into a corner? LOL Any amount of topic change is not a problem with me Dan, that's your deal. Just because I don't answer the WAY you want, doesn't change the CONTENT of what I am saying to you, or it's validity. I think the conversation would be more productive if we could focus on one or two issues at a time. Exactly what issues are keeping you from looking at the content of my answers Dan? What "issues" are making you ignore my questions? There are reasons for questions Dan, and not all biblical questions are meant to discredit God or His Word!!! That is why I stopped responding in whole to your comments and tried to focus on the resurrection. Not true, and you know it, but it's too late to go back over it all now. You've said you will answer my questions now, so I'll just take what I can get with you... 

Can we agree to limit the conversation to one or two topics at a time? Exactly how have I done otherwise? 

If we can do this, do you have any comments about the problems with the dates in Matthew and Luke? Several, but I can't keep them to YOUR idea of "short." Because whenever I do, I am only leaving the door open for several of your "skeptical rantings" that could have been avoided by a full and adequate answer. Of which, you call "off topic!" Do you see how futile your self imposed perimeters of discussion are? THEY ALONE have made the mess around here. Not my "longer than you want" answers? That's a question I'd LOVE the answer to. If you could just get this point, it would go a long way to making this interaction remotely productive.

Basically, I have no problem with this scripture. It doesn't change my faith in God or His Word one bit. Once again I would strongly suggest you read ( http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/506 ). With special focus on the part called " THE KNOW-HOW: PRINCIPLES FOR DEALING WITH ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS." Cent basically pointed out what I think concerning it earlier. This ( http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/45325 ) does a descent enough job IMO to give a possible answer. It alone may not be enough for a militant skeptic like yourself Dan, but there's your "short" answer.

And, could you post some links to those harmonizations of the resurrection story? I'm still interested.

 Here is one ( http://www.shoutingman.com/bible/harmony/index.html ) that has several options I find interesting. Once again, for a skeptic like yourself, it alone may not be enough, but it's a start. I can't find the other one I liked, but if you have any interest at all in actually learning something, rather than just refuting and arguing Dan, I have given you enough links and pasages to last you weeks! Of course, learning any of this doesn't seem to be something you are interested in, just bashing God, His Word, and the beliefs of those who follow and teach Christianity. You've stated in a previous thread that your mission is the same as Dawkins, which has nothing to do with learning the information you ask for, only distain and contempt for everything it stands for. Good on ya anyway Dan.

I pray that one day you will seek Him as earnestly as you seek to discredit Him now...

ANHYZER

Mar 12 2008, 02:44 AM

Danielle,

Luke used the term "hegemon", which is a broader term than "governor", and may be referring to the administrative role Quirinius was assigned as opposed to being titled as "governor.

There is no error in the book of Luke. Your argument is invalid. Please try to pass another fallacy as truth...

First, it's Dan or Daniel.

Second, may I ask you have a look at this (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1146) article. It's from a guy named Daniel B. Wallace who is a professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. He is considered an authority on Koine Greek grammar and New Testament textual criticism among evangelical scholars. He manages to stay quite neutral (in my opinion) while demonstrating that the original Greek should be translated as "This was the first census taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria."

Here is a Christian, a theology professor and expert on the original language of the NT who says there is not a misquote.

If there is no misquote, there is a contradiction, which, while not disproving the existence of god or Jesus or many other stories in the Bible, at least demonstrates that the Bible has flaws and should not be taken completely literally.

My bad, I did misspell your name, I thought it had two 'L's. It turns out it has just one. Daniele is a Swiss version (http://www.babynology.com/meaning-daniele-m63.html). I will make sure to call you Daniele from now on.

Your mind blowing evidence is really nothing concrete at all. Did you read all the way down the page to the 5th paragraph before you linked that? Wallace says "In conclusion, facile solutions do not come naturally to Luke 2:2. This does not, of course, mean that Luke erred..."

Do you really want answers so that you might believe in Jesus Christ and the Bible? Or do you just google random theories, appearing to be interested, to just stir the pot? Either way, since you prefer links, read this one... (http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/editors-choice/EC1205W3C.htm)

Every one of your so-called contradictions and misinterpretations can be shattered...

llfour

Mar 12 2008, 03:35 AM

I think a lot of believers avoid these topics because they are mostly pointless and time consuming. I would much rather go throw a round of golf with my pot smoking, beer drinking, foul mouthed disc golf buddies than sit around and talk about why I do or don't believe the Bible is true. It is highly unlikely that anyone on the other side of this discussion will have an aha moment while reading the thread and begin believing the Bible is true. Jesus spent his time hanging out with folks and blowing the minds of the religious leaders of his day, not trying to convince the unconvinced.

Many of the people that have problems with Christianity, the Bible, etc.. have had a bad experience with a person claiming Christianity or even with a local church. Having worked in a church for nine years, I have come to the conclusion that too often "Christians" are some of the most miserable people you will ever meet. They are rude, condescending, arrogant, and selfish. So often we do a poor job reflecting the way of Christ. It is a sad part of our history. (http://www.theworkofthepeople.com/index.php?ct=store.details&pid=V00245)

I believe the Bible is true, but also recognize that there are various differences throughout the Bible. There is some census stuff in the Old Testament that differs. It doesn't mean I have to throw the whole thing out.

Some of us look at the entire Bible through a Narrative perspective. We see how all these books written by many different men over a long period of time tell the story of a God that is constantly trying to connect with man. We continually see this God offering second and third chances to people who seem to continually screw things up.

I will say this. Haggee is a freakin' idiot and doesn't represent me or any of the Christians I know.

This is probably the only time I will post on this thread as I see it mostly as a waste of my time.

Lyle O Ross

Mar 12 2008, 03:03 PM

Wowsers!

Read through some of the stuff you posted. I especially like the blank "innocent till proven guilty." So, if someone says look, it's written right here, it says A = B in the bible. But over here in the bible it says B does not = A. That isn't a contradiction? I wanna live in this guy's world. It sounds fun!

ANHYZER

Mar 12 2008, 03:11 PM

switzerdan

Mar 12 2008, 03:51 PM

My bad, I did misspell your name, I thought it had two 'L's. It turns out it has just one. Daniele is a Swiss version (http://www.babynology.com/meaning-daniele-m63.html). I will make sure to call you Daniele from now on.

No, you didn't misspell my name. You ignored the part of my post where I told you exactly what my name was. Try this. Call me Dan. It's not Daniele; it's not Danielle; I don't even like Daniel that much but tolerate it. I'm American, not Swiss. (Yet!) One 'D'. One 'A'. One 'N'. Dan. (Incidentally, despite what that website says, Daniele is Italian. The Swiss version is Daniel or Dani)

Your mind blowing evidence is really nothing concrete at all. Did you read all the way down the page to the 5th paragraph before you linked that? Wallace says "In conclusion, facile solutions do not come naturally to Luke 2:2. This does not, of course, mean that Luke erred..."

I never said my evidence was mind blowing. However, I did read many articles and specifically chose this one. He says facile (easy, straightforward, simple) solutions do not come naturally to Luke. This means that he realizes there are some problems here. And he's on your side.

Yes, he also says that doesn't mean Luke erred. But he just leaves it at that. He doesn't offer any explanation to show how Luke could be right. He simply leaves us with a problem that has no current solution in his eyes. (Since he doesn't offer further explanation, I'm assuming he doesn't have a solution. I could be wrong.)

This is a guy who has really studied this stuff. He has his Ph.D. in theology. He's a tenured professor at a theological university and he's one of the leading experts on the original language of the Bible. He's a Christian who runs a website called Bible.org where the articles are pro-Christianity. If he says there's a problem with that passage in Luke...

ANHYZER

Mar 12 2008, 04:11 PM

Lyle O Ross

Mar 12 2008, 04:30 PM

Lyle O Ross

Mar 12 2008, 04:39 PM

switzerdan

Mar 12 2008, 04:59 PM

ANHYZER

Mar 12 2008, 05:14 PM

ANHYZER

Mar 12 2008, 05:16 PM

Dani,

For an English teacher it seems you have a difficult time comprehending English. There is nothing in that link by your highly credible source that disproves what Luke wrote either. Simply put, it is debatable. As David pointed out, it also seems you have a difficult time responding to questions, so I will ask one more time. Do you really want answers so that you might believe in Jesus Christ and the Bible? Or do you just google random theories, appearing to be interested, to just stir the pot? Either way, since you prefer links, read this one... (http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/editors-choice/EC1205W3C.htm)

Dave,

Could you do me a favor and please refer to me by Dan? This is the third time I've asked you and I believe I've been very clear about it. Thank you.

Incidentally, I read your John Ankerberg link before you posted it. All I have to say is if he is going to write about history, he should not only study it a little more but, learn that you can not use evidence from Egypt to say what was going on in Syria either at the same time or 100 years previous to the time in question. He makes a lot of assumptions that he provides no evidence for. He may know his Bible but he could probably stand to take a few history courses.

I want answers that show me the truth, no matter what that truth is.

Here is some more info...

QUIRINIUS AND LUKE 2:2

�Jesus Christ our Promised Seed� Wierwille V. P. 1982, American Christian Press, pp. 200-204 (Chapter Sixteen, �The Birth of Jesus Christ�) says:

The expression �all the world� in Luke 2:1 is the figure of speech "synecdoche", in which �all the world� is put for a part of it and emphasizes here the immensity of the Roman Empire, area over which Caesar asserted authority [Footnote: The decree even affected areas beyond the provincial limits of the empire, showing that it was indeed a wide-ranging registration. According to Luke 2:4 the order was in effect even in Judea, which was not a province at this time but a client kingdom of Rome. Judea had its own king, Herod the Great]. The word �taxed� is from the Greek �apographo� meaning �to register.� Rather than a taxation, this decree was for an enrollment or registration.

Historically, there is evidence that a registration was conducted throughout the Roman Empire and its subject states in 3 B.C. Although registrations were usually conducted in the Roman Empire for tax purposes, this registration was for an official declaration of political allegiance to Caesar Augustus [Footnote: In an inscription dated at 3 B. C. from Asia Minor there is a reference to the conducting of an official declaration of allegiance to Caesar by all in that area. See Nepthali Lewis and Meyer Reinhold, eds. Roman Civilization, 2 vols. (NY: Harper Torchbooks), 2:34-35. According to native sources, in 3 B. C. Roman authorities came to Armenia to set up images of Caesar Augustus in the temples of the area. Moreover, these same sources state that it was the registration mentioned in Luke, which brought them there (Armenian historian Moses of Khorene, History of the Armenians, 2:26). Finally, in Josephus it is recorded that �all the people of the Jews gave assurance of their good-will to Caesar, and to the king�s government� (Antiquities 17.2.4) within two years before Herod�s death, Herod probably dying early in 1 B. C. See Martin, Birth of Christ Recalculated, pp. 89-105] The purpose of this mandated registration was to record an official declaration of allegiance from all of his subjects to present to Caesar Augustus in celebration of his Silver Jubilee (25th anniversary � 27 B. C. to 2 B. C.) of supreme power. Which coincided with the seven hundred fiftieth anniversary of the founding of Rome, and Caesar Augustus� sixtieth birthday. The oath of allegiance was a part of the preparation for this festive time and set the stage for the 25 anniversary celebration in 2 B. C. In honor of the occasion, the Senate of Rome bestowed upon Caesar Augustus the supreme title of "Pater Patriae", �Father of the Country.�

A logical time of the year for such a registration to take place was September because the weather was mild for travel, the crops were harvested, and one Judean civil year was closing and another beginning [Footnote: William M. Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? (1898; reprinted., Minneapolis: James Family Publishing Co., 1978), pp. 192-193.]

Luke 2:2:

(And this taxing [enrollment, registration] was first made when Cyrenius was governor [Greek: "hegemon", leader, chief, commander] of Syria.)

The second verse of Luke 2 has long been a target of skeptics who criticize Luke�s accuracy as a historian. Historically, the following outline of Quirinius� (which is the preferred and more common spelling of �Cyrenius�. Cyrenius is Greek for the Latin Quirinius or Quirinus, his full name was Publius Sulpicius Quirinus) life is known: in 12 B.C. he was a consul in Rome; sometime between 12 B.C. and 1 A. D. he conducted the Homanadensian War in Asia Minor; in 2/3 A. D. he was an advisor to Gaius Caesar in Armenia; and in 6 A. D. he was sent by Caesar to be the governor of Syria [Footnote: Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, p. 235-236]. The 6 A. D. date for Quirinius� governorship of Syria is historically very clear. He ruled both Syria and Judea after the year 6 A. D. when Archelaus was deposed as king of Judea. Both scripture and Josephus indicate this was well after Jesus� birth and Herod�s death [Mt. 2:1,16,22; Josephus Antiquities 17.8.1-4, 17.13.1-5;18.1.1-6.] Yet Luke 2:2 seems to say that Quirinius governed Syria when Jesus was born. We must bear in mind that it is very probable that because this registration was a special part of the Silver Jubilee celebration, and for the express purpose of declaring Augustus "Pater Patriae", that Quirinius was appointed as a special legate to oversee this enrollment.

[Footnote: With this historical point understood, an apparent difficulty in the writing of a second-century church father, Tertullian, becomes clear. The difficulty is that Tertullian states Saturninus was the governor of Syria at this time, which is corroborated by secular sources. Tertullian points out, �But there is historical proof that at this very time a census had been taken in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus.� Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene fathers, 10 vols. (reprinted.; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1978), �Tertullian Against Marcion,� 3:4.19. The Greek word "hegemon", sometimes translated in English as �governor,� is actually indefinite regarding the exact title of the office, so both Saturninus and Quirinius could loosely be referred to as "hegemon", leaders, chiefs, or commanders, and yet fulfill different functions. Tertullian, a lawyer of the second century, had no trouble reconciling the statement of Luke 2:2 that Quirinius was "hegemon" of Syria with Saturninus� governorship of Syria, because he would have understood Quirinius� position in Syria as a special assignment. Because of the special assignment of Quirinius, Luke refers to him as the "hegemon" during the registration. Schurer mentions other scholars who have accepted the position that Quirinius was a special legate to carry out this census. See Emil Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 2 vols. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Matthew Black, eds. (1885; rev. ed., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973), 1:424; and Martin, Birth of Christ Recalculated, p. 119-120].

The reason for including verse 2 in the narrative in Luke now becomes apparent. This verse serves to help pinpoint the exact year of Christ�s birth; but more important, it precludes any possibility on the part of the reader to confuse this empire-wide Silver Jubilee registration of 3 B. C. with a later registration and taxing in 6/7 A. D. which is generally better known to historians, but was not empire-wide (recorded in Acts 5:37, written by the same inspired writer, Luke). Thus the word �first� has been a problem to historians [Schurer, History of the Jewish People, 1:421-422], but now it can be seen that it is essential in order to distinguish between the two registrations both under Quirinius� supervision, differentiating the latter and better known registration of 6/7 A. D. from the one occurring when Jesus Christ was born in 3 B. C. Therefore Luke 2:2 would more clearly read: �This first registration took place when Quirinius was on special assignment in Syria�

In p. 28 we have the Footnote with 16 Early sources Dating Christ�s Birth at about 3 B. C.:

�No Christian church father dates the birth of Christ before 4 B.C., and only the first one dates it around before the Passover of April 4 B.C., to 3 B.C.�

Irenaeus (180 A. D.), Cassiodorus Senator (490-585 AD), Clement of Alexandria (194 AD), Tertullian (194 AD), Julius Africanus (170-240 AD), Hippolytus of Rome (170-236), Origen (185-253 AD), Eusebius of Caesarea (325 AD). To that names we can add: Orosius, Chrysostom, Jerome, The Paschal Chronicle, Hippolytus of Thebes, Photius (the Patriarch of Constantinople), Zonaras, and Bar Hebraeus (who cited Syrian, Armenian, and Greek sources), all of whom accepted a 3/2 B.C. date for Christ�s birth. See Martin, Birth of Christ Recalculated, p. 5; Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (Princeton University Press, 1964), pp. 222-230.

eveidel

Mar 12 2008, 05:21 PM

Lyle O Ross

Mar 12 2008, 06:55 PM

BTW Dave,

Speaking of not answering questions, you never answered the following:

1) Do you believe the sun revolves around the earth? (20% of evangelicals believe this to be true)

2) Do you believe in gravity?

3) Do you believe that all Catholics aren't Christians?

BTW - if I remember correctly, a survey showed that something like 50% of those who considered themselves as religious did not know what the first book of the bible was. I'll have to go back and check that, but I did find it... amusing.

This is not a personal attack, just simply my opinon, but I believe that you are mentally retarded.

This is right up there with calling Dan, Danielle. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Alright Dave, here's a test of A = B but B does not = A

1. Why is there so much suffering in the world?

2. Is God Omnipotent?

Since you're not retarded, these questions should be easy to answer. You can even solicit help from Player.

ANHYZER

Mar 12 2008, 07:19 PM

BTW Dave,

Speaking of not answering questions, you never answered the following:

1) Do you believe the sun revolves around the earth? (20% of evangelicals believe this to be true)

2) Do you believe in gravity?

3) Do you believe that all Catholics aren't Christians?

BTW - if I remember correctly, a survey showed that something like 50% of those who considered themselves as religious did not know what the first book of the bible was. I'll have to go back and check that, but I did find it... amusing.

This is not a personal attack, just simply my opinon, but I believe that you are mentally challenged.

This is right up there with calling Dan, Danielle. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Alright Dave, here's a test of A = B but B does not = A

1. Why is there so much suffering in the world?

2. Is God Omnipotent?

1. Because you exist.
2. Yes, and you are impotent.

Lyle O Ross

Mar 12 2008, 07:37 PM

Oh man, it's just like high school. Ahhh, those were the days.

So Player, since Dave doesn't want to defend the existence of God, same questions,

1. Why is there so much suffering in the world?
2. Is God omnipotent?

ANHYZER

Mar 12 2008, 07:41 PM

Both of my answers are extremely accurate.

playtowin

Mar 12 2008, 10:07 PM

playtowin

Mar 12 2008, 10:17 PM

Levi, nice "religious drive-by shooting!" Thanks for warning us that you "probably" won't be reloading!

ANHYZER

Mar 13 2008, 11:57 AM

No kidding... just because people are religious does not mean they are christian and read the bible. There are MANY religions! Guess what....not all of them read the bible! Check the assumptions, facts, and the population studied next time you use facts in a post from a survey. geez...some peoples kids...

If Lyle did that he would be credible...But it's Lyle we're talking about, he must have been a top student of Professor Hwang Woo-Suk...

playtowin

Mar 21 2008, 04:34 AM

For me, to think about Easter and what it truly is about is a pretty humbling experience. I don�t know how the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus came to be twisted into chocolate bunnies and colorful hard-boiled eggs. Probably the same way Christmas became more about giving and getting �stuff� rather than God becoming flesh and bone. I would imagine that some one down the line simply couldn�t comprehend the enormity of Christ�s actions and found ways to at least make it socially acceptable. Our humanity tends to get in the way of a lot of meaningful things if we let it, especially with things that are bigger than our imaginations. Like the love of Jesus.

On our own, understanding this kind of love is not difficult, it is impossible. ��I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God� (Ephesians 3:17-19).

I don�t know about you, but on my own, I am more interested in �getting even� than serving or demonstrating love in my actions. �Doing unto others before they do it unto me� is my natural tendency. One guy said, �vengeance is mine say�s the Lord! And I just wanna be about the Lords business!� Jesus wasn�t like that. �God demonstrated His own love for us in this: �while we were still in our sins, Christ died for us.� (Romans 5:6-8). That�s the kind of love that calls for all of you. No wonder we tend to surrender to a second rate list of rules. Without focussing on Him, we can�t �comprehend the enormity of Christ�s actions and we find ways to at least make it socially acceptable.� On our own, we can comprehend a "list of rules!" We could even fathom a "moral code!" But THIS KIND OF LOVE?

�Do we really hear what Paul is saying? Stretch, man, stretch! Let go of impoverished and finite perceptions of God. The love of Christ is beyond all knowledge. Beyond anything we can intellectualize or imagine. It is not a mild benevolence, but a consuming fire. Jesus is so unbearably forgiving, so infinitely patient and so unendingly loving that He provides us with the resources we need to live lives of gracious response.� Nothing is beyond Him. He is all we need.

Nothing Is Beyond You (Rich Mullins)

Where could I go?
Where could I run?
Even if I found the strength to fly

And if I rose on the wings of the dawn
And crashed through the corner of the sky

If I sailed past the edge of the sea
Even if I made my bed in hell, still there you would find me

Chorus

Cause nothing is beyond You
You stand beyond the reach
Of our vain imaginations,
Our misguided piety
The heavens stretch to hold You
And deep cries out to deep
Saying that nothing is beyond You
Nothing is beyond You
Time can not contain You
You fill eternity
Sin could never stain You
Death has lost its sting
And I can not explain the way
You came to love me
Except to say that, nothing is beyond You
Nothing is beyond You

If I should shrink back from the light
So I could sink into the dark

If I take cover and I close my eyes
Even then, You would see my heart

And you cut through all my pain and rage
The darkness is not dark to You and night's as bright as day

Chorus

Nothing is beyond You

 "Now to Him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to His power that is at work within us, to Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations , for ever and ever! Amen." (Ephesians 3:20-21)

CAMBAGGER

Mar 21 2008, 06:45 PM

just curious ptw, what version of the bible do you use, or have you quoted?

playtowin

Mar 21 2008, 09:54 PM

NIV

playtowin

Mar 25 2008, 03:05 AM

Here's one of the best "versions" I've ever heard though...

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=9e7c4b40cf5a13cea6ca

CAMBAGGER

Mar 27 2008, 05:46 PM

do you always use that version? and what denomination are you?

playtowin

Mar 27 2008, 09:14 PM

skaZZirf

Mar 28 2008, 12:36 AM

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103

playtowin

Mar 28 2008, 04:27 PM

Just FYI, there is a thread called "Obsession" that is located under "Miscellaneous topics" that is dedicated exclusively to this topic. It contains a lot of revealing information about the religion of Islam and the facts concerning the Koran. This video was posted there too. ( Re: Obsession #794377 - 02/11/08 01:20 PM )

Lyle O Ross

Mar 28 2008, 04:58 PM

Too busy to respond in detail, the rest of this week and this weekend are not goint to be good for me to respond much, but I'll try...

Lyle,

1. Sin/evil

2. Absolutely, He has more power than you or I could ever imagine...

You're obvious conclusion? That "God is cruel because if He could, He'd heal the hurting, but He doesn't, even though He's all powerful, therefore He sucks." Blah blah blah, I've heard you say this before elswhere. You've proven to me before by telling me that "Jesus said Christians are under Old Testament Law," that you don't have a very good grasp of scripture, now you are just being consistent! When I kindly and completely proved to you that you were very incorrect about what Jesus said about the law, your response was to ignore and continue sling more mud around. I have no interest in answering you right now, and it's not because I am dog tired after a long day! Even Dan, a self professed non believer who believes Christianity/religion is dangerous, doesn't use this level of logic.

Oh wow! I missed this reply. No, the logic isn't that God would heal the hurting. The logic is that God wrote the rules. That is, an all powerful God writes all the rules. Gravity, disease, all of it comes from him.

If God decides that the best way to get to heaven is that you kick back in your arm chair and eat donuts, well that's the rule. If there is suffering and disease, God made it so. Why would a compassionate God create these things? Only one that likes or wants suffering would create these things.

You say that sin and evil are the cause of the suffering. If Sin or Evil result in suffering, then God made it that way. He wrote a rule that says, the sin and evil that can exist in man/womankind will result in suffering. He could have equally written, the sin and evil that can exist in man/womankind will result in greater compassion, more effort by those who detest such things hence leading to more love, and then hardwired that into us.

Now, you can make the argument that suffering happens because of some underlying principal that God knows must be followed for humanity to be saved. Sin and evil are just a side consequence that ties to it. That I'd agree with; but in that case, God isn't all powerful. He isn't omnipotent. There is a rule that exists that he has to live by and over which he has no control. If that is the case then who wrote that law? Who decided that suffering should occur and that it was necessary?

CAMBAGGER

Mar 31 2008, 02:22 PM

Thanks for asking. No, there are other versions I prefer, but when quoting scripture in most public settings I like to use the NIV because it's a very well known, if not the most widely used version out there.

I am not a part of any denomination. I attend a Christian church. The word denomination is a very misunderstood term. But just like the misuse of the word "church," I know what you are asking and I've answered it with that in mind.

How about you? What version do you read? "What denomination are you?" Or as I would put it, where do you attend?

BTW, feel free to ask me anything you want, but I am curious as to why you are asking me these things. I have never talked to you before, as far as I can remember, so I was just curious. But like I said, feel free to ask anything you want, I have nothing to hide and am not ashamed of the gospel, it has the power to not only change a foolish punk like me, but to also to save! See Romans 1:16

I was just wondering. I use the KJV only. I strongly disagree with the use of other versions, or perversions I should say. Have you done any study on these other versions compared tp the KJV? The other versions are missing entire verses. The wording is changed in a way that it makes it say something different on a lot of verses. Thats why people always say "well, you read the verse and get this out of it, and I read the verse and get something else". It's obvious you do know scripture, so you know that we are all to be in 1 accord, 1 judment/mind, SPEAKING the SAME thing. How can we do this when there are 50 different versions out there??? Please do not think I'm trying to offend, but I do want you to think about some things. Again, I'm not intending to embarrass you, and if you prefer, we can discuss this via PM'S. Would you be willing to look at some things concerning this matter?

I attend a Non-Deniminational Bible Study. It's almost a shame to say you go to church these days with all the religious crap out there. It's not where you go, it's how you study that matters. (2Tim 2:15) ...Rightly Dividing the word of truth. Most of the churches FAIL to do so, and as a result are teaching the Law to their people, instead of Grace.

playtowin

Mar 31 2008, 06:44 PM

Cam, Thanks for your reply. I am familiar with the KJV and why people hold the view you do concerning "versions" and why they hold the KJV in high esteem. I'll try to respond more completely in the next few days. I don't mind speaking openly on the board at all, don't worry about that. To be honest, I started (three visits required) a root canal (sp) at the dentist today, it was very infected and very painful, so long story made short, I will be returning to "la la land" in a matter of minutes due to the pain meds! I just felt like getting out'a bed and checking emails and the board for a minute. But I look forward to discussing this topic with you further. I'll have some free time in the next day or two when I'm not so loopy! Coo Coo Ca Choo! :D

CAMBAGGER

Mar 31 2008, 07:00 PM

Hope you get to feeling better.

playtowin

Apr 03 2008, 03:16 PM

I was just wondering. I use the KJV only. I strongly disagree with the use of other versions, or perversions I should say. Really? So you believe the KJV is the only version we should be reading? I've met people with this belief before and I gotta tell ya, IMO it's built on some pretty "sandy" foundations. Have you done any study on these other versions compared tp the KJV? Yes I have. The other versions are missing entire verses. You'd have to be more specific because there are reasons as to why a verse would be left out, and not every reason applies to each verse that is left out. The wording is changed in a way that it makes it say something different on a lot of verses. Thats why people always say "well, you read the verse and get this out of it, and I read the verse and get something else". IMO that's not the main reason, in fact, most of the people who cry "interpretation" have many other reasons for not seeing a verse in a certain light. 9 times out'a 10, it's because they have a preconcieved belief or objective that they bring into the verse in question. It's obvious you do know scripture, so you know that we are all to be in 1 accord, 1 judment/mind, SPEAKING the SAME thing. We can't all fit into one Honda Accord! Just kidding. I agree to a large extent, but when holding one version up as the "only" acceptable version I believe you are contributing to the difficulty of attaining the unity you are talking about. How can we do this when there are 50 different versions out there??? That's a question I don't have time to adequatley answer right now. Please do not think I'm trying to offend, but I do want you to think about some things. Again, I'm not intending to embarrass you, and if you prefer, we can discuss this via PM'S. Would you be willing to look at some things concerning this matter? You can share with me as much or as little as you wish. I'd be glad to hear whatever you have to share. Keep in mind the answer I already gave you as to why I quoted from the NIV...

I attend a Non-Deniminational Bible Study. It's almost a shame to say you go to church these days with all the religious crap out there. It's not where you go, it's how you study that matters. (2Tim 2:15) ...Rightly Dividing the word of truth. Most of the churches FAIL to do so, and as a result are teaching the Law to their people, instead of Grace. As someone who believes the KJV is the only acceptable version, I'd be careful pointing out those who "teach Law" (legalism) "instead of Grace." Just a thought. I look forward to hearing back from you, take care... 

 BTW, they were unable to save my tooth, so they will be extracting it tomarrow. By this time tomarrow I will be knocked out!

CAMBAGGER

Apr 03 2008, 10:52 PM

playtowin

Apr 04 2008, 12:27 AM

I never said you should be "worried" about anything. I just said that someone who claims that there is only one version of the bible that isn't a "perversion" should "be careful" concerning the topic of "law over grace." IMO it is a very leagalistic viewpoint.

Also, Paul wasn't talking about those who use the NIV or any other version! lol He was writing specifically about those who were teaching justification through obeying the law, rather than trusting in Jesus.

I am familiar with those who believe the KJV is the only valid version of the bible. I'm telling ya man, it's based on some pretty shaky ground. There are implications and strains of thought that typically go along with such a view. So, I am interested in knowing not only what you believe, but why you believe it.

playtowin

Apr 04 2008, 12:57 AM

BTW, I won't feel a thing while they yank out my tooth. I'll be like the "dude" in the Big Labowski, coasting through the air. But instead of bowling pins, I'll be gliding into chains! :cool:

playtowin

Apr 05 2008, 05:54 AM

Good luck with that extraction. I'm searching for an niv bible so I can start posting my reply. That issue alone will take awhile. As far as being worried about pointing out those who teach law over grace, I'm honestly not a bit concerned. The apostle Paul says to speak boldly, he also says that their "mouths must be stopped", and calls them ministers of Satan among other things. I thought I was being nice :D

 The extraction of my tooth went smooooth! Thanks for your concern, guess I was "lucky!" ;) No real pain, just a messed up sleeping schedule now. However, when I woke up from being knocked out, my boxers were on backwards! DOH! :D

BTW, you can find any NIV verse you want by googling it. Not sure why you need the NIV to defend your "KJV Only" belief, but go for it I guess.

CAMBAGGER

Apr 06 2008, 10:42 AM

Do you believe the verse in Ttitus where it says that God cannot lie?

protomag

Apr 06 2008, 11:20 AM

you can get any version you need here
http://www.biblegateway.com/

And if you really want to learn about what the Bible says you need to know what the original language says (greek, hebrew,). The KJV does have its errors in translation also.

Its hard to find a church these days that teaches what the Bible is actually saying. The Bible has been made so crystal clear to me after finding this website from Arlen Chitwood.
http://lampbroadcast.org/index.html

He goes to the original language to find out what the Bible is really saying about everything. I also found a Church that is teaching the same thing although its in Florida, thankfully they have a website also.
http://www.cornerstonejacksonville.com/

CAMBAGGER

Apr 06 2008, 11:07 PM

I'll have to disagree and say I do believe the KJV is pure-without error in the English language.

I went to that lampbroadcast site. I read a few of the messages-Paul & His Gospel, then the other one on Paul right by it. It looks like the author has some knowledge of "right Division" (2Tim2:15) and see's the difference in "Paul's Gospel" and the gospel that the 12 apostles taught. I'd have to look further into the rest of his teachings.
Have you heard of Dispensational Bible study?
Check out www.magnifiedword.com. (http://www.magnifiedword.com.) The Bible Version Issue - Part 1 & 2 talks about some of the issues we've been discussing. Also www.graceimpact.org (http://www.graceimpact.org) has some great info. Both of or all of these men teach dispensational bible study. If you've got some time, take a look at the dispensational Timeline on the Grace Impact site.

protomag

Apr 11 2008, 11:27 AM

The KJV is a good translation, but there are some words in the original language which could have been better translated. For example the word translated "crown", in in the Greek there are two different words (stephanos, and diadema) that the translators just use one word for.

There are two words in the Greek text
for �crown� � stephanos, and diadema.
Comparing Scripture with Scripture,
with regality in view, one major distinction
stands out concerning how these two
words are used. Diadema refers to the type
crown worn by a monarch, one presently
exercising regal power. Stephanos, on the
other hand, is used in an opposite sense.
It is used to show someone crowned but
not presently exercising regal power.
For example, the crown seen on
Christ�s head in Rev. 14:14, preceding
His reign, is referred to by the word
stephanos in the Greek text. A crown
on Christ�s head at this time could only
anticipate His impending reign. Then,
when Christ returns to the earth to take
the kingdom, He will have many crowns
upon His head; and the Greek text uses
diadema rather than stephanos to refer to
these crowns, for Christ will be returning
as �King of kings, and Lord of lords�
[Rev. 19:12, 16].

There are many other words in the Bible in all the English versions which can be better understood when going back to the original text.

CAMBAGGER

Apr 11 2008, 04:59 PM

The Niv and other versions are taken from a completely different text then even the King James was translated from.

I can't change anyone's mind, it takes them caring and looking into the matter for themselves. Some of these other bibles, through their changing of the words have actually made the scripture contradict itself. We all know that God is Not a liar.
I have a hard time believing that God who will judge all one day, according to his Son did not leave us with a final authority. Everlasting life seems to be pretty important in the bible, if he did not leave us his COMPLETE word, how fair and just of a God would he be?

switzerdan

Apr 14 2008, 08:16 PM

Seems to me that it's probably within the realm of God's power to present you people with one, error-free, undisputed version - if he chose to. Why do you think he doesn't?

CAMBAGGER

Apr 14 2008, 10:47 PM

I do believe he has provided mankind with an error free version, The King James Bible. The newer versions are translated or taken from a different text. Very poorly I may add.

playtowin

Apr 15 2008, 01:50 PM

Cam, the KJV is a good translation, but it simply isn't "error free" as you claim. I really wish you would drop this, mostly because it is a fringe doctrine that is universally discredited. But also because that which you need to know is knowable in nearly all versions, not just one that was written in 1611 and then revised several times later. I have recieved three requests to ask you to stop with this issue. As you know, non members cannot post, I recieved them asking me to relay that message. Please pray about your purpose in advancing this doctrine here? What is your goal? What is the purpose of you continuously saying it is error free? Please consider the following and ask yourself why you are pushing this idea?

Please keep in mind that this is only the tip of the iceberg concerning the things that refute such a doctrine.The only reason why I even make mention of it is because I believe it divides and causes disbelief among many who do not understand or care to understand such a doctrine. Of which I might add, you�ve never given any solid reasons to believe, you�ve only pointed out insignificant errors in other translations and continue to say "it's error free." I've made my share of mistakes on this and other threads concerning my conduct and I feel I've learned from them. I hope you can do the same. Please consider the following and ask yourself one simple question: Do I really beleive you can only be saved by reading the KJV? If not, then can we please move on to more important issues? If so then, oh boy, you need to do a lot better job of explaining how that is!

1. Of the over 14,000 manuscript copies we have of the bible, 99.5% of them totally agree with one another, word for word! That means 99% of all of them agree on anything that really matters! That includes the manuscripts used to translate the KJV, the very translation you claim to be the only valuable translation! The percentages of those that don't agree have to do with things like putting the word "the" before a noun or which word comes first in a name! Please tell me how the message of the cross is accruate in the KJV and not in the NIV, ASV, NASB ect...?

2. There are over 8000 alternate readings in the margins of the KJV. If it is error free, then why are the alternatives, in such an "inspired version,� added in the very book claimed to be "error free?" And yes, no matter what you say, the original 1611 version in fact DID have marginal notes, and they weren't put there by "publishers" they were put there by translators, that was there job!

3. I can give you a list of passages in the KJV that do not line up with the very transcripts that they used to translate it into English!

4. I can give you a list of words that are translated one way in one verse, and the exact same word in the original text (that they used!) is translated differently elsewhere! These words do not effect the meaning and purpose of the cross of Christ, but the do demonstrate the fact that your doctrine of KJV only�ism is not consistent or accurate.

5. The use of over 400 out-dated terms makes sharing the word of God today nearly impossible without a early modern English dictionary! In light of the reliability of other translations, this point alone is enough to cause great concern for your �KJV only� doctrine and it's ability to reach into the hearts and minds of those who would seek the truth, and respond to it, if they could only understand it!

I could go on with evidence like this for days! But I'm not trying to be right, I'm trying to get you to move on to bigger and better things for the sake of the gospel.

It is a studied, �scholarly� opinion that the translation of the KJV is a fine translation, but it is not error free, and it is very hard to read, no matter what level of biblical studies you find yourself at. The differences are not enough to distort the message of the Gospel to any degree. I ask you and pray that God would give you the strength to focus on the message more than the version of it, which is identical in it's meaning when all is said and done.

To those who do not understand or know about the reliability of the bible, be assured that this issue does not in any way change the evidence for the reliability of most commonly used versions of the bible. We do not have to translate through the latest version in order to come up with a new version. I have many at least 20 people in my life who are under the impression that in order to get the NIV we had to go through every version we had before it. That is not true in any way. We have hundreds of thousands of reliable transcripts from which we can translate into any language. The differences in these versions can be identified and examined by anyone with interest. Those who seek to know the reliability of the bible and the certainty of Christianity CAN find the truth. IMO it is doctrines such as these addressed above and the consequences of such beliefs that confuse and make the gospel complicated.

switzerdan

Apr 15 2008, 05:07 PM

Of the over 14,000 manuscript copies we have of the bible, 99.5% of them totally agree with one another, word for word! That means 99% of all of them agree on anything that really matters!

I'm a little confused here.

First, How does 99.5% total agreement lead to 99% agreement on anything that matters? Where did that 1/2 percent go? Or is it a 1/2 percent that doesn't matter?

Second, if it was the true "Word of God", wouldn't you think there would be 100% agreement? Why and how did God allow that .5% error? That seems to be a rather large margin of error for a perfect being to have allowed in his instruction manual for our lives.

CAMBAGGER

Apr 15 2008, 06:06 PM

I agree. Words DO matter.

switzerdan

Apr 15 2008, 06:08 PM

4. I can give you a list of words that are translated one way in one verse, and the exact same word in the original text (that they used!) is translated differently elsewhere!

Just curious. Do the four 'tips' below mean the same thing? How would you translate the word 'tip' in these sentences into another language?

1) Look out! The jar is going to tip over.
2) Keep the change for your tip .
3) He gave me a tip that helped me solve the problem.
4) It's on the tip of my tongue.

Translation is never as simple as saying one word equals the same word every time. In German, for example, each of the above tips would be translated with a different word.

CAMBAGGER

Apr 15 2008, 06:17 PM

Really what it comes down to is people don't want to talk about Doctrine. Sound Doctrine is just one of the doctrinal issues Paul taught. I wonder what he meant by that??? Focusing importance on the words, the doctrine.

As far as the bible versions go, we disagree. I think that words Do mean something. For example, the non inspired version, (NIV) is missing over 64,000 entire words.

Just a few things missing from the NIV bible:

Matthew 17:21 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."

Matthew 18:11 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

Matthew 23:14 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."

Mark 7:16 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."

Mark 9:44 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

Mark 9:46 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

Mark 11:26 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"].

I think it's simple. Christ died to pay for your sin, was buried, and rose again the 3rd day. That's it. Trusting it, God said he was perfect.

The Bible is dictation --- not composition. God said it --- and man wrote it down. God inspired the WORDS ... then Jeremiah dictated God�s words to Baruch ....
who wrote them in a book. Here the transmission of the scriptures came from God
(the words were God-breathed) --- into a man�s mouth --- out of the man�s mouth ---
into another man�s ears --- through that man�s ears ---- onto the roll of a book. Here
again, God�s word was channeled through two men:

Jer 36:4-6 Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah: and Baruch wrote from
the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the LORD, which he had spoken unto him, upon
a roll of a book.
5 And Jeremiah commanded Baruch, saying, I am shut up; I cannot go into the house
of the LORD:
6 Therefore go thou, and read in the roll, which thou hast written from my mouth, the
words of the LORD in the ears of the people in the LORD'S house upon the fasting
day: and also thou shalt read them in the ears of all Judah that come out of their cities.

Jer 36:8 And Baruch the son of Neriah did according to all that Jeremiah the prophet
commanded him, reading in the book the words of the LORD in the LORD'S house.

Notice the importance God places on the individual, exact words. Don�t mess
with them:

Rev 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of
this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues
that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God
shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the
things which are written in this book.

Prov 30:5-6 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in
him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Again, I believe words �do mean something�.

Not just "knowing" it. You can know some things or people and still not trust in them. My intent is not to offend anyone, please don't take it that way. If you've got some verses that's good, if not an opinion doesn't get too far with God.
If people that aren't members who would like to post a reply to me, please SUPPORT THE PDGA , & buy a membership.

playtowin

Apr 15 2008, 10:58 PM

playtowin

Apr 15 2008, 11:15 PM

Cam, when did I say that the NIV was the infallable word of God? That is a question, not a rhetorical point. If you can't show me where I said it, then I would strongly suggest you stop implying that "I'm the NIV guy" and you're the "KJV guy" in this meaningless discussion.

Please find someone else to convince that the KJV is the "only bible we should read" by pointing out things you disagree with in the NIV, you aren't convincing me or anyone else.

You are caught up in bickering over versions and have ignored the message completely. I'll ask you one last time, what message of hope, grace and mercy is anyone missing in the gospel by NOT reading the KJV?

CAMBAGGER

Apr 16 2008, 12:09 AM

Obviously in all your great wisdom you are failing to see the point. The different versions teach DIFFERENT things! It's not just that they leave out entire words and verses, they actually change the scripture to make it mean something else. Do you need more verses??? I pointed out WHY the niv is not a version worthy of the readers study time.-if they are actually wanting to study. Why read a book that's partly right, when you have one that is complete, I mean if God can actually do that.
Again, how great is the god you serve if he can't even preserve his perfect word for us??? or is he even a he??? Maybe we should just say it, so as not to offend any women who may be reading.

I see you strongly disagree, but hey, that's your choice. I'm not forcing you to believe these things. It's not my fault you didn't like the verses...or missing verses I should say.

Again, if you'd like a private conversation, please PM the guy.

I'm not upset with you. I just see things differently. It's up to you, and it's up to me to study those things out. I've given you verses to why that bible is incorrect and incomplete. Just remember that a half truth is a LIE.

playtowin

Apr 16 2008, 01:26 AM

playtowin

Apr 16 2008, 01:50 AM

Riddle me this batman?

Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last being in 1769.
What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend since before 1611 there was no Bible.
Do they realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV.
Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha?
If God always gives the world his word in one language (as KJV advocates say of English), then the KJV is certainly not that language, for God chose Koine GREEK not ENGLISH to reveal his New Covenant!
If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why would God not repeat the process again in modern language in each language?
If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?
Why did the KJV translators use marginal note showing alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is inspired of God, there would be no alternates!
If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know it?
Why were all the marginal notes and alternate readings removed from modern editions of the KJV, along with the Apocrypha, the opening Dedication to James I, and a lengthy introduction from "The Translators to the Reader."?
When there is a difference between the KJV English and the TR Greek, why do you believe that the Greek was wrong and the KJV English is correct?
If the KJV-only supporters believe fully in the word-for-word inspiration of the KJV, why would italics be necessary?
In defending the KJV's use of archaic language, do you really think it is a good thing that a person must use an Early Modern English dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading?
Why do KJV only advocates feel that all modern translations are wrong for copyrighting the work of each translation when they copyright the materials on their websites, tracts and books they use to promote the KJV? Do they not realize that after 100 years all books pass into public domain and that all copyrighted Bibles today will soon be public domain just like the KJV? If "God's truth should not be copyrighted" then why do they copy write their defenses of God's ultimate truth, the Bible?
Is it not ridiculous to suggest that when the TR disagrees with the KJV that Greek TR has errors, but the KJV doesn't? Is this not the ultimate example of "translation worship"? (Reject the original in favour of the translation)
Did you know that the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, was based on half a dozen small manuscripts, none earlier than the 10th century?
If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absence from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into Greek which was then translated into English - a translation of a translation of a translation?
Why do KJV only advocates believe that the English of the KJV is clearer and more precise than the original Greek language manuscripts? Why should Bible students throw out their Greek dictionaries and buy an "archaic English" dictionary? Are there not word pictures in the original Greek words that the English cannot easily convey? (Jas 2:19 "tremble"; Greek: PHRISSO, indicates to be rough, to bristle. is a powerful word picture of how the demons are in such terror that their skin is rough with goose pimples. Also differences between "agape" and "phileo" love words.)
Why did the translators make mistakes in the chapter summaries in the 1611 version? Wouldn't God have inspired this as well? Why would God inspire the English providentially accurate, but then allow misleading chapter headings? (Every chapter of the Song of Songs is interpreted as descriptive of the church. This is wrong. SoS is God's "mate selection manual." Also, Isa 22 "He prophesieth Shebna's deprivation, and Eliakim, prefiguring the kingdom of Christ, his substitution" This is wrong and reflect the incorrect theology of the day.)
Why would the translators use book headings like "The Gospel According to Saint Luke" since the Greek merely says "The Gospel According to Luke". Does not this show that the translators were influenced by their contemporary theology and the Catholic false doctrine of "sainthood"?
Do KJV only advocates realize that they stand beside the Mormon church in that both groups believe that they were delivered an "inspired translation"? (Mormon's believe Joseph Smith's English translation of the Book of Mormon from the Nephi Plates was done under inspiration.) Do KJV only advocates realize that the most powerful and irrefutable evidence that neither were translated under inspiration, is the very first edition with all their thousands of errors? (KJV- 1611 edition; BoM- 1831 edition)
Do KJV only advocates realize that, to point out that all modern translations have the same kinds of mistakes we are accusing of the KJV, is irrelevant, because we maintain that all translations have errors and none were translated under the inspired supervision of God?
Why would the Holy Spirit mis-guide the translators to employ the use of mythical creatures like "unicorn" for wild ox, "satyr" for "wild goat", "cockatrice" for common viper, when today we know what the real name of these creatures is?
If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to correctly distinguish between "Devil and Demons" (Mt 4:1-DIABOLOS and Jn 13:2-DAIMONIZOMAI) ; "hades and hell" (see Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt 5:22-GEENNA; Note: Hades is distinct from hell because hades is thrown into hell after judgement: Rev 20:14)
Why would KJV translators render Gen 15:6 which is quoted in identical Greek form by Paul in Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6, in FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS? Why are they creating distinctions were none exist?
Why did the KJV translators have no consistent rule for differentiating between the use of definite and indefinite articles? (Dan 3:25 we have one "like the Son of God" instead of "like a son of God", even though in 28 Nebuchadnezzar states God sent "His angel" to deliver the men. The definite article was also added to the centurion's confession in Mt 27:54.)
How can you accept that the Textus Receptus is perfect and error free when Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate but absolutely no Greek manuscript known to man? Further, how come in Rev 22:19 the phrase "book of life" is used in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek manuscripts read "tree of life"?
How can we trust the TR to be 100% error free when the second half of 1 Jn 5:8 are found only in the Latin Vulgate and a Greek manuscript probably written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate? (we are not disputing the doctrine of the trinity, just the validity of the last half of this verse)
How do you explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV in Isa 6:2 where the translators made a rare grammatical error by using the incorrect plural form of "seraphims" rather than "seraphim"?
Must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in order to call it "the word of God"? If so, how do we know "it" is perfect? If not, why do some "limit" "the word of God" to only ONE "17th Century English" translation? Where was "the word of God" prior to 1611? Did our Pilgrim Fathers have "the word of God" when they brought the GENEVA BIBLE translation with them to North America?
Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?
Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the word of God"?
Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can "correct" the English?
Do you believe that the English of the KJV "corrects" its own Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated?
Is ANY translation "inspired"? Is the KJV an "inspired translation"?
Is the KJV "scripture" ? Is IT "given by inspiration of God"? [2 Tim. 3:16]
WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" � 1611, or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850?
In what language did Jesus Christ [not Peter Ruckman and others] teach that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to Matthew 5:18?
Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation?
Did God lose the words of the originals when the "autographs" were destroyed?
Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was "translated out of the original Greek"? [title page of KJV N.T.] Were they "liars" for claiming to have "the original Greek" to translate from?
Was "the original Greek" lost after 1611?
Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without "the word of God"?
What copy or translations of "the word of God," used by the Reformers, was absolutely infallible and inerrant? [their main Bibles are well-known and copies still exist].
If the KJV is "God's infallible and preserved word to the English-speaking people," did the "English-speaking people" have "the word of God" from 1525-1604?
Was Tyndale's [1525], or Coverdale's [1535], or Matthew's [1537], or the Great [1539], or the Geneva [1560] . . . English Bible absolutely infallible?
If neither the KJV nor any other one version were absolutely inerrant, could a lost sinner still be "born again" by the "incorruptible word of God"? [1 Peter 1:23]
If the KJV can "correct" the inspired originals, did the Hebrew and Greek originally "breathed out by God" need correction or improvement?
Since most "KJV-Onlyites" believe the KJV is the inerrant and inspired "scripture" [2 Peter 1:20], and 2 Peter 1:21 says that "the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," would you not therefore reason thus � "For the King James Version came not in 1611 by the will of man: but holy men of God translated as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"?
Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture � "whom ye" [Cambridge KJV's] or, "whom he" [Oxford KJV's] at Jeremiah 34:16?
Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture � "sin" [Cambridge KJV's] or "sins" [Oxford KJV's] at 2 Chronicles 33:19?
Who publishes the "inerrant KJV"?
Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words � would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?
Would you contend that God waited until a king named "James" sat on the throne of England before perfectly preserving His Word in English, and would you think well of an "Epistle Dedicatory" that praises this king as "most dread Sovereign . . .Your Majesty's Royal Person . . ." � IF the historical FACT was revealed to you that King James was a practicing homosexual all of his life? [documentation � Antonia Fraser -- "King James VI of Scotland, I of England" Knopf Publ./1975/pgs. 36-37, 123 || Caroline Bingham -- "The Making of a King" Doubleday Publ./1969/pgs. 128-129, 197-198 || Otto J. Scott -- "James I" Mason-Charter Publ./1976/pgs. 108, 111, 120, 194, 200, 224, 311, 353, 382 || David H. Wilson -- "King James VI & I" Oxford Publ./1956/pgs. 36, 99-101, 336-337, 383-386, 395 || plus several encyclopedias]
Would you contend that the KJV translator, Richard Thomson, who worked on Genesis-Kings in the Westminster group, was "led by God in translating" even though he was an alcoholic that "drank his fill daily" throughout the work? [Gustavus S. Paine -- "The Men Behind the KJV" Baker Book House/1979/pgs. 40, 69]
Is it possible that the rendition "[censored] clothing," in the KJV at James 2: 3, could give the wrong impression to the modern-English KJV reader?
Did dead people "wake up" in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36 in the KJV?
Was "Baptist" John's last name according to Matthew 14: 8 and Luke 7:20 in the KJV?
Is 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 in the KJV understood or make any sense to the modern-English KJV reader? � "O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged." As clearly understood from the New International Version [NIV] � "We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange � I speak as to my children � open wide your hearts also."
Does the singular "oath's," occurring in every KJV at Matthew 14: 9 and Mark 6:26, "correct" every Textus Receptus Greek which has the plural ("oaths") by the post-1611 publishers, misplacing the apostrophe?
Did Jesus teach a way for men to be "worshiped" according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4: 8? [Remember � you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]
Is the Holy Spirit an "it" according to John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; and 1 Peter 1:11 in the KJV? [Again � you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]
Does Luke 23:56 support a "Friday" crucifixion in the KJV? [No "day" here in Greek]
Did Jesus command for a girl to be given "meat" to eat according to Luke 8:55 in the KJV? [or, "of them that sit at meat with thee." at Luke 14:10]
Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a "Bible-corrector" for saying that Romans 8:24 should be rendered "saved in hope," instead of the KJV's "saved by hope"? [Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol 27, 1881, page 485 � see more Spurgeon KJV comments in What is "KJV-Onlyism?", his & many others' views in the article, "Quotes on Bible Translations."]
Was J. Frank Norris a "Bible-corrector" for saying that the correct rendering of John 3:5 should be "born of water and the Spirit," and for saying that "repent and turn" in Acts 26:20 should be "repent, even turn"? [Norris-Wallace Debate, 1934, pgs. 108, 116] Also, is Norman Pickering an "Alexandrian Apostate" for stating, "The nature of language does not permit a 'perfect' translation � the semantic area of words differs between languages so that there is seldom complete overlap. A 'perfect' translation of John 3:16 from Greek into English is impossible, for we have no perfect equivalent for "agapao" [translated "loved" in John. 3:16]."?
Was R. A. Torrey "lying" when he said the following in 1907 � "No one, so far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible is absolutely infallible and inerrant. The doctrine held by many is that the Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible and inerrant, and that our English translation is a substantially accurate rendering of the Scriptures as originally given"? [Difficulties in the Bible, page 17]
Is Don Edwards correct in agreeing "in favor of canonizing our KJV," thus replacing the inspired canon in Hebrew and Greek? [The Flaming Torch, June 1989, page 6]
Did God supernaturally "move His Word from the original languages to English" in 1611 as affirmed by The Flaming Torch? [same page above]

playtowin

Apr 16 2008, 01:51 AM

Errors where the KJV translation disagrees with the Textus Receptus:

KJV translates� Textus Receptus actually says�
"robbers of churches." Acts 19:37
Every known Greek manuscript has HIEROSULOUS, "robbers of temples"

"Lucifer" Is 14:12
"O Day Star" (Lucifer is a human origin nickname for the Devil in the 1600's refers not to the devil but the king of Babylon)

"Easter" Acts 12:4
"Passover"(Easter very poor choice as it confuses the pagan origin Roman Catholic "Easter" holy day with what the TR clearly says is the Jewish Passover!)

"Baptism" (entire New Testament) Acts 2:38; 22:16
immersion, because sprinkling was the mode of baptism in 1611AD, they jelly-fished out and transliterated the Greek "baptizo" but refused to translate it.

"Tithes of all I possess" Lk 18:12
"all I acquire" (Not only variant with the TR, but quite wrong. Tithes were never paid on capital, only increase)

"Schoolmaster" Gal 3:24
"attendant" (the law was the one who brought us to Christ, not taught us about Christ)

"God save the King": 1Sam 10:24, 2Sam 16:16, 1Kings 1:25
"May the king live" ("God" not in TR, but reflects the British culture of the 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.)

"God Forbid." Ro. 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1,11; 1 Co. 6:15; Ga. 2:17; 3:21; 6:14
"may it not be" or "let it not be." (KJV adds the word God where it is absent in the TR because it was a common expression in 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.)

"sweet savour" Lev 6:21; 8:28; 17:6; 23:18
"soothing aroma" (KJV appeals to wrong senses- taste instead of smell in the TR)

"ashes upon his face" 1 Kings 20:38
"bandage over his eyes" (KJV varies from TR by using ashes)

playtowin

Apr 16 2008, 01:53 AM

Here's one Dan acted like he had some interest in...

Inconsistency in translating identical words and phrases in the KJV

Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6 Quotes Gen 15:6
KJV translates identical Greek phrases differently in each NT verse

Rom 12:19, Heb 10:30 quotes Deut 32:35
KJV translates identical Greek phrases differently in each NT verse

Heb 3:11; 4:3 quotes Ps 95:11
KJV translates identical Greek phrases differently in each NT verse

1 Cor 3:17
KJV translates identical Greek words into: "defile" & "destroy"

Mk 15:33, Lk 23:44
KJV translates identical Greek phrases: "whole land" & "all the earth"

Rev 4:4
KJV translates identical Greek words into: "seats" & "thrones"

Mt 25:46
KJV translates identical Greek words into: "everlasting" & "eternal"

Rom 4:3,4,5,6,9,10,11, 22,24
KJV translates identical Greek verbs: "counted", "reckon", "impute"

Rom 7
KJV translates identical Greek "epithumeo": "lust", "covet", "concupiscence"

playtowin

Apr 16 2008, 01:59 AM

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!

Archaic language of the KJV

Example of why archaic language of the KJV is a barrier to knowing about Jesus. All the archaic words in this paragraph are found in the KJV:

"Sith the noise of the bruit of this school hath reached to thee-ward, we trust that our concourse liketh you well-particularly those who blaze abroad that there is error here. Whoso setteth thee against us-whoso saith we offend all-speaketh leasing. We be not affrighted, but withal, we are straightened in our bowels. We knoweth well that what thou wilst hear straightway wilt fast close up thy thoughts. With som we be abjects, some have defied us; but there has been no daysman betwixt us. They subvert the simple!" (References where these words are found: Ez 35:6, Jer 10:22, 1Sam 19:4, Prov 1:21, Esther 8:8, Mk 1:45, Prov 25:14, Jas 3:2, Ps 4:2, Lk 24:37, Acts 25:27, 1Tim 5:13, 2Cor 6:12, Mt 4:20, Ge 20:18, Ps 35:15, Num 23:8, Job 9:33, Ge 31:37, Lam 3:36, Prov 14:15 [Questions You've Asked About Bible Translations, by Dr. Jack Lewis])

Below are 484 examples of how the KJV uses outdated language. This is the primary reason why there is a need for modern translations. One should not need to use a dictionary to understand the Bible. Rather, it should convey the message of God as understandable as a city newspaper!

419 Archaic terms!

Why must one use an Early Modern English dictionary just to understand God's message to man?

1. Abject: Psalm 35:15.
2. Adamant: Ezek. 3:9; Zech. 7:12.

3. Agone: 1 Sam. 30:13.
4. Alamoth: 1 Chron. 15:20.

5. Almug: 1 Kings 10:11-12.
6. Aloes: Prov. 7:17; John 19:39.

7. Ambassage: Luke 14:32.
8. Ambushment: 1 Chron. 13:13

9. Amerce: Deut. 22:19.
10. Angle: Isa. 19:8; Hab. 1:15.

11. Anon: Matt. 13:20; Mark 1:30.
12. Apothecary: Exo. 30:25, 35; 37:29

13. Ariel: Isa. 29:1,2,7.
14. Armhole: Jer. 38:12.

15. Artificer: 1 Chron. 29:5.
16. Assay: Job 4:2; Acts 9:26.

17. Assupim: 1 Chron. 26:15,16.
18. Asswage: Job 16:5.

19. Astonied: Ezra 9:4.
20. Attent: 2 Chron. 6:40; 7:15.

21. Aul: Exo. 21:6.
22. Balances: Lev. 19:36; Jer. 32:10.

23. Bald Locust: Lev. 11:22.
24. Bason: 2 Chron. 4:8; Exo. 24:6.

25. Beeves: Lev. 22:19; Num. 31:28
26. Behemoth: Job 40:15.

27. Bekah: Exo. 38:26.
28. Besom: Isa. 14:23.

29. Bestead: Isa. ;8:21.
30. Betimes: Gen. 26:31; Job 8:5.

31. Bewray: Isa. 16:3; Prov. 29:24.
32. Bittern: Isa. 34:11; Zeph. 2:14.

33. Blain: Exo. 9:9,10.
34. Bloody Flux: Acts 28:8.

35. Bolled: Exo. 9:31.
36. Bondman: Gen. 44:33

37. Botch: Deut. 28:27,35.
38. Bray: Job 6:5; Prov. 27:22.

39. Breeches: Exo. 38:42; Lev. 16:4.
40. Brigandine: Jer. 46:4.

41. Broidered: Ezek. 16:10; Exo. 28:4.
42. Bruit: Jer. 10:22; Nahum 3:19

43. Buckler: 2 Sam. 22:31; Song 4:4.
44. Burning Ague: Lev. 26:16.

45. Byword: 2 Chron. 7:20; Psalm 44:14.
46. Cab: 2 Kings 6:25.

47. Calamus: Ezek. 27:19; Exo. 30:23.
48. Calves of our lips: Hos. 14:2.

49. Camphire: Song of Sol. 1:14; 4:13.
50. Canker: 2 Tim. 2:17.

51. Cankerworm: Joel 1:4; Nahum 3:15.
52. Carbuncle: Exo. 28:17; Ezek. 28:13.

53. Cassia: Exo. 30:24; Psalm 45:8.
54. Cast in the teeth: Matt. 27:44.

55. Castor and Polux: Acts 28:11.
56. Caul: Isa. 3:18; Lev. 3:4

57. Censer: 2 Chron. 26:19; Luke 1:9.
58. Chalcedony: Rev. 21:19.

59. Chalkstone: Isa. 27:9.
60. Chamberlain: Acts 12:20.

61. Chamois: Deut. 14:5.
62. Champaign: Deut. 11:30.

63. Chancellor: Ezra 4:8,9,17.
64. Chapiter: 1 Kings 7:16-18.

65. Chapmen: 2 Chron. 9:14.
66. Chapt: Jer. 14:4.

67. Checker Work: 1 Kings 7:17.
68. Cheek Teeth: Joel 1:6.

69. Chemosh: 1 Kings 11:7; 2 Kings 3:27.
70. Cherub: Ezek. 1:5-11; Psalm 18:10.

71. Choler: Dan. 8:7; 11:11.
72. Churl: Isa. 32:5,7.

73. Ciel: Jer. 22:14.
74. Clave: Ruth 1:14.

75. Clift: Exo. 33:32.
76. Close Place: 2 Sam. 22:46; Psalm 18:45.

77. Coat of Mail: 1 Sam. 17:5.
78. Cockatrice: Jer. 8:17.

79. Cocle: Job 31:40.
80. College: 2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chr. 34:22.

81. Collop: Job 15:27.
82. Concision: Phil. 3:2.

83. Concourse: Acts 19:40.
84. Concupiscence: Rom. 7:8; Col. 3:5.

85. Coney: Lev. 11:5.
86. Confection: Exo. 30:35.

87. Confectionary: 1 Sam. 8:13.
88. Contemn: Psalm 10:13.

89. Convocation: Exo. 12:16; Lev. 23:7.
90. Coping: 1 Kings 7:9.

91. Cor: Ezek. 45:14.
92. Corban: Mark 7:11.

93. Coriander: Exo. 16:31; Num. 11:7
94. Cormorant: Lev. 11:17; Isa. 34:11.

95. Couch: Gen. 49:9; Deut. 33:13.
96. Coulter: 1 Sam. 13:20,21.

97. Countervail: Esth. 7:4.
98. Covert: 2 Kings 16:18; Job 38:40.

99. Creeping Thing: Gen. 1:26.
100. Crisping Pin: Isa. 3:22.

101. Crookbackt: Lev. 21:20.
102. Cruse: 1 Sam. 26:11; 1 Kings 14:3.

103. Cubit: Deut. 3:11; Matt. 6:27.
104. Cumi: Mark 5:41.

105. Cummin: Isa. 28:25,27.
106. Curious Arts: Acts 19:19.

107. Cuttings: Lev. 19:28; 21:5.
108. Discomfit: Judg. 4:15; Psalm 18:14

109. Dragon: Psalm 74:13;; Isa. 27:1
110. Dulcimer: Dan. 3:5, 10, 15

111. Earnest: 2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:14
112. Emerods: Deut. 28:27.

113. Endamage: Ezra 4:13
114. Endue: Gen. 30:20; 2 Chron. 2:12.

115. Engine: Ezek. 26:9; 2 Chron. 20:15.
116. Ensample: Phil. 3:17; 2 Pet. 2:6.

117. Ensign: Isa. 11:12; Zech. 9:16.
118. Ephah: Lev. 5:11; Ezek. 45:11.

119. Ephod: Exo. 28:6-12.
120. Ephphata: Mark 7:34.

121. Espouse: 2 Sam. 3:14; Matt. 1:18.
122. Euroclydon: Acts 27:14.

123. Exactor: Isa. 60:17.
124. Exorcist: Acts 19:13.

125. Extreme Burning: Deut. 28:22.
126. Eyeservice: Col. 3:22; Eph. 6:6.

127. Fain: Job 27:22; Luke 15:16.
128. Fairs: Ezek. 27:12, 14, 16.

129. Fallow Ground: Jer. 4:3; Hos. 10:12.
130. Familiar Friend: Job 19:14; Psalm 41:9.

131. Familiar Spirit: 2 Kings 23:24.
132. Farthing: Matt. 5:26.

133. Fast: 1 Sam. 31:13; Esth. 4:16.
134. Fat: Joel 2:24; Lev. 3:16.

135. Fatling: 1 Sam. 15:9; Isa. 11:6.
136. Fen: Job 40:21.

137. Fetched a compass: Acts 28:13
138. Fillet: Exo. 27:10,11.

139. Fining Pot: Prov. 17:3; 27:21.
140. Firepan: 2 Kings 25:15.

141. Firkin: John 2:6.
142. Fitch: Isa. 28:25, 27.

143. Flagon: Isa. 22:24.
144. Fleshhook: Exo. 27:3.

145. Fleshpot: Exo. 16:3.
146. Flote (Floats): 2 Chron. 2:16.

147. Footman: 1 Sam. 22:17; Jer. 12:5.
148. Footstool: 2 Chron. 9:18.

149. Foreship: Acts 27:30.
150. Foul Spirit: Mark 9:25; Rev. 18:2.

151. Foursquare: Exo. 27:1; Rev. 21:16.
152. Fowler: Psalm 91:3; Hos. 9:8.

153. Fray: Deut. 28:26; Jer. 7:33.
154. Freckled Spot: Lev. 13:39.

155. Fretting: Lev. 13:51,52.
156. Frontlet: Exo. 13:16; Deut. 6:8.

157. Fuller: 2 Kings 18:17; Mark 9:3.
158. Gabbatha: John 19:13.

159. Galbanum: Exo. 30:34.
160. Gall: Job 15:13; 20:25; Matt. 27:34.

161. Gallant Ship: Isa. 33:21.
162. Galley: Isa. 33:21.

163. Gat: 1 Kings 1:1; Eccl. 2:8.
164. Gerah: Lev. 27:25.

165. Ghost: Gen. 49:33.
166. Gin: Amos 3:5; Psalm 141:9.

167. Girt: 2 Kings 1:8; John 21:7.
168. Glean: Lev. 19:10.

169. Glede: Deut. 14:13.
170. Glister: 1 Chron. 39:2; Luke 9:29.

171. Graff: Rom. 11:17, 19, 23, 24.
172. Greaves: 1 Sam. 17:6.

173. Greyhound: Prov. 30:31.
174. Grisled: Gen. 31:10; Zech. 6:3.

175. Habergeon: Exo. 28:32; 2 Chron. 26:14.
176. Haft: Judg. 3:22.

177. Hale: Luke 12:58; Acts 8:3.
178. Halt: Mark 9:45; Luke 14:21; John 5:3.

179. Handbreadth: Exo. 37:12; 1 Kings 7:26.
180. Handstaves: Ezek. 39:9.

181. Hap: Ruth 2:3.
182. Haply: Mark 11:13; Acts 5:39.

183. Hart: Deut. 12:15; Isa. 35:6.
184. Hasty Fruit: Isa. 28:4.

185. Havock: Acts 8:3.
186. Heath: Jer. 17:6.

187. Heave Offering: Num. 18:8.
188. Heave Shoulder: Lev. 10:14.

189. Helve: Deut. 19:5.
190. Higgaion: Psalm 9:16.

191. Hindmost: Num. 2:31.
192. Hiss: Jer. 19:8.

193. Hoar Frost: Exo. 16:14; Psalm 147:16.
194. Hoar: Isa. 46:4.

195. Hoary: Job 41:32.
196. Hoise: Acts 27:40.

197. Holpen: Dan. 11:34; Luke 1:54.
198. Horseleach: Prov. 30:15.

199. Hosen: Dan. 3:21.
200. Hough: Josh. 11:6, 9; 2 Sam. 8:4.

201. Hungerbitten: Job 18:12.
202. Husbandry: 1 Cor. 3:9.

203. Ill Savour: Joel 2:20.
204. Implead: Acts 19:38.

205. Inclosing: Exo. 28:20.
206. Infolding: Ezek. 1:4.

207. Issue: Ezek. 47:12; Rev. 9:17.
208. Jachin and Boaz: 1 Kings 7:15-22.

209. Jacinth: Rev. 21:20.
210. Jah: Psalm 68:4.

211. Jeopard: Judg. 5:18.
212. Jod: 1 Chron. 22:3.

213. Jot: Matt. 5:18.
214. Jubile: Lev. 25:8-17.

215. Kerchief: Ezek. 13:18,21.
216. Kindred: Gen. 24:4.

217. Kine: 1 Sam. 6:10,12,14; Amos 4:1.
218. Kite: Lev. 11:14; Deut. 14:13.

219. Kneadingtrough: Exo. 8:3: 12:34.
220. Knop: Exo. 25:31, 34, 36.; 1 Kings 6:18.

221. Lade: Gen. 47:17; 1 Kings 12:11.
222. Lancet: 1 Kings 18:28.

223. Lapwing: Lev. 11:19; Deut. 14:18.
224. Latchet: Isa. 5:278; Mark 1:7.

225. Latter Rain: Deut. 11:14; Zech. 10:1.
226. Laver: Exo. 31:9; 1 Kings 7:40, 43.

227. Leasing: Psalm 4:2; 5:6.
228. Legion: Mark 5:9, 15; Luke 8:30.

229. Leviathan: Psalm 74:14; Isa. 27:1; Job 41:1.
230. Libertines: Acts 6:9.

231. Lien: Gen. 26:10; Psalm 68:13.
232. Lign Aloes: Num. 24:6.

233. Lily Work: 1 Kings 7:19, 22.
234. Lintel: Exo. 12:22,23; Amos 9:1.

235. Log: Lev. 14:10, 21.
236. Lowring: Matt. 16:3.

237. Lucre: 1 Sam. 8:2; 1 Tim. 3:3,8.
238. Lunatick: Matt. 4:24; 17:15.

239. Magnifical: 1 Chron. 22:5.
240. Mail: 1 Sam. 17:38.

241. Malefactor: Luke 23:32,33; John 18:30.
242. Mallow: Job 30:4.

243. Mammon: Matt. 6:24; Luke 16:11,13.
244. Manch: Ezek. 45:12.

245. Mandrake: Gen. 30:14-16.
246. Maranatha: 1 Cor. 16:22.

247. Maschil: Psalm 32 (Title).
248. Matrix: Exo. 13:12,15;34:19; Num. 18:15.

249. Maul: Prov. 25:18.
250. Maw: Deut. 18:3.

251. Meat Offering: 1 Chron. 21:23.
252. Mete: Exo. 16:18; Isa. 40:12.

253. Meteyard: Lev. 19:35.
254. Michtam: Psalm 16,56-60 (in title).

255. Milcom: 1 Kings 11:5, 33; 2 Kings 23:13.
256. Mincing: Isa. 3:16.

257. Mingled People: Jer. 25:20, 24; Ezek. 30:5.
258. Minish: Psalm 107:39; Exo. 5:19.

259. Mite: Mark 12:42; Luke 12:59.
260. Mitre: Zech. 3:5.

261. Mortar: Num. 11:8; Prov. 27:22.
262. Morter: Exo. 1:14; Nahum 3:14;

263. Mote: Matt. 7:4; Luke 6:41,42.
264. Moving Things: Gen. 1:20.

265. Muffler: Isa. 3:19.
266. Munition: Isa. 29:7; 33:16.

267. Murrian: Exo. 9:3.
268. Musick: 1 Sam. 18:6; Luke 15:25.

269. Myrrh: Gen. 37:25; Matt. 2:11.
270. Naught: Prov. 20:14; 2 Kings 2:19.

271. Necromancer: Deut. 18:11.
272. Neesing: Job 41:18.

273. Nehushtan: 2 Kings 18:4.
274. Nergal: 2 Kings 17:30.

275. Nether: Deut. 24:6; Job 41:24.
276. Nethermost: 1 Kings 6:6.

277. Nethinim: 1 Chron. 9:2; Ezra 7:7.
278. Nettle: Isa. 34:13.

279. Nigh: Deut. 22:2; Luke 21:28.
280. Nitre: Prov. 25:20; Jer. 2:22.

281. Noisome: Psalm 91:3; Ezek. 14:21.
282. Oblation: Lev. 2:4,12; Ezek. 45:1.

283. Occurrent: 1 Kings 5:4.
284. Offscouring: Lamen. 3:45; I Cor. 4:13.

285. Oil Tree: Isa. 41:19.
286. Omega: Rev. 1:8, 11.

287. Omer: Exo. 16:16, 18, 22.
288. Onycha: Exo. 30:34.

289. Onyx: Exo. 28:20; 39:13; Ezek. 28:13.
290. Oracle: 1 Pet. 4:11.

291. Orion: Job 9:9; 38:31; Amos 5:8.
292. Osprey: Lev. 11:13.

293. Ossifrage: Lev. 11:13; Deut. 14:12.
294. Outwent: Mark 6:33.

295. Overcharge: 2 Cor. 2:5; Luke 21:34.
296. Overlive: Josh. 24:31.

297. Overpast: Psalm 57:1; Isa. 26:20.
298. Overrun: 2 Sam. 18:23; Nahum 1:8.

299. Paddle: Deut. 23:13.
300. Palmerworm: Joel 1:4; 2:25; Amos 4:9.

301. Pannag: Ezek. 27:17.
302. Parbar: 1 Chron. 26:18.

303. Pavement: Esth. 1:6.
304. Peculiar: Exo. 19:5; Titus 2:14.

305. Pence: Mark 14:5; Matt. 18:28.
306. Penury: Prov. 14:23; Luke 21:4.

307. Peradventure: Gen. 24:39; Rom. 5:7.
308. Pestle: Prov. 27:22.

309. Phylacteries: Deut. 11:13-22.
310. Pill: Gen. 30:37,38.

311. Plaister: Dan. 5:5; Lev. 13:43,48.
312. Plaiting: 1 Pet. 3:3.

313. Plat: 2 Kings 9:26.
314. Pleasant Plants: Isa. 17:10.

315. Pleiades: Job 9:9; 38:31.
316. Plummet: 2 Kings 21:13; Isa. 28:17.

317. Pommegranate: Num. 20:5; Deut. 8:8.
318. Pommel: 2 Chron. 4:12.

319. Porter: 1 Chron. 23:5; Neh. 7:73.
320. Potsherd: Prov. 26:23; Isa. 45:9.

321. Pottage: Gen. 25:29,30,34; 2 Kings 4:38.
322. Pourtray: Ezek. 4:1; 8:10.

323. Pransing: Judg. 5:22; Nahum 3:2.
324. Pressfat: Hag. 2:16.

325. Prick: Num. 33:55; Acts 9:5; 26:14.
326. Privily: 1 Sam. 24:4; Gal. 2:4.

327. Profane: Lev. 21:7; Heb. 12:16.
328. Propitiation: Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2; 4:10.

329. Proselyte: Matt. 23:15; Acts 2:10.
330. Provender: Gen. 42:27; Isa. 30:24.

331. Pruninghook: Isa. 2:4; Joel 3:10; Micah 4:3
332. Psaltery: 1 Sam. 10:5; Psalm 144;9

333. Publican: Matt. 9:11; Luke 18:10; 19:2.
334. Pur: Esth. 3:7; 9:24.

335. Purifying Sores: Isa. 1:6.
336. Purrim: Esth. 9:21-32.

337. Purtenance: Exo. 12:9
338. Pygarg: Deut. 14:5.

339. Quarternion: Acts 12:4.
340. Quick: Num. 16:30; Acts 10:42.

341. Quit: 1 Sam. 4:9; 1 Cor. 16:13.
342. Rainment: Gen. 45:22.

343. Rampart: Lamen. 2:8; Nahum 3:8.
344. Ravening: Psalm 22:13; Matt. 7:15.

345. Ravin: Gen. 49:27; Nahum 2:12.
346. Recorder: 2 Sam. 8:16; 2 Chron. 34:8.

347. Redound: 2 Cor. 4:15.
348. Reins: Psalm 16:7; Isa. 11:5.

349. Remphan: Acts 7:43.
350. Rereward: Num. 10:25; 1 Sam. 29:2.

351. Ribband: Num. 15:38.
352. Rie: Exo. 9:32; Isa. 28:25.

353. Ringstraked: Gen. 39:35,39,40.
354. Roe: Isa. 13:14.

355. Ruddy: 1 Sam. 16:12.
356. Rude: 2 Cor. 11:6.

357. Sackbut: Dan. 3:5.
358. Sackcloth: Gen. 37:34; 2 Kings 19:1.

359. Saffron: Song of Sol. 4:14.
360. Satyr: Isa. 13:21; 34:14.

361. Savour: Lev. 26:31; Matt. 16:23.
362. Scabbard: Jer. 47:6.

363. Scall: Lev. 13:30-37; 14:54.
364. Scrabble: 1 Sam. 21:13.

365. Screech Owl: Isa. 34:14.
366. Scum: Ezek. 24:6,11,12.

367. Seethe: 2 Kings 4:38; Job 41:20.
368. Selvedge: Exo. 26:4; 36:11.

369. Servitor: 2 Kings 4:43.
370. Shambles: 1 Cor. 10:25.

371. Sheaf: Gen. 37:7; Deut. 24:19.
372. Sheepcote: 2 Sam. 7:8; 1 Chron. 17:7.

373. Sheminith: 1 Chron. 15:21; Psa 6 (title).
374. Sherd: Isa. 30:14; Ezek. 23:34.

375. Shewbread: 1 Sam. 21:6; 1 Chron. 9:32.
376. Shibboleth: Judg. 12:6.

377. Shigionoth: Habbakkuk 3:1.
378. Shiloh: Gen. 49:10.

379. Shittah Tree: Isa. 41:19.
380. Silverling: Isa. 7:23.

381. Sith: Ezek. 35:6.
382. Snuff: Jer. 2:24; 14:6.

383. Snuffdish: Exo. 25:38; 37:23; Num. 4:9.
384. Snuffers: 1 Kings 7:50; 2 Chron. 4:22.

385. Sod: 2 Chron. 35:13.
386. Sodden: Exo. 12:9; 1 Sam. 2:15.

387. Sodpdoiler: Judg. 2:14; 1 Sam. 13:17.
388. Sojourn: Judg. 19:16; Isa. 52:4.

389. Sottish: Jer. 4:22.
390. Spikenard: Mark 14:3; John 12:3.

391. Stacte: Exo. 30:34.
392. Stomacher: Isa. 3:24.

393. Strait: Isa. 49:20; Acts 26:5.
394. Strake: Gen. 30:37; Lev. 14:37

395. Supple: Ezek. 16:4
396. Sycamine: Luke 17:6

397. Sycomore: Amos 7:14
398. Taber: Nah. 2:7

399. Tache: Exo. 26,11; 36:13,18
400. Target: 1 Kings 10:16; 2 Chron 9:15; 14:8.

401. Tender eyed: Gen. 29:17
402. Thence: Acts 28:13

403. Trow: Luke 17:9
404. Unction: 1 John 2:20

405. Unicorn: Num. 23:22; Deut 33:17; Job 39:9
406. Victual: Exo. 12:39

407. Visage: Dan. 3:19
408. Void place: 1 Kings 22:10

409. Wax: 2 Sam. 3:1; Rev. 18:3
410. Wen: Lev. 22:22

411. Wheaten: Exo. 29:2
412. Whelp: 2 Sam. 17:8; Ezek. 19:3

413. Wimple: Isa. 3:22
414. Winefat: Isa. 63:2; Mark 12:1

415. Wist: Josh. 8:14; Mark 9:6
416. Wit: Gen. 24:21; Ex. 2:4; 2 Kings 10:29

417. Wizard: Lev. 19:31; 20:27; 1 Sam. 28:3
418. Wot: Gen. 39:8; Rom. 11:2

419. Wreathen: Exo. 28:14; 39:15; 2 Kings 25:27

playtowin

Apr 16 2008, 02:13 AM

Here is some awsome info...

1. Foremost, the KJV is an EXCELLENT translation, but not the ONLY excellent translation.

2. In over 90 percent of the New Testament, readings are identical word-for-word, regardless of the family. Of the remaining ten percent, MOST of the differences between the texts are fairly irrelevant, such as calling the Lord "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ," or putting the word "the" before a noun. Less than two percent would significantly alter the meaning of a passage, and NONE of them would contradict or alter any of the basic points of Christian doctrine. What we have, then, is a dispute concerning less than one-half of one percent of the Bible. The other 99.5% we all agree on!

3. Because there are over 14,000 manuscript copies of the New Testament we can absolutely be confident of its accuracy. With this large number of manuscripts, comparing manuscripts easily reveals any place where a scribe has made an error or where there is a variation. There are approximately 150,000 variations in the manuscripts we have today. However, these variations represent only 10,000 places in the New Testament (if the same word was misspelled in 3,000 manuscripts, that is counted as 3,000 variations.) Of these 10,000 places, all but 400 are questions of spelling in accord with accepted usage, grammatical construction, or order of words. Of the remaining variations, only 50 are of significance (such as two manuscripts leaving out Acts 2:37). But of these 50, not one alters even one article of faith which cannot be abundantly sustained by other undoubted passages. There are some manuscripts that date as early as 130 AD, very close to the completion of the New Testament. These manuscripts are nearly identical to those dating 900 years later, thus verifying the accuracy of the scribes.

4. These advocates reject all others Bible's that post-date the KJV.

5. They believe that the KJV is not only inspired in the original language, but also in the translation process.

6. This claim of an inspired translation process is not made for any other Bible translation.

7. Only a very tiny fraction of people who use the KJV actually believe that the translation process was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

8. We feel that the KJV is to be classed as one of several major standards of Bible translations including, NASB, RSV, NKJV, ASV, NIV. All these translations are equal in quality and all should be used for Bible study.

9. The TR itself was based on a very few, late scripts, not one of which contained the entire Greek New Testament and none earlier than the 12th century. In the matter of the book of Revelation, a missing page was translated from the Latin Vulgate BACK to the Greek. Acts 9:6 although found in the Latin Vulgate, and thus the TR is found in no Greek manuscript at all. In light of its obvious shortcomings, a greater number of older and more complete manuscripts were used in the translation of subsequent versions (post-1881)} (The KJV Debate: A Plea for Realism, D.A. Carson)

stack

Apr 16 2008, 02:34 AM

Happy Birthday from Charlotte SwitzerDan!

playtowin

Apr 16 2008, 03:11 AM

This seemingly long list of things that refute the "KJV only" stance is nothing compared to what I could have posted. You have been very unpleasant to deal with. You keep implying things about me that aren't true, just so that you can continue repeating your "KJV Only" belief over and over again.

Try talking about WHAT you are reading IN the KJV for a change and how it's changed your life? How you've come to know God's love more by searching the scriptures. How has your knowledge of God's word inspired you to help others, or speak kindly, or give generously to the poor? Or will you not be happy to share the good news until everyone agree's with your favorite version of the bible?

You refuse to answer simple questions like "if it's the only proper tanslation of the bible why are there thousands of alternate meanings in the margins of the KJV" or "what are we missing in the gospel by NOT reading the KJV" or "where in the bible does it say one translation by men will be the authority?"

Please, you've stated 20 times now that you believe the KJV is the only version we should be reading! What are you waiting for, a KJV revival to hit the pdga board? Turn the page man!

CAMBAGGER

Apr 16 2008, 10:41 AM

Wow, I guess you're right, God cannot preserve his perfect word for us. If the words don't really mean what they say, then how do we know that saved means saved??? or forgiven really means forgiven??? I guess the different bibles are close enough huh.

How about these verses in the KJV: Read Matt 5:22

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Now lets look at the niv version: Matt 5:22

22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

See what was left out? "without a cause " was omitted from the niv. That doesn't make a big deal huh? It does if you read the next verse I give you:

Mark 3:5 (KJV)

And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.

The "he " there is Jesus. It says he looked round about on them with ANGER. The problem is obvious, if the niv version is to stand, the Lord is CONDEMMED by his own words. Remember, they leave out " without a cause". I always thought Christ lived a perfect life. The niv portrays otherwise.

I have not implied things to you that are un-true. I said I believed that God has preserved his word for us and that we can trust it. You don't have to believe that. It seems that you obviously have a great problem with that.

Paul says that we are all to be together, speaking the same things, having the same judgement. When we use 30 different bibles that teach different things it hard to be that way.

2 Peter 1:20 says
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

The not-so simple matter that I've shown that the NIV does should be enough for one to reconsider. Why would you want to even read that when it says what it says???

It's a shame that so called "Christians" get soo defensive when someone questions their belief system. You've said over and over that the other versions are "worthy" translations. I disagree, and have showed you why. It's supposed to be simple. Wisdom of man makes it complicated.

playtowin

Apr 16 2008, 11:29 AM

I've given all that is needed to refute this theory of "KJV only" thinking. I don't want anything else to do with it...

CAMBAGGER

Apr 16 2008, 03:11 PM

So, what you're saying is that you trust that God can give you eternal life, but he couldn't preserve his Word eternally for us ???...or does eternal not mean eternal?

switzerdan

Apr 16 2008, 04:25 PM

Dan, after two months straight of me answering your daily questions just like these above, you finally started to get questions from me. You never even tried to answer them. You even went so far as to say, quote "I thought they were all rhetorical questions!" You avoided my questions and continued to daily throw your questions at me. Then when I made it so abundantly clear that you were just playing games you sent me a pm and said, "I am not avoiding you, my kid is sick and I have to take care of him." To which I responded in good faith, "do it man, be with your family." Now, over a month later, I see for about a week or more, you are back, now asking me the same, ultimately meaningless, easy to figure out yourself questions and I hear no greating from you. No "hey, I'm back after avoiding your questions before I took a break!" Not even a "hello!" Instead I get the same old line of questioning concerning the minute details of something you don't even believe in? Come on, get real!
 Hi Dave. I initially stayed away from the board for about a week or so because I had a lot of stress professionally and personally. Now, disc golf season has started, and I really don�t have the time or energy to invest hours a day in this discussion.
Do you care to keep your word to me and start answering some questions I had and still have for you? I said I would answer all future questions you had. And I�ll try to do that. Or do you want to continue to ask questions that really don't really matter to you? Sometimes I ask questions that matter to me and sometimes I ask questions to point something out. Come on man! Don't tell me it really matters to you why I rounded 99.5% down to 99% inadvertantly in my very anoying discussion with Cam? Well, if you�re going to use �facts� you should at least try to make them match each other. If you are going to ask questions Dan, ask me something that actually matters to you. Something that would make a difference in how you see God. I think him standing in front of me would go a long way to helping his case. He could also teleport me to Rock Hill in October so I could watch the USDGC. Maybe he could just whisk me up to heaven for a quick visit. I think any of these would do the trick. Surely these are in his power to do. Maybe you could pray for him to do it. You guys seem pretty tight. Surely somewhere in your fascination with Dawkins since you were "six years old" you can come up with a question of relavance to your life and death on this spinning ball on land and ocean? First, I�ve been an atheist since I was six; I have not been fascinated with Dawkins since I was six. Secondly, I�m not �fascinated� by Dawkins. I appreciate his work but I�m not fascinated by him in the same way I am by, say, exploring Roman ruins or medievel castles here in Europe. These silly alanogies of common sense interpretations, "tip" this, and "tip" that, have nothing to do with anything eternal or pressing in your "wanting to believe." I was merely pointing out that interpretation is hard work and the same word can have many different meanings. I am not an expert on any of the ancient languages that the Bible was written in. But, I assume that, since all languages share features such as multiple meanings for the same word, those languages do also.I do some transaltion work and know how difficult it can be. And I translate from one modern language to another modern language. The difficulties with an ancient language must be enormous. Gimme something better than this, or at the very least, fulfill your word by answering the questions you said you would? Although this has a question mark, I don�t really think it qualifies � grammatically speaking - as a question. 

You wanted answers and I gave you full books to read. I told you that I can�t get those books in Switzerland, but that I would try to find them in the States when I am there this summer. Patience is a virtue. You tried unsusccesfully to detract the entire topic by fixating on some poeples view of Josephus and his reliability. Since one of the books that I was reading used Josephus as a source, I thought it was extremely relevant to talk about his trustworthiness as a source. This was most definitely on topic. And then, nothing! No more interest! In addition to having more important things to do, I lost interest because your tireless, overindulgent ranting was boring me to tears! Posts like your 484 examples of how the KJV uses outdated language are really tiring to read. Write a book and publish it. I can read that on the train. You found your excuse to avoid stacks and stacks of evidence THAT YOU ASKED FOR! You offer no alternative, As I've said before, you're the one trying to prove something. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't have the answers, but I don't think your answers are proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. I, like Socrates, am merely an ignorant man trying to find some objective answers. just a never ending line of questions that even if answered, get ignored and on to the next question! Now you come back at me with this? I didn�t �come back at you� with anything. I was merely pointing out that translation is difficult work. That was my only point. Before that I did ask if God couldn�t present you people with one error free version of the Bible. That was not directed at you personally, but at any Christian who cares to answer. Sorry bud, this fish isn't bitting!
 Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I�m sorry, but I�m not about to accept the claims of Jesus� disciples as proof that he was the son of God. People can point out (as you frequently do) that the Bible is a historical book all they want. Historians realize that all stories from the past must be looked at objectively. Would you take the word of Hermann Goering or Rudolf Hess if they said that Hitler was a good guy with a fantastic plan for the future? Probably not. You�d want to look to other sources for some information. Are there any objective sources that offer proof of Jesus� divinity? Can you prove any of this fairy tale without using the Bible? Can you show me just one shred of hard, physical, undeniable evidence about Jesus that doesn�t rely on the Bible or devout believers as a source?

bapmaster

Apr 16 2008, 04:33 PM

So, what you're saying is that you trust that God can give you eternal life, but he couldn't preserve his Word eternally for us ???...or does eternal not mean eternal?

That's an interesting conclusion to reach from his statements. I'm not quite sure how you got that.

I personally find this discussion a little inane. To argue that any translation is superior to another, without being able to make actual valid reference to the original Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek, is silly. There are scholars on both sides of the issue who are trained in the languages in which the scripture was written. Study of any ancient text that is not complemented by commentary from one who can read it in its original form is incomplete, which invalidates any argument as to the superiority of any one translation.

I personally think that it is not possible for the KJV to be the best possible translation, since it is translated into a language that differs from what we currently speak.

CAMBAGGER

Apr 16 2008, 05:28 PM

Nice Ben. Really, it's hard to understand, that much different from our language?

playtowin

Apr 16 2008, 06:01 PM

Well, can I assume your child is doing better? Glad to hear things are lightening up for you...

I gave you resources galore Dan. You've ignored "99.5%" of the evidence in it! ;) I say you ignored it, because you never mention it, you simply talk about the questionable unreliability of about one percent of it. Hardly a convincing ratio. I didn't just recomend books that you can't purchase where you are at. I listed books, free e books, websites, videos, etc... BTW, when you read the resources I gave you, do you just glance over all the evidences or do you take them on, one at a time and examine them? I am not implying or assuming anything, I am just asking a question. Personally, if I find a book, website, video or audio that deals with evidences or anything biblical, I examine it almost line by line. I like to really "get it" sorta speak. I'll admit, I have a passion for learning that stuff, I don't expect you to study it the way anyone else would, we all have different levels of how much it means to us, I just wanted to ask...

If you don't like reading a list of 484 words that prove the KJV uses an outdated language, then try skipping through it! It wasn't a letter, it was a list! You goofball! :DFrankly, to use that post as an example of "tireless, overindulgent ranting" is a bit silly.

Here's a suggestion if you and I are to continue communicating publically or privately, let's just agree to keep things short and agree to not move on to other topics until the one we are on is exhausted? Sound like a fair deal? Granted there are reasonable "thread drifts" that can occur without turning things into a "book" as you said, but I would agree to try my best to keep it "on point" and breif if you will... deal? Until then, I will continue to respond to your post!

Speaking of this KJV "stuff!" If I don't want to get into it with a believer, can you imagine how irrelivant it is to me concerning a non believer? Seriously!

You told me you were a "fan of Dawkins since you were six years old" on the "Jesus thread" about three months ago. Thats why I said that about Dawkins and coming up with questions that have more depth to them. Surely even you, as a self professed "non-believer" would admit that the entire subject is important right? Life, death, afterlife, creation, evolution, heaven, hell, becoming worm-food, etc... You do agree it's important right? I'll assume your answer is yes. Well, my whole point was "why don't we talk about more important things." That's all...

I posted the verses concerning the translation of a word one way in one place, then the exact same word in the manuscript another way in another place. I am well aware of words having two meanings (thank you Zepplin!) but that thought does not apply to what I was saying or what the so called "inspired translators of the KJV" wrote. Really, I want to get off that subject, ok? I think I've given ample reasons to explain why I feel like I do about it. Wouldn't you agree?

You saying "I am just an ignorant man searching for objective answers" is not exactly correct. You've told me on more than one occasion that "unless I see Jesus in front of me" or "unless I see a video tape of Jesus being raised from the dead I will not believe." So, to say that "objective answers" is enough for you now is kinda fishy. I've given you many good, solid evidences, but unfortunately, you feel they aren't important enough to discuss when you come upon them.

Lastly, I can count on two hands the times you completely put the words "prove" or "proof" in my mouth when I never said it! I have been consistent with you from day one. I cannot prove anything to you Dan. I can only give you solid evidence, it is up to you to put your faith in Jesus, either based on the evidence you are given (not only by me), or something else. Personally, I couldn't keep from believing if I tried. The stack of evidence I've seen is so tall and wide that I can't even see around it! Then, when you add the studies I've had that blow Darwinism out of the evolutionary waters. The countless studies of creation, the scientific evidence, the geological evidence, young earth studies, paleontology, physics, mathmatics, biology, design, anthropology, and the simple evidence of a changed life! I could go on and on for a lifetime and more explaining the evidences of God. I dare ya, pick any one of those things and I could give you stacks of evidence! Like I said, I couldn't get around it if I tried! I'm telling you the truth Dan! So forgive me if I say too much? But I can't help but point to the one who saved me, Jesus.

switzerdan

Apr 17 2008, 05:40 AM

Hi Dave.

Not much time now, but I wanted to show you what I said in reference to Dawkins.

Hi Stack! I whole-heartedly side with Dawkins' opinion. I have since I was about 6. He just puts the arguments so much more eloquently and well thought out than I could.

I said that I agree with his opinion and have agreed with his opinion since I was about 6. I reached the same conclusions on my own many years ago - and thus share his opinion that there is no god. However, I didn't even know about Dawkins until a couple of years ago. Sharing / agreeing with a man's opinions and being fascinated by him are not the same thing. While I appreciate the one book I read by him, I haven't read anything else by him and certainly wouldn't call myself fascinated.

switzerdan

Apr 17 2008, 05:43 AM

protomag

Apr 17 2008, 10:06 AM

Ok, Ive seen enough of the version battle to make me ill. If you guys can spare an hour of time to listen to the message in this link (looking at all your posts, I can see you both have the time) you will see that BOTH the NIV and the KJV have their errors in translation. This message in the link below is from a man who goes to the original Greek texts to find the true words that were written. At about the 50 minute mark he says something that even surprised me about which version is closer to the original Greek. I'm not for or against either version as I read both of them. Maybe after were done with this pointless version arguing, we can move from gnosis (knowledge) on to epignosis (mature knowledge).

message
http://www.cornerstonejacksonville.com/messages/view_message.php?id=168&v=a

playtowin

Apr 17 2008, 01:01 PM

When I described you being fascinated with Dawkins, it was mainly based on this quote, but hardly on this quote alone. You have cited and defended him many times on the book thread, the Jesus thread and now in the bible thread. Not to mention the theories and motives that he believes and profits from. But you obviously feel that I've described your "interest" in him in a way that the word "fascination" doesn't accurately describe your personal feelings. For that I SINCERELY APOLOGIZE. You obviously do not wish to be described as "fascinated" with Dawkins. I wouldn't want to be called "fascinated with Dawkins" either. Hey, we totally agree on something! Baby steps! LOL :D

playtowin

Apr 17 2008, 01:44 PM

I wouldn't really say things are lightening up; they're simply a little more manageable now!

Quick question: Do you believe the young earth theory is valid? I only ask because some of the things in the last paragragh of your last post lead me to believe that you might.

Well, I am glad that things have "mellowed" enough for you to return to the board at least. How is your little "young skull full of mush" doing? Hope he/she is doing well. You have a boy right?

We have vast differences, but as I've said to you from the begining, I've been very upfront and honest about this, I am glad you are here. Your interest in the evidences of God have allowed a forum for the evidences of God to be openly shared within the context of comunication, and not just blindly posting randomly. This has given me and others a place to share and personally, it has allowed me to grow in many area's. So thanks for being here and contributing. If we lived closer, I would invite you for a round where nothing would be discussed about this except "if I win, you come to church with me" and if you win "I shut up for a week!" LOL :D

I absolutely believe that there is massive amounts of evidence to support the so called "relatively young earth" theory. The evidence for a "relatively young earth" has outweighed anything I've studied on the "billions of years" theory by a ton! I do believe that there are questions that both sides simply cannot answer. If you wish to know those evidences I'd gladly share them with you. I've told you time after time that I'll share with you anything you want. But I will make it perfectly clear that I don't wanna argue with you about it. This may seem like a contradictory statement, but I'll just say it and if you don't understand it I'll clarify later. I believe that there are things in this study of a "relatively young/old earth" that without a doubt point to the validity of the bible. But even though the evidence is growing and growing, I feel there are more (struggling for the right word) "important" topics to discuss.

stack

Apr 17 2008, 04:06 PM

switzerdan

Apr 17 2008, 04:36 PM

If we lived closer, I would invite you for a round where nothing would be discussed about this except "if I win, you come to church with me" and if you win "I shut up for a week!" LOL :D

interesting thought... Dan are you planning any trips back to Charlotte anytime in the future? :)

Have you seen my player rating?!?! No chance I'd take that deal!!

But, I will be in Charlotte from June 20 until July 11th. I'm hoping to make it out for a few local events like doubles.

playtowin

Apr 17 2008, 09:43 PM

Have you seen my player rating?!?!

Now I have, I'm sorry! lol :D

switzerdan

Apr 17 2008, 11:24 PM

Hi Dave.

Can you tell me what you think some of the most important evidence is supporting the young earth theory and send me some links that you think present this evidence well so I can read up on it? I've read up on it a little bit, but maybe you have some links that are different than what I've read.

playtowin

Apr 18 2008, 02:38 AM

Sure... How's that kid doing? :confused: Don't worry about that rating, I try not to let it mean more than it does.

A very SHORT LIST of some of my favorites are:

1. 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics (more physics related but certainly applicable to the "relatively young earth" theory.
2. Population growth
3. Rotation of the earth
4. Atmospheric helium
5. Pleochroic Halos

One of my favorite links is John Claytons "Does God Exist?" website: http://www.doesgodexist.org/ He is an amazing guy. Seriously, mail him a question and you'll be surprized what you get in response. Trust me on this one! I first came in contact with him in the 80's and coresponded with him once in the late 90's. He has an amazing story of going from atheism to Christianity. Just type "young earth" or whatever you want to study in the search window.

A new one to me is "Creation Truth Foundation." http://www.creationtruth.com/ Dr. Sharp I think his name is. I recently stubbled on this guy from a DVD series in the library at the church building about three months ago. I've watched the majority of the DVD's listed in the "bookstore" icon. My favorite one was about Darwin but I don't see it listed. I may have the title wrong, it may be the one entitled "Evolution" but the cover looks diferent on the website. Anyway, I really enjoy listening to him. This isn't just "young earth" specific, but there is a lot of that in there...

Thats all I can think of off the top of my head concerning websites that might contain "young earth" studies. Most of my study of this topic over the years has come from books. Remember, I do not share this with you to "prove" anything. These are EVIDENCES that IMO not only point to the validity of the "young earth" theory, but ultimately point to the reliability of God's word. But I only share them with you because you asked and I really enjoy studying them. No matter if it causes you to consider the "young earth" theory or not, I hope you find it half as interesting as I do. This topic has much value, but ultimately, it's not a salvation issue to me personally.

switzerdan

Apr 18 2008, 04:35 AM

Thanks Dave. I'll read them when I get a chance and get back to you. The kid is doing great. 70 cm long and over 8 kg. He's just gotten his first teeth within the last few weeks - that was a real joy!! ;) He crawls all over the place and is starting to stand up with the help of tables, chairs, beds, etc.

As far as the ratings go, not a big deal deal for me. I play for the enjoyment of the game and the people I meet. If it goes well, great. If it goes badly, well, then that's great too as long as I'm having fun.

playtowin

Apr 18 2008, 02:06 PM

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php

switzerdan

Apr 20 2008, 01:26 PM

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php

In the interest of fairness:

expelled exposed (http://www.expelledexposed.com/)

/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

playtowin

Apr 21 2008, 02:16 AM

Quote from the first paragraph of ( expelled exposed )

 "We'll show you why this movie is not a documentary at all, but anti-science propaganda aimed at creating the appearance of controversy where there is none."

I saw "Expelled" Friday night. It wasn't "anti-sciene." Gimme a break! Especially when it used science to show how complex just a simple cell is! It could be summed up in one word, "FREEDOM!" We're free to choose whatever we want, at least we should be.

Personally it was wild to see that Dawkins has more faith than any Christian I've ever met! Faith in nothing but pure speculation wasn't a surprize, but the form in which that nothingness takes shape in his mind was shockingly humerous to a theater filled with believers, including me.

This is sure to cause controversy, which is a good way to get SOME people talking about something important for a change. But IMO "Expelled" didn't do much more than say "hey, we should have the freedom to believe whatever we want." Not a shocker to see "Expelled Exposed" flying around the web like an anoying fly, but hardly worth the effort to swat at it much. The documentary barely even touched on the topic of Jesus. Ultimately, the topic of God, the biblical God or any other god, wasn't the purpose or anything close to the focus either. Intellegent design and your freedom to believe in the evidence for "ID" was the point from begining to end.

As far as the second part of that sentence, that there "is no controversy?" Uh, is that why the movie envoked an entire website dedicated to haphazardly debunking it? Because there is "no controversy?" Alrightythen!

playtowin

Apr 21 2008, 02:20 AM

In the interest of fairness:

/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

 Funny, you just described "Expelled!" :D

switzerdan

Apr 21 2008, 12:24 PM

Alacrity

Apr 21 2008, 01:12 PM

Many years ago, when I was in college, I had a geology professor who knew geology. Not just had a doctoral degree in it, he had written many research papers on it, had publised books, he KNEW geology. He would teach the 'old earth' view and then, after completing a subject he would explain why he disagreed with it. He did not promote a 6000 or so year old earth, but he did argue for one much younger and convincing so than is common in the old earth theory. He was laughed at as being unscientific as well. What I learned from that was that it did not matter how educated you were, if you disagreed with old earth theories you were considered a nut.

He also, very convincing argued against evolution across species. He stated and usually had references to show that there is no clear proof that reptiles ever became mammal. Yes clearly horses had changed over the years, dogs had come for wolves, etc., etc., but never a reptile to anything besides a reptile.

He was still censored.

playtowin

Apr 22 2008, 03:12 AM

switzerdan

Apr 22 2008, 08:54 AM

I haven't looked completely though both websites yet, but I'm working on it. The one website from John Clayton doesn't say that the earth is young - only that science and the Bible don't have to contradict each other. He actually argues for an old earth. On the other one, I didn't find any science to speak of - only a bit of propoganda regarding their philosophy and mission statement. I'll look at them further as soon as my computer is up and running again. (I'm using one at work now.) The implication that I said John Clayton supports young earth is nothing I ever said. I simply pointed you to a website that I like and that happens to contain some info on the subject! Reguardless of what your question was, I never said it! The second site was simply me pointing to the video's on it that deal with the subject. I was pretty clear about that. 
 My original question was:

Can you tell me what you think some of the most important evidence is supporting the young earth theory and send me some links that you think present this evidence well so I can read up on it? I've read up on it a little bit, but maybe you have some links that are different than what I've read.

This is why I was a bit surprised at the links you posted. 

Ultimately, what is far more telling for me is to simply look at the people involved in the 'contoversy.' One one side - the young earth side - you only find about 1.4% of scientists, all fundamentalist Christians and almost exclusively American. On the other side - the old earth side - you find about 98.6% of scientists, people from all beliefs and cultures. Where did you find those numbers? (not a "rhetorical question!") Also, you've known me long enough Dan, do you really think being outnumbered means anything to me? :D
I cleared the cache and history in my wife's computer and can't find that exact link again. :( However, here is a link that indicates the numbers I used were generous. answers in creation (http://www.answersincreation.org/bookreview/compromise/refuting_compromise.htm)

I think this 'debate' says more about dogma totally agree, but IMO the "dogama" coming from evelutionary science far outweighs the blind religious "dogma" concerning this subject. (See below for a really good example of dogma.) This is due to the gapping holes in evolutionary thought. You just got done giving the "numbers!" than it does science. If the first words in the Bible were "Billions and billions of years ago, God created the heavens and the earth..." there would be no 'controversy.' But the bible DID SAY the second part of that sentence and there is controversy! So, I don't follow your logic here... I clearly meant the 'controversy' about the age of the earth. 

In science, we observe nature, try to decide what it's doing, make a hypothesis and then begin to collect evidence to see if our hypothesis is correct. And there are many non believing scientists who mess it up! 

With fundamentalist Christians, the method is to read the Bible, make up one's mind about what it says and then try to bend the facts to fit one's belief. This is not science, this is faith. It undercuts the very thing that makes us human - our intellect. And there are many "fundamentalist Christian" scientists who don't mess it up!

And where would you place the scientist (a fundamentalist Christian) who made this quotation? "However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it�s the interpretation of the data that is at fault. (quotation in article) (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp) Would you classify his position as dogmatic or open-minded? Do you honestly believe that the great majority of scientists are ignoring 'evidence' against an old earth or against evolution as part of some conspiracy to destroy Christianity?

The evidence THAT DAN and lots of others (have) HAS READ points to an earth that is about 4.5 billion years old. The evidence THAT DAN and lots of others (have) HAS READ points to evolution as the reason for the diversity of life. Believe what you want. There are still people who believe the earth is flat. They have a right to their opinion even if it's wrong - just as young earthers and fundamentalist Christians do. Equating believers and "young earthers" to those who believe the earth is flat is crazy. There is no evidence for a flat earth! There is however, much evidence that disputes a 4.5 billion year old earth! The flat earthers believe the 'evidence' is in the Bible. The YECs base their belief on the same book.

playtowin

Apr 22 2008, 02:54 PM

I clearly meant the 'controversy' about the age of the earth. 
Maybe I wasn't clear enough for you. The bible says "He created." Has that kept the "CREATION ISSUE" from being controversial? No! So why would there be no controversy in the "AGE THEORIES" if the bible said "He created it over billions and billions of years?"

And where would you place the scientist (a fundamentalist Christian) who made this quotation? "However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it�s the interpretation of the data that is at fault. (quotation in article) (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp) Would you classify his position as dogmatic or open-minded? Do you honestly believe that the great majority of scientists are ignoring 'evidence' against an old earth or against evolution as part of some conspiracy to destroy Christianity?

I know nothing of this guy, but reading exactly what he said, and where he said it, I'd "place him" in the catagory of consisitent! If you believe in the bible, and your interpretation of scientific data on something contradicts the bible, the first place I would look is the interpretation! So called "scientific data" (non biblical) has been proven wrong before, countless times and the bible hasn't. The "sqeeky wheel get's the grease!" I highly doubt he wouldn't look at the bible as well. I know I do and always will. Nothing sacreligious about that. Obviously he has a biblical world view. Shocker! You went to a "pro bible" site for info and you are surprised to find dogmatic biblical statements? Uh.... ok! Here's a tip, don't go to a Discraft site to find support for Innova, you might not find it! ;)

Bad interpretations exist on both sides Dan. The interpretation of a flat earth comes from 1 Chronicles 16:30 or Psalm 93:1 / 96:10 / 104:5 or Isaiah 45:18. The evidence for a flat earth just isn't viable! Guess what? It's a bad interpretation! Does that make me "narrow minded" because I said that? (on a "biblical discussion thread no less!) No! If I called those people (which I've never met or ever will) stupid and refused to look at the data, and share opposing data, that would make me narrow minded. Your blanket, "dogmatic" statements about "fundamentals" aside, there are many believers who aren't affraid of science because they've learned how the bible and science support one another. BTW, you're pooling all Christians together again. I'll go out on a short limb and assume you wouldn't appreciate the same done of you.

Dan, when did I ever cry "conspiracy?" Com'on dude! No, they ignore the evidence for a wide variety of reasons. Yes, SOME do ignore it and they do all they can to destroy Christianity. Dawkins and his ilk say openly that they are proactive in destroying Christianity. YOU even said simular motives on the "Jesus thread" because "it is dangerous!" :eek: IMO, the misinterpretation of the data of which evolution came from continues to cause more damage than any amount of militant misinterpretation of the bible ever could. The old earth threories and evolution are hand in hand. You can't have evolution without an old earth theory. Just one of the trillions of things needed to support evolution. Some say you can have a biblical view with an old earth theory. That's fine, I have studied that too and know why they would be convinced of that view. At this point, the evidence has convinced me otherwise.

playtowin

Apr 24 2008, 01:01 AM

Do with this info as you wish, I just think it's amazing and quite humbling, whatever belief you hold. Obviously, I believe God created it, so I didn't know what other thread to share it on. Anyway, try to wrap your brain cells (or in my case, what's left of them!) around this fun fact...

SIZE: The Milky Way (our galaxy) is about one hundred thousand light years in diameter.

SPEED: It rotates at a speed of around a half a million mph.

TIME: Yet, it would take two hundred thousand years for it to make ONE full rotation! :eek:

(Just in case you forgot, or may have never known, a light year is the distance light travels in almost exactly 365 days. Light travels at about 186,000 mph. It takes light about 8 minutes to reach earth from the sun.)

CAMBAGGER

Apr 24 2008, 05:26 PM

Pretty funny that you keep posting verses out of the Bible, which you don't believe is perfect. God can't preserve his word forever, but he can give you life eternally??? :confused:

kkrasinski

Apr 24 2008, 09:55 PM

(Just in case you forgot, or may have never known, a light year is the distance light travels in almost exactly 365 days. Light travels at about 186,000 mph. It takes light about 8 minutes to reach earth from the sun.)

Thanks for the physics lesson. FYI there is actually no standard for which "year" is used. The definition of light year is the distance which light travels in one year in a vacuum. The Julian year is often used, but not always.

Anyway, the Hubble telescope has recently imaged galaxies over ten billion light years distant. If the Earth is less than 10k years old, and God created the heavens and the earth on the same day, how is it the light from those distant galaxies has reached us?

playtowin

Apr 24 2008, 11:55 PM

(Just in case you forgot, or may have never known, a light year is the distance light travels in almost exactly 365 days. Light travels at about 186,000 mph. It takes light about 8 minutes to reach earth from the sun.)

Thanks for the physics lesson. you're welcome! I enjoyed posting it and being very clear in how I worded it! FYI there is actually no standard for which "year" is used. FYI, I said "almost exactly 365 days!" The definition of light year is the distance which light travels in one year in a vacuum. The Julian year is often used, but not always. 

Anyway, the Hubble telescope has recently imaged galaxies over ten billion light years distant. If the Earth is less than 10k years old, and God created the heavens and the earth on the same day, how is it the light from those distant galaxies has reached us? 

First of all, thanks for your post.

Second, I never said the earth is less than 10K! I was very clear about why and what I said in that post.

Lastly, my thoughts on that question have changed over the years. I first came across this question in 1992. I used to fully believe in the "real age/apparent age theory." I still do, but not exclusively. Even though there are viable answers to this question ( http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html), I personally haven't made up my mind on it. You may not like that answer, but that's the truth. Also, when the evidence isn't strong enough to convince me on an issue, I usually don't see the issue as a "deal breaker" or a matter of salvation. The questions that reamain concerning how we see the light from billions of light years away certainly don't make me doubt God's existence or negate the evidence of intellegent design all around us. Like I said, there are viable answers to this issue, some that I really feel make sense. I just haven't decided what I believe about it at this point, and I'm ok with that.

kkrasinski

Apr 25 2008, 08:49 AM

Second, I never said the earth is less than 10K! I was very clear about why and what I said in that post.

I have no idea to which post you refer. I have not read this entire thread nor to I intend to. My presumption, however, is that you are a sola scriptura young earth creationist. Is that incorrect?

I used to fully believe in the "real age/apparent age theory." I still do, but not exclusively.

This theory leaves one with the paradox of what information is contained in the beam of light from a 10 billion light year distant galaxy that was created much more recently. Does it show a static galaxy for 99.999% of the distance and then a dynamic one for the final 0.0001%? How then do we image distant supernova? Or, did creation include a fictional history of the universe?

playtowin

Apr 25 2008, 10:42 AM

I have no idea to which post you refer. The one where you presume that I think the earth is 10k! Apparently, the only post worthy of your reading! I have not read this entire thread nor to I intend to. But you do want to presume to know what I believe? My presumption, however, is that you are a sola scriptura young earth creationist. Is that incorrect? I am as you say "sola scriptura" when it comes to doctrinal authority. Which the word "sola scriptura" referes to. But your presumption of anything beyond that is in your head! I never said in the post you got this from, or any other post, that the earth was 10k years old! I just said I believe the evidence shows it isn't 4.5 billion! 

This theory ( What theory? Your "presumptions" of what I believe haven't exactly been accurate so far is why I ask... ) leaves one with the paradox of what information is contained in the beam of light from a 10 billion light year distant galaxy that was created much more recently. Does it show a static galaxy for 99.999% of the distance and then a dynamic one for the final 0.0001%? ( No ) How then do we image distant supernova? Or, did creation include a fictional history of the universe? ( I don't know what you mean by "fictional history?" ) 

[/QUOTE]

kkrasinski

Apr 25 2008, 06:51 PM

I never said in the post you got this from, or any other post, that the earth was 10k years old! I just said I believe the evidence shows it isn't 4.5 billion!

Then do you have an opinion on a likely age? If you reject the modern scientific consensus and you reject the common young earth creationist view, then what do you accept and why?

What theory?

Um, this one:

I used to fully believe in the "real age/apparent age theory."

Does it show a static galaxy for 99.999% of the distance and then a dynamic one for the final 0.0001%? ( No ) 

??? Well, then, what does the 10 billion light year long beam of light show? After all, there is 10 billion years of information in it. If the bulk of that information is not static, and the age of the universe is significantly less than 10 billion years, what information is contained in the remainder?

I don't know what you mean by "fictional history?"

I mean history that didn't really happen. I mean supernova that pre-dated creation, stars forming, galaxies colliding, galaxies rotating, all pre-dating creation. This would all be information one would expect to find in a ten billion light year long beam of light. (Assuming, of course, that the galaxy in question did not snuff it a billion years ago or so. In which case the entire history of that galaxy as contained in the light beam predated creation and the beam itself would end before creation). If they occured in the 99.999% of the beam of light that was nearest us, then they predated the commonly held young earth creation date. Therefore they must be fictitious. God's cosmic illusion.

playtowin

Apr 26 2008, 03:12 AM

Then do you have an opinion on a likely age? 

IMO it is a matter of thousands, not billions. The evidence that goes against the "billions of years" theory is just too much for me to accept. The evidence for a "relatively young earth/universe" is more than adequate for me. I can't prove a date but niether can anyone else. All we can do at this point is look at the evidence and make an informed descision. But either way you choose, it won't save you or condemn you! It's a "non essential" issue!

This may not apply to you, but inordinate pride seems to be closely related to these types of questions rather than a realistic struggle with the existance of God IMO. The evidence for intellegent design, biblical claims, or the life of Jesus is not hard to find. Submission to something other than "self" typically is, no matter how adaquate the evidence. Even in matters that aren't "essential!"

Just look at the plausible answer to your main question at the end here and you tell me, does it change anything you believed before you asked the question? If it's a perfect answer you are searching for instead of a "plausible" answer to a non essential question, then I gotta tell ya, you're on your own! My belief in God doesn't require me to be omniscient. That's His job and "I am ok with that!"

 I used to fully believe in the "real age/apparent age theory." 

I simply didn't know if you understood what I meant by "real age/apparant age. I understand that you presumed to know, but your presumptions haven't exactly been correct about me so far! Maybe I should have been more specific in my question. Sorry about that. :o

 Well, then, what does the 10 billion light year long beam of light show? 

I believe it show's everything a "10 billion light year long beam of light" should show! Did you read the link I shared? It explains the most plausible, credible and widely supported theory I've ever heard of. I've read it from top to bottom three times now and I really enjoyed learning about it. Definately the best answer I've ever read concerning the questions you are struggling with. I'd probably change the name to "young cosmology" though! :D"New Cosmology" sounds "new age-like" to me! After "spelling it out," part of his conclusion goes like this:

 "It is fortunate that creationists did not invent such concepts such as gravitational time dilation, black and white holes, event horizons and so on, or we would likely be accused of manipulating the data to solve the problem. The interesting thing about this cosmology is that it is based upon mathematics and physics totally accepted by all cosmologists (general relativity), and it accepts (along with virtually all physicists) that there has been expansion in the past (though not from some imaginary tiny point). It requires no �massaging��the results �fall out� so long as one abandons the arbitrary starting point which the big bangers use (the unbounded cosmos idea, which could be called �what the experts don't tell you about the �big bang��).

This new cosmology seems to explain in one swoop all of the observations used to support the �big bang,� including progressive red-shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation, without compromising the data or the biblical record of a young earth.

While this is exciting news, all theories of fallible men, no matter how well they seem to fit the data, are subject to revision or abandonment in the light of future discoveries. What we can say is that at this point a plausible mechanism has been demonstrated, with considerable observational and theoretical support ."

( http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html )

kkrasinski

Apr 26 2008, 10:43 AM

"... a matter of thousands, ...", not less than 10,000. I stand corrected.

Humphrey's explanation (the theory you find most plausible) relies on a spherical universe with a definite boundary (what's at the edge? Has he resurrected a Ptolemaic "crystal sphere"?) and the earth "near" (rather than "at", in apparent concession to Copernicus) the center. He uses a "white hole", which is simply a mathematical artifact of trying to explore a black hole without including matter in the equations, and probably cannot exist in the real universe. And he uses Isaiah 42:5 ("Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out ...") to admit that his model doesn't work without divine intervention.

Contrary to your assertion that Humphrey's model is "the most widely supported" the Institute for Creation Research concludes that "...most creationists reject stellar evolution, but the Humphreys cosmology seems to demand that it has occurred. The Humphreys cosmology also demands that the universe is indeed Gyr's old, though only a few thousand years has elapsed since the beginning of creation in the reference frame of the earth. It would seem those indicators of a young universe, such as sprial structure in galaxies, the break up of clusters of galaxies, and the ages of SNR's cannot be reconciled to the Humphreys cosmogony." and later "This criticism has led the editorial staff of the ICC to conclude that there was a failure in the peer review process of Humphreys' 1994 paper [29] in which he first publicly presented his model." The Current State Of Creation Astronomy (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=resear chp_df_r01)

For more creationist denunciation of Humphrey see:
Starlight and Time is the Big Bang (http://www.trueorigin.org/rh_connpage1.pdf)
Errors in Humphrey's cosmological model (http://www.trueorigin.org/rh_fackmcin1.pdf)

Enough on this, though. Let's bring things down to earth. How do you resolve plate tectonics with an earth that is "thousands, not billions" of years old?

playtowin

Apr 26 2008, 06:03 PM

Hey Kurt, thanks for your response. Interesting links... I'd like to respond to your post, as well as your tectonic question but I have a question first. I am discussing all these things with you, gladly btw, but I don't know a thing about where you are coming from. Are you an atheist, agnostic atheist, evolutionist, etc? I am not asking for much, just a basic understanding of where you are coming from. Thanks.

BTW, I just found a link of Humphrey himself talking about his theory: http://www.defendtruth.org/modules.php?name=Video_Stream&page=watch&id=89&d=1

kkrasinski

Apr 26 2008, 08:52 PM

I'm generally a pretty private person, and don't see why my personal history has relevance. If you are interested in discussing my questions, then do so. If not, then don't. Either way, it's your choice.

playtowin

Apr 27 2008, 01:23 AM

I'm generally a pretty private person, and don't see why my personal history has relevance.

 Seems a little obvious as to why it would be relevant. But that's "your choice" and you have the right to not say what you believe. I can respect that aspect of it at least. I won't say anything more about it.

switzerdan

Apr 27 2008, 03:11 AM

I thought this was interesting:

Atheist soldier harassed (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/04/26/atheist.soldier.ap/index.html)

kkrasinski

Apr 27 2008, 11:06 AM

Seems a little obvious as to why it would be relevant.

Why? Does it influence the answer to the question? I don't see how it should -- the question, if not simple, is straightforward: "How do you resolve plate tectonics with an earth that is 'thousands, not billions' of years old?"

Perhaps that's not an area to which you've devoted much thought. Let's try another. In an earlier thread you listed some of your "favorite" evidence for a young earth, but you did nothing more than provide a category (i.e. "3. Rotation of the earth") without stating what it is about that category you find as evidence. Obviously, if that list is of some of your favorites, you have given them some thought.

Picking just one, exactly what is it about the "rotation of the earth" that you find compelling evidence for a young earth and why?

playtowin

Apr 28 2008, 09:26 PM

"Why" is it obvious that your beliefs are relevant? Because human beings are asking and answering questions and discussing the implications of origins, creation, evolution, God, etc. not computers or robots! Human answers are dramatically "influenced.� Are you really saying you don't understand how your answers would be affected by a belief in the bible? Evolution? Uniformitarianism? To say that you �don�t see how it should influence your answers� is a bit idealistic IMO, especially in a �biblical discussion� forum. Also, knowing where someone is "coming from" helps the other person understand what it is they are saying so they don't have "presume" or guess who they are talking to.

If you don't want a hand full of people on a disc golf website to know what you believe, that's fine. Like I said, I wasn't gonna say "anything more about it" until you asked me "why?" I have many things I�d like to ask you, but I can�t because in order to do so, I�d have to presume what you believe, not anything you�ve clearly said. So as it stands, you can ask questions being well informed of whom you are asking, but I am not afforded the same luxury because you see it as revealing your �private history.� I�m not saying you don�t have that right, I�m just being honest about what I really asked of you and open about the implications of your refusal to answer. If I had to take a wild guess, I would say you are an evolutionist who doesn't want to openly defend it. If that's the case, I don't blame you! If it isn't the case, well, there's an easy way to make things clear!

 "How do I resolve plate tectonics?" First of all, I couldn't "resolve" it either way, just like every question you�ve brought up so far, it comes down to which evidence do you believe. At this point in my life I personally believe the answers concerning plate tectonics are found in the evidence of a catastrophic event, i.e. the flood. There is alot of evidence for the flood that most people simply don't know, for a variety of reasons. The implications of those evidences dramatically affect the area of plate tectonics. I also believe it answers the huge mistakes found in the typical geologic time table, which is nothing more than conjecture because it�s based on the assumption that organic evolution is a fact.

 �In an earlier thread you listed some of your "favorite" evidence for a young earth, but you did nothing more than provide a category (i.e. "3. Rotation of the earth") without stating what it is about that category you find as evidence. Obviously, if that list is of some of your favorites, you have given them some thought� 

Didn�t you say (rather condescendingly), that you didn�t read the rest of this thread, and �didn�t intend to?� :confused: I guess the bright side is that you are capable of change, that's good! :DMy original opinions on the earths rotation and how it gave evidence for a young earth were based on creation scientists opinions of the early 90's, which I don't fully agree with now, nor do many. The idea behind the �rotation� thought is that I simply don�t believe in a constant rate of deceleration in the earth�s rotation. Both sides, young earth/old earth agree that the earth is slowing, to that there is no disagreement. When all the factors that affect rotation are placed into the 4.5 billion year old model, I don�t believe in a steady rate of deceleration.

I believe the rotation rate must have been faster the farther you go back in time, especially in a 5 billion year old universe. Then and only then do I agree with some aspects of the creationists claims indicating a relatively young earth. You can't just google �earth�s rotation� and find what I believe! I've tried. Just because someone say's they are a creationist and hold to a young earth theory doesn't mean I agree with eveything they say! When I posted a �short list� of evidences to Dan of things I feel indicate a young earth theory, I didn�t intend to give exhaustive breakdown of every reason for each one. but rather pointed out to him some area's I find interesting. Like I�ve said over and over, this isn�t an issue with me! Young earth or old earth, it doesn�t change the evidence for intelligent design.

playtowin

Apr 28 2008, 09:59 PM

I thought this was interesting:

Atheist soldier harassed (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/04/26/atheist.soldier.ap/index.html)

 So a 23 year old soldier ACCUSED a superior of religious discrimination. Not in boot camp. Not in MOS training, but while over seas in war? Hmmm! His accusation caused enough stink that now he's safely back in the states serving on a base? Sounds like he got out of war and might catch some of our tax dollars as well. And they say American high school dropouts aren't smart! :eek: IF he was discriminated against because of his beliefs, that sucks and it should never happen. But this posted story is nothing but "he said/she said."

While I was in boot camp, Army btw, I had a non believer tease the heck out'a me in front of everyone. He called me every name in the book. Tried everything he could to get me to fight. including taking a few swings at me. He even hawked off a loogie and spit right in my face and said "what are you gonna do about it?" I could'a snapped him like a twig. Ya know what I did? I prayed for him. When my drill sgt. came upon the scene and saw what was happening he said "do you two wanna hold hands?" My rights were violated, I was alone with my beliefs and made fun of because of it. I didn't go crying about it to anyone. Based on the info in this story you posted, Spc. Hall doesn't sound like much of a soldier IMO.

kkrasinski

Apr 29 2008, 12:18 AM

At this point in my life I personally believe the answers concerning plate tectonics are found in the evidence of a catastrophic event, i.e. the flood. There is alot of evidence for the flood that most people simply don't know, for a variety of reasons. The implications of those evidences dramatically affect the area of plate tectonics.

So the flood caused plate tectonics? Or plate tectonics caused the flood? By what mechanism either way? Are the effects still manifest today? In what way?

My original opinions on the earths rotation and how it gave evidence for a young earth were based on creation scientists opinions of the early 90's, which I don't fully agree with now, nor do many....

I believe the rotation rate must have been faster the farther you go back in time...

So, to summarize, earlier you believed the mistaken idea that the earth's rotation was slowing at a rate that far exceeded the actual measured value. When the mistake was pointed out to other creationists, and they (except for a very few) abandoned this particular claim, you instead changed your opinion to include a variably declining rate. My first question now is what study, book, paper, or calculation can you point to in support of this notion? Or is it just conjecture on your part? Second, in terms of today's atomic time standard, how long was one full rotation back in Seth's and Enosh's time? In other words, using today's "hour", how many hours were in a day?

Finally, why did you choose to include in your list to Dan a theory that has been both discredited and largely abandoned? Especially without giving him some notion of where to find the information you indicate is not readily available on the web?

playtowin

Apr 29 2008, 05:17 PM

quote]

So the flood caused plate tectonics? It didn't stop'em! Or plate tectonics caused the flood? More likely IMO, but I wouldn't use the word "caused." If you were to lower the sea level even a little bit, you wouldn't see it as the jigsaw puzzle we think we see today. By what mechanism either way? You want a natural mechanism to explain a supernatural event? Are the effects still manifest today? Absolutely. I believe there are massive amounts of it! These sites show some of them, that alone is why I share them here:

http://www.globalflood.org/
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/gen/the_flood.shtml
http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/startling_evidence_of_flood.html
http://www.layevangelism.com/advtxbk/sections/sect-10/sec10-5.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/sisters.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp

Personally, one of my favorite fields of study that show evidence for the flood is the creationist studies done on Mt. St. Helens. You obviously know how to google, have at it! Just try not to put more words into my mouth or presume to know what I believe, again.

[QUOTE]
My original opinions on the earths rotation and how it gave evidence for a young earth were based on creation scientists opinions of the early 90's, which I don't fully agree with now, nor do many....

I believe the rotation rate must have been faster the farther you go back in time...

So, to summarize, or put my beliefs into your words! earlier you believed the mistaken idea that the earth's rotation was slowing at a rate that far exceeded the actual measured value. Although I did originally believe what you say is discredited in this topic, this is not what I said. I simply don't believe in adopting uniformitarinism randomly to fit my preconcieved notions. I have never uttered the words "far exceeded the actual measured value" in my life! The reasons why the value was wrong doesn't affect why I believe the rate isn't constant if you'd take it back 5 billion years. When the mistake was pointed out to other creationists, and they (except for a very few) abandoned this particular claim, of which you now presume to say I believe! you instead changed your opinion to include a variably declining rate. That's your implication based on the your previous presumption. I explained exactly what I believe, when, and why. You're putting words in my mouth. My first question now is what study, book, paper, or calculation can you point to in support of this notion? I already told you, when you factor in everything that causes the speed of rotation to deminish over a period of 5 billion years! Are you saying that because I can't prove something means I can't have an opinion? Or is it just conjecture on your part? Partly yes, partly no. Second, in terms of today's atomic time standard, how long was one full rotation back in Seth's and Enosh's time? In other words, using today's "hour", how many hours were in a day? I would guess almost exactly 24 hours per day. I think I know where you are going, but the difference between thousands and billions is just too different, and that is why I still believe the variables of rotation rate apply. If I believed in an old earth I'd feel the same way! How did they live so long? I don't know! If I had to guess I'd have to say it had to do with the difference in what the world was like before the flood. 

Finally, why did you choose to include in your list to Dan a theory that has been both discredited and largely abandoned? Well, if you're going to ignore what I said and just equate it with the beliefs of other people, then why don't you tell me? You are beating a dead horse! Especially without giving him some notion of where to find the information you indicate is not readily available on the web? Giving him a short list of some things I find interesting in the field of young earth studies was just that, a short list! The horse is dead dude!

I don't mind sharing my opinion on these issues, but I gotta tell ya, it gets a bit frustrating and boring to answer the same questions twice because you've chosen to ignore the original answer. Not to mention how you ignore the majority of my discussion with you. This is a discussion board ya know? Your refusal to follow these beliefs of yours to there ultimate conclusions and not having the integrity to talk about them (while continuing to question me) reveals more than a man who is "generally a private persaon" as you claim. IMO, you are hiding behind these topics in order to avoid the real issues to which you cannot answer. Why else would you repeatedly post on a biblical discussion thread and not talk about where you are coming from? Why else would you keep questioning me on it when I repeatedly tell you that they are non issues with me? Step into the light brutha! It's nice and warm!

Of course, you may not want your beliefs known due to your business, family or friends. Others have been in that situation and have graciously and logically expressed that to me privately, along with where they're coming from. Who they are and exactly what they believe has been kept confidential because some have asked it to be kept that way. They understood that to engage in this thread would mean talking about the logical conclusions of the topics within. They made the choice to not stick around because they didn't want there beliefs known or they didn't want to deal with the logical conclusions and told me so. I have more respect for people with that kind of logic than any drive-by skeptic, Christian or not. Whatever your reasons for focussing on these issues and ignoring where they lead, I hope you can at least see how they won't make a bit of differnece in the end. "Thy Word is true!" Seek Him while you can...

switzerdan

Apr 29 2008, 07:03 PM

They understood that to engage in this thread would mean talking about the logical conclusions of the topics within.

I cannot prove anything to you Dan. I can only give you solid evidence, it is up to you to put your faith in Jesus...

Solid evidence and logical conclusions do not require faith. They require intellectual integrity.

kkrasinski

Apr 29 2008, 07:56 PM

If you were to lower the sea level even a little bit, you wouldn't see it as the jigsaw puzzle we think we see today.

Are you saying that you don't think South America was once contiguous with Africa? That North America was not once contiguous with Eurasia?

Personally, one of my favorite fields of study that show evidence for the flood is the creationist studies done on Mt. St. Helens.

What do you consider the most interesting information to come out of those studies?

Are you saying that because I can't prove something means I can't have an opinion?

Not at all! You are welcome both to your opinion and to freely express it ...

Or is it just conjecture on your part? Partly yes, partly no. 

... however to offer your conjecture as "proof" of something is disingenuous. If you offer something as "proof" you need to be prepared to support it.

I would guess almost exactly 24 hours per day.

Are you saying that the earth's rotation rate has remained "almost exactly" constant for the last 6000 years? Then we're back to the original question! How exactly does "Rotation of the Earth" factor into a young earth argument?

How did they live so long? I don't know!

Well, thanks for offering that I suppose. A bit off topic, though. Years are dictated by revolutions, not rotations.

Back to your "short list of some of [your] favorites". Item 2. Population growth. What exactly is it about population growth that offers proof of a young earth?

playtowin

Apr 30 2008, 02:05 AM

They understood that to engage in this thread would mean talking about the logical conclusions of the topics within. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, or maybe you just saw what you wanted to see in the context of this quote. The "logical conclusion" in this quote is that the person most likely is an evolutionist and they were unwilling to speak openly about that belief. Maybe you just didn't understand what it said or what I meant by it, but the bottom line is you've taken it out of context. This quote has nothing to do with issues of "light years" or inane discussions of "floods" or "earths rotation!"

I cannot prove anything to you Dan. I can only give you solid evidence, it is up to you to put your faith in Jesus... This is a phrase I had to repeat to you countless times in the "Disc Golfers for Jesus" thread in response to you repeatedly putting the word "prove" into my mouth, which I never once said in respect to Jesus, God or the bible. To which you totally understood and you still took it out of context and forced it into your point! 

Solid evidence and logical conclusions do not require faith. They require intellectual integrity. If your definition of faith is a blind leap into the dark then I would agree!

Dan, it is percisely "solid evidence and logical conclusions" that make you happy that there are bible believing, "faith" filled Christians in the world, whether you are aware of it or not! And I can prove it!

BTW. speaking of "intellectual integrity?" I didn't see alot of that when solid evidence ( http://www.scripturessay.com/article.php?cat=&id=7 ) was given to you. Only a bunch of whining about Josephus being unreliable in the first chapter, and then a total disreguard for the entire book! Not to mention "stolen body" stories based on nothing but your imagination.

I also don't see alot of "intellectual integrity" when people will boldly say God is a fairy tale and creationism is a lie but offer up no viable alternative.

playtowin

Apr 30 2008, 03:30 AM

Can you show me where I used the word "proof" concening anything I posted to you? The context in which you refer to "proof" was concerning my "opinion" as I recall it.

Also, do you believe the typical geologic column is correct? If not, why? If so, can I ask you a few questions?

I am not ignoring your post, I'll get to it...

kkrasinski

Apr 30 2008, 08:47 AM

My mistake, you used the word "evidence", not "proof". And the post was to Switzerdan, not myself.

I neither "believe" nor "disbelieve" the geologic time scale. Legitimate science is not about faith. I accept the scientific concensus as the best current state of knowledge, but not gospel. This leaves room for scepticism. This leaves room for questions. This leaves room for changes in understanding. This does NOT leave room for denial without substantial evidence well supported. Ask away.

playtowin

Apr 30 2008, 04:47 PM

I didn't ask if you pray to it! Or your ten points of clarification ( although I kinda like those types of answers :D)! I simply asked "do you believe the geologic time table is correct?" Can I assume by your clarified response that your answer is yes?

kkrasinski

May 01 2008, 12:30 AM

I guess I wasn't clear in my previous response. Let me try a little differently. I accept the scientific concensus of the accuracy of the geologic time scale with the caveat that the time scale is continually being refined as knowledge grows. In addition, I am happy to discuss it with you.

It is certain that as someone who believes in a young earth you take issue with some or all aspects of the geologic time scale. How then do you explain the millions of dollars spent by oil companies employing paleontologists to date strata from core samples taken during exploration? And why is it that human remains are not to be found in strata laid down earlier than the late Pleistocene epoch while other animal remains are found layers and layers and layers earlier?

But before we get too sidetracked with this, I'm still curious:

Did your "jigsaw puzzle" comment indicate that South America and Africa were never contiguous? That Norh America and Eurasia were never contiguous?

Exactly how do you use "population growth" as evidence of a young earth?

playtowin

May 01 2008, 04:37 AM

[QUOTE]
If you were to lower the sea level even a little bit, you wouldn't see it as the jigsaw puzzle we think we see today.

Are you saying that you don't think South America was once contiguous with Africa? That North America was not once contiguous with Eurasia? Absolutely not. I knew you'd jump on this. It's just a matter of fact that I thought was very interesting. 

Personally, one of my favorite fields of study that show evidence for the flood is the creationist studies done on Mt. St. Helens.

What do you consider the most interesting information to come out of those studies? I think the area that talks about strata, and how it is formed much quicker than we tend to believe. Also, the things that are revealed about how quickly things actually fossilize as compared to the typical beliefs that it takes thousands or even millions of years for something to fossilize. Among many, those are two things I find very interesting. 

... however to offer your conjecture as "proof" of something is disingenuous. If you offer something as "proof" you need to be prepared to support it. When did I ever say "proof?" We briefly just touched on this... But just a note of clarification, I try very hard to never use the word proof when in comes to the subjects discussed on here. Just fyi. 

Are you saying that the earth's rotation rate has remained "almost exactly" constant for the last 6000 years? Then we're back to the original question! How exactly does "Rotation of the Earth" factor into a young earth argument? I've explained this three times now. You don't agree with my belief. You think it's pure speculation on my part. That's fine. I believe what I believe on it. You are fully convinced that you are right. I can live with that! There comes a point where beating a dead horse becomes a crime in most states! 
[QUOTE]

Back to your "short list of some of [your] favorites". Item 2. Population growth. What exactly is it about population growth that offers proof of a young earth?

 Do you and Dan purposely try to inject the word "proof" into these issues?

I believe that the present day population pales in comparison to what any evolutionary model would produce. When an evolutionist foolishly guesses how long they think it takes for the complexity of mankind to evolve from non living matter, what they are really doing in my opinion, is setting the stage for unexplainable numbers in human population. In other words, the longer it takes for man to evolve, the higher the population. Well, we obviously don't have those numbers of people on the earth (or disc golf would be bigger!) so it also becomes evidence against an earth that is billions of years old IMO. And because I believe the evolutionary model is completely bogus, I am left to figure out how we've arrived at the population we have today. And IMO, the population we have today is best explained by God creating the earth many thousands, not billions of years ago. (since this original post) I've now seen stories that range from 30,000 years ago to 6 million years ago for when evolutionists believe man began it's meaningless upright walk, and IMO, anywhere in that range does not produce the number we have today, which is around 6.6 billion.

I wouldn't even bother quoting the numbers from young earth websites to me. I've read'em for years. While your at it, I wouldn't bother quoting the numbers from old earth websites either, I've read them too. None of those numbers will change what I believe and why, so I don't see the point in discussing it much further. Just like I didn't see the point in discussing it with Dan when I simply gave the catagory of "population growth" as part of a short list of things that I find interesting concerning evidences for a young earth. I've answered his question, and now I've answered yours. I have no interest in trying to convince you or anyone esle of a non essential issue.

kkrasinski

May 01 2008, 07:45 PM

Are you saying that you don't think South America was once contiguous with Africa? That North America was not once contiguous with Eurasia? Absolutely not. I knew you'd jump on this.

I see. You were just dissembling. Again.

What do you consider the most interesting information to come out of [creationist Mt. St. Helen] studies? I think the area that talks about strata, and how it is formed much quicker than we tend to believe. Also, the things that are revealed about how quickly things actually fossilize as compared to the typical beliefs that it takes thousands or even millions of years for something to fossilize. Among many, those are two things I find very interesting. 

Why do you say, for each example, "more quickly than we tend to believe"? Of course stratification can occur quickly under some circumstances! This is not new to geologists. Same with permineralization. Rates vary from very slowly to very quickly depending on local conditions. For more shocking new research on rapid deposition and stratafication I refer you to:
Harms, J.C. and R.K. Fahnestock, 1965, "Stratification, Bed Forms and Flow Phenomena (with Examples from the Rio Grande)", in G.V. Middleton (ed.), A Geologic Time Scale, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Of course, that rapid fossilization occurs does not negate long term processes. Take amber, for example. By what mechanism does amber form in your young earth model?

How exactly does "Rotation of the Earth" factor into a young earth argument? I've explained this three times now.

No, you haven't. You have explained what you believe the history of the earth's rotation to be, given both a young earth which you believe and a hypothetical old earth which you disbelieve. You have not, however, provided any insight as to how you apply "Rotation of the Earth" to your young earth argument. You listed it as evidence. I'm still trying to figure out in what way.

I believe that the present day population pales in comparison to what any evolutionary model would produce

How high should the population be? Do you account for high infant mortality and short life expectancy before this age of modern medicine? How about local or even (dare I say it?) global catastrophies? Even if the earth and mankind was old, wouldn't the flood limit the current population?

In other words, the longer it takes for man to evolve, the higher the population.

Interesting hypothesis. What is the implication of your "longer results in higher" hypothesis in regard to extinct species?

And IMO, the population we have today is best explained by God creating the earth many thousands, not billions of years ago.

I see, not due to the flood at all! Thanks for clearing that up.

In your evidence list you include "1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics". I've seen this argument applied to evolution, but never before towards a young earth. Exactly how would thermodynamic principles differ in regards to a young vs. old earth?

playtowin

May 02 2008, 04:44 AM

I see. You were just dissembling. Again.

 No! This kinda "stuff" is getting old Kurt. I don't lie, and I don't "dissemble" or intentionally mislead anyone. You obviously don't know me. Your constant presumptions PROVE that much. I don't mean to be ugly, I am just tired of it. 

Why do you say, for each example, "more quickly than we tend to believe"? Because most people don't understand how quickly something can be fossilized given the right conditions. People have generally bought into the evolutionary way of thinking of everything in Millions or Billions of years. Sadly, this way of thinking has created a mindset towards sedimintation and fossilization that is not true.

Even if the earth and mankind was old, wouldn't the flood limit the current population? But the flood never happened right? 

Interesting hypothesis. What is the implication of your "longer results in higher" hypothesis in regard to extinct species? Well if the evolutionary model is correct, it's survival of the fittest right? Guess who wasn't "the fittest?" If it didn't take millions of years, there are numerous reasons why an animal would become extinct. What is the implication of your billions of years hypothesis in regard to how you came to be here? Oh wait, you don't offer answers to important things like that, you just have questions about stars and spin rates, amber and population rates! The real important stuff! 

And IMO, the population we have today is best explained by God creating the earth (and the rest of the bible account!) many thousands, not billions of years ago.

I see, not due to the flood at all! Thanks for clearing that up. I was speaking in contrast to YOUR evelutionary model of millions and billions of years. Must I clarify everything for you? Or does that only need to be done AFTER your many presumptions? 

In your evidence list you include "1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics". I've seen this argument applied to evolution, but never before towards a young earth. Exactly how would thermodynamic principles differ in regards to a young vs. old earth? The first law of thermodynamics states that enegy can't be made, or destroyed. All that you see around you didn't make itself! It was created. By who? God, and God's word indicates a young creation. That creation includes earth.

The second law of thermodynamics states that any system left on it's own moves towards disorder. this isn't always a bad thing, but in the case of alternatives to creation, it is a very fatal thing. The universe on it's own is not in the business of building up, but breaking down. Left on it's own, it doesn't use it's energy to create life, it settles and eventually becomes low level heat energy. You can rightly say that some anomolies occur, but to say that billions of years of consistent violations of the 2nd law would produce the complexity of life is ridiculous! There is an increasing disorder and randomness to the 2nd law known as "increasing entropy." You cannot get around it. You may find the energy source you need from the sun, that's great, now how are you going to convert non living matter into matter? How are you going to convert that energy into life sustaining enegy? Kurt, riddle me this, what "directional program mechanism is required to produce increased orginization?" Or to evolve one species to another? Not one single transistional form after millions if not billions of years! There should be BILLIONS of transitional fossils. But not one??? Where's that short necked giraffe fossil? :eek:

Not only that, it all has to happen in an orderly fashon! This can't happen haphazardly. There must be an order to it. You don't throw the five parts to a moustrap in a bag and shake until it works! Remember, we're talking about the 2nd law here. What is more complicated, an irreducibly complex ( http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evolve_irreducible.html ) mousetrap made of only 5 parts, or a human being ( http://doesgodexist.org/MarApr96/SeeWhatGodHathDone.html ) that is made up of 100 trillion cells? Do we even comprehend what a trillion is? Here's a little perspective: One million seconds ago was about 11 days ago. A billion seconds ago was about 32 years ago. And a trillion seconds ago was about 32 thousand years ago! Your body is made up of 100 trillion cells!

To tie the 2nd law into the young earth theory is difficult because it has to deal with "the fall." There are certain aspects to it that I don't agree with. So go ahead and presume to know which aspects I agree with and those I don't. You seem to do a good job at that. As in so many other scientific issues, the evidence isn't always in the proving of one point, it's in the disproving of another. I think the aspects of the 2nd law that disprove a long earth should be obvious given the nature of the law and the time ranges being thrown around by scientists like kids playing with lego parts.

If you would like any more follow up on anything I've said, I believe it's time for you to show a little fairness and answer some questions I have for you. If your "privacy" is what you are going to continue to use as an excuse, you have two options. My email is readily available or you can use the personal message option provided by the pdga and not one word will ever be shared in confidence. Until then, good night and God bless! 

[/QUOTE]

Here's a "short list" of favorite questions I'd like to ask you, but doubt you'll even have the courtesy to acknowledge.

Do you believe that Jesus is who he claimed to be? If not, who do you say that he was?

Do you believe we were created, or evolved from natural processes? If created, by whom? If evolved, how?

How do you explain the enormous complexity of not only mankind, but also the universe without an intelligent designer?

If you believe it's just random dumb luck that you came into being and soon you will be fertilizer, why would you waste one second debating ANY issue found on a bible discussion thread? Other than wasting the little time you have left, what difference would winning a debate on here mean? On ANY subject!?

Do you have the integrity and genuiness it takes to discuss biblical essentials on a bible discussion thread for a change? Or will you simply avoid anything of true meaning and hide behind topics of scientific conjecture and opinion? 

 "For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:20

kkrasinski

May 02 2008, 08:32 PM

The final item in your short list of young earth evidence is "Pleochroic Halos". How do you reconcile this evidence with the fact that in order to answer criticism by mainstream geologists the originator of this hypothesis had to rely on divine intervention, interjecting three distinct short periods of time during which the laws of nature were suspended and the radioactive decay rate for uranium was accelerated but not the decay rate for the subject polonium?

Your arguments regarding thermodynamics don't address the question of why you included thermodynamics in your evidence list. To legitimately be evidence of a young vs. old earth the laws of thermodynamics must favor one over the other. The earth exists, whether old or young. Why does one violate said laws and not the other? You say "I think the aspects of the 2nd law that disprove a long earth should be obvious given the nature of the law and the time ranges being thrown around by scientists like kids playing with lego parts." So as your young earth ages it too will violate the second law?

If it didn't take millions of years, there are numerous reasons why an animal would become extinct

Then you agree that there are numerous factors other duration on earth affecting the success of a species. Have you quantified some of these other factors for humans? If not, your statement "the longer it takes for man to evolve, the higher the population" has no support. Is your unsupported opinion really to be considered "evidence" of a young earth?

Sadly, this way of thinking has created a mindset towards sedimintation and fossilization that is not true.

So you seek to replace it with a mindset that all fossils are no more than "thousands not billions" of years old? By what mechanism does amber form?

Regarding thermodynamics in the context you are actually using it:

First, you use the laws of thermodynamics as if they were carved in stone as the 11th through 15th commandments. Where are they in the bible? They're not? So they were empirically derived by man to explain the known natural phenomena around them. In the early 1800s. The most recent was the work of Lars Onsager who died in 1976. These principles work well for classical physics, but not so well for quantum mechanics and general relativity.

The first law of thermodynamics states that enegy can't be made, or destroyed.

What is the total energy of the universe? From where did the universe originate in your view?

It was created. By who? God.

Of course. But where did God come from?

There is an increasing disorder and randomness to the 2nd law known as "increasing entropy."

If I set a pan of water outdoors on a subfreezing day and leave it alone heat flows from the water to the surrounding air. Does the entropy of the water increase or decrease? When the water freezes, is the molecular randomness of the resultant ice greater or less than the original water?

Outside my window is a tree. It's been there for many years. I did nothing to it except allow to remain after it sprouted from its seed. Now it has grown quite large, converting sunlight, water, and minerals into its constituent parts. Has the tree increased or decreased disorder over the years?

How are you going to convert that energy into life sustaining enegy?

Umm, photosynthesis maybe?

You can rightly say that some anomolies occur ...

Well, if anomalies can occur, then you are saying that thermodynamics are not violated after all!

... but to say that billions of years of consistent violations of the 2nd law would produce the complexity of life is ridiculous!

Do you recognize an "argument of incredulity" as a logical fallacy?

Or to evolve one species to another?

For contemporary observed instances of speciation investigate Stephanomeira malheuensis among others.

Not one single transistional form after millions if not billions of years! There should be BILLIONS of transitional fossils. But not one?

This is just blatantly false. Equus fossils are not found below Pliocene strata, Dinohippus fossils only found in late Miocene strata, Merychippus fossils only found in mid Miocene strata, Parahippus fossils are only found in late Miocene strata, Miohippus fossils are only found in Oligocene strata, Mesohippus fossils are only found in Eocene strata, and above Epihippus, etc. Everything I listed is transitional to Equus.

This is just one example. There are many, many others.

... an irreducibly complex mousetrap made of only 5 parts ...

Thanks for the comic relief! Are you familiar with the Dover v Kitzmiller Trial in which Michael Behe (the originator of the "irreducible complexity" argument, and mousetrap example) testified on the concept? After Behe, Ken Miller testified wearing an "irreducibly complex" mousetrap, reduced by the hold-down bar, as a tie clip. Classic. The Judge was a G.W. Bush appointee. He decision was that "Intelligent Design" is not a valid scientific alternative to evolution.

playtowin

May 02 2008, 09:19 PM

If you would like any more follow up on anything I've said, I believe it's time for you to show a little fairness and answer some questions I have for you. If your "privacy" is what you are going to continue to use as an excuse, you have two options. My email is readily available or you can use the personal message option provided by the pdga and not one word will ever be shared in confidence. Until then, good night and God bless! Here's a "short list" of favorite questions I'd like to ask you, but doubt you'll even have the courtesy to acknowledge.

 Do you believe that Jesus is who he claimed to be? If not, who do you say that he was?

Do you believe we were created, or evolved from natural processes? If created, by whom? If evolved, how?

How do you explain the enormous complexity of not only mankind, but also the universe without an intelligent designer?

If you believe it's just random dumb luck that you came into being and soon you will be fertilizer, why would you waste one second debating ANY issue found on a bible discussion thread? Other than wasting the little time you have left, what difference would winning a debate on here mean? On ANY subject!?

Do you have the integrity and genuiness it takes to discuss biblical essentials on a bible discussion thread for a change? Or will you simply avoid anything of true meaning and hide behind topics of scientific conjecture and opinion? 

 "For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:20

playtowin

May 02 2008, 09:47 PM

Thank you for your creation God. The fingerprints of your love are all over the things we see. You're power and wisdom is more than we can ever imagine. The patience, grace and mercy you show to everyone of us is simply amazing. I will serve you with all my heart. Please touch the hearts of those who need to surrender to your will? Please bless their lives with an open heart and an open bible. Thank you for your word. I pray especially tonight for those caught up in the wisdom of man? I ask that you would help them to see the truth. Help them to know you and the hope that human wisdom can never offer. Thank you for the hope that is found only in Jesus...Amen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_2I29VZyzk

kkrasinski

May 02 2008, 10:34 PM

MORE COMIC RELIEF:

What is more complicated, an irreducibly complex ( http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evolve_irreducible.html ) mousetrap made of only 5 parts...

I just read this link you posted several posts above. Maybe you should. You might find it enlightening. LOL

playtowin

May 03 2008, 12:29 AM

"You see the depths of my heart and YOU love me the same." You are amazing God!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuihT9wRc34&feature=related

kkrasinski

May 03 2008, 03:04 PM

To answer the question "Where am I coming from":

Playtowin quotes:
".. but IMO the 'dogama' coming from evelutionary science far outweighs the blind religious 'dogma' concerning this subject"
"And there are many non believing scientists who mess it up!"
"And there are many 'fundamentalist Christian' scientists who don't mess it up!"
"[The evidence] THAT DAN HAS READ"
"If you believe in the bible, and your interpretation of scientific data on something contradicts the bible, the first place I would look is the interpretation!"
"IMO, the misinterpretation of the data of which evolution came from continues to cause more damage than any amount of militant misinterpretation of the bible ever could."
"..time ranges being thrown around by scientists like kids playing with lego parts."
"The evidence for a 'relatively young earth' has outweighed anything I've studied on the 'billions of years' theory by a ton!"
"Thats all I can think of off the top of my head concerning websites that might contain 'young earth' studies. Most of my study of this topic over the years has come from books."

This was the point of my series of posts. You portray yourself as the guru on top the mountain and with both your words and tone mock those who dare to question your wisdom. I wanted to see if the emperor had any clothes. Clearly he does not. Your evident frustration ("I'm not asking for anything other than for you to treat me fairly. I am not 'up' on everything you ask.") and your inability to support a single one of your "young earth evidences" highlight your blind acceptance of Kent Hovind like rhetoric. Evidenced by your statement regarding a link you posted "I've read it from top to bottom three times now and I really enjoyed learning about it". Part of what you read said "The authority of the Bible should never be compromised as mankind's 'scientific' proposals." If that's what personally floats your boat, fine, but it really frosts my balls when someone like you publicly ridicules legitimate scientific inquiry because it runs counter to your belief system.

What is the nature of science? In its purest form it's empirical and intellectual inquiry into the workings of the world (and universe) in which we live. It's a tool, honed by specific methodology. If your belief system includes God, then it is a tool provided by God to better understand and appreciate His creation. To deny that tool is to limit your understanding to that contemporaneous with authors of whatever scripture you follow. Throughout history, that which was outside the envelope of human understanding was relegated to the supernatural. Science continues to expand that envelope, to the betterment of all. Read this link (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar05.html) from the Talk Origins archive, playtowin, you might recognize yourself. If not for science dragging your kind kicking and screaming along behind we would still be living on an earth in the center of the universe with the stars and planets above rotating on the inner surface of crystal spheres.

Does science have all the answers? No, that envelope I mentioned will always have room to grow. Is the state of current understanding always correct? No, the very idea of science is that current understanding changes to reflect new observation.

Does science have a theory of creation? No, creation is completely outside the realm of science. Science does not address the origin of the universe, but only what occurs after. Time and nature begins with the origin of the universe, and science cannot look back beyond the beginning of time. So how was the universe created? Supernaturally, by definition.

How much more wondrous a creation that spans billions of years, or even billions of iterations, than one that is complete in six days. How much more wondrous a creation that allows for a diversity of life forms on billions of different planets than one that limits the form and function of intelligent thought to a weak creature with a short life span prone to a bad back and bad feet. How much more wondrous a creation that does not limit life to that which already exists, but allows new life to emerge.

I've had my say, playtowin, and I'm leaving this forum now. But before I go I'd like to leave you with one last thought:

When you limit your God to your scripture, you limit the very power of your God.

(afternote -- For those interested in exploring an alternate relationship between science and God than the one playtowin has to offer I suggest picking up a copy of The Language of God: A Believer Looks at the Human Genome by Francis Collins. Collins is an evangelical Christian and the former head of the Human Genome Project.)

playtowin

May 03 2008, 09:32 PM

If you would like any more follow up on anything I've said, I believe it's time for you to show a little fairness and answer some questions I have for you. If your "privacy" is what you are going to continue to use as an excuse, you have two options. My email is readily available or you can use the personal message option provided by the pdga and not one word will ever be shared in confidence. Until then, good night and God bless! Here's a "short list" of favorite questions I'd like to ask you, but doubt you'll even have the courtesy to acknowledge. 

Do you believe that Jesus is who he claimed to be? If not, who do you say that he was?

Do you believe we were created, or evolved from natural processes? If created, by whom? If evolved, how?

How do you explain the enormous complexity of not only mankind, but also the universe without an intelligent designer?

If you believe it's just random dumb luck that you came into being and soon you will be fertilizer, why would you waste one second debating ANY issue found on a bible discussion thread? Other than wasting the little time you have left, what difference would winning a debate on here mean? On ANY subject!?

Do you have the integrity and genuiness it takes to discuss biblical essentials on a bible discussion thread for a change? Or will you simply avoid anything of true meaning and hide behind topics of scientific conjecture and opinion?


"For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:20

playtowin

May 05 2008, 02:28 AM

Kurt, I don't have the energy to respond to your diatribe if full, nor am I convinced yet if I should. I'm gonna pray and think about it. I will admit, if I find the time this week it'll be hard not to! That was quite a "load." I'll just say that if you think theistic evolution is the answer you have a funny way of promoting it. Well, I gotta go find new ways to, as you put it, "portray myself as the guru on top of the mountain!" I look forward to your response to the questions I asked:


Do you believe that Jesus is who he claimed to be? If not, who do you say that he was?

Do you believe we were created, or evolved from natural processes? If created, by whom? If evolved, how?

How do you explain the enormous complexity of not only mankind, but also the universe without an intelligent designer?

If you believe it's just random dumb luck that you came into being and soon you will be fertilizer, why would you waste one second debating ANY issue found on a bible discussion thread? Other than wasting the little time you have left, what difference would winning a debate on here mean? On ANY subject!?

Do you have the integrity and genuiness it takes to discuss biblical essentials on a bible discussion thread for a change? Or will you simply avoid anything of true meaning and hide behind topics of scientific conjecture and opinion? 

 I think these are some pretty reasonable questions. Not only because this is a bible discussion thread, but because I took the time and effort to respond to your questions over and over for two weeks straight, simply because you asked.

playtowin

May 08 2008, 05:15 AM

[QUOTE]
To answer the question "Where am I coming from": But you never do "answer the question!" 

Playtowin quotes: ...that are and will remain "out of context" and have nothing to do with anything in this post! 
".. but IMO the 'dogama' coming from evelutionary science far outweighs the blind religious 'dogma' concerning this subject"
"And there are many non believing scientists who mess it up!"
"And there are many 'fundamentalist Christian' scientists who don't mess it up!"
"[The evidence] THAT DAN HAS READ"
"If you believe in the bible, and your interpretation of scientific data on something contradicts the bible, the first place I would look is the interpretation!"
"IMO, the misinterpretation of the data of which evolution came from continues to cause more damage than any amount of militant misinterpretation of the bible ever could."
"..time ranges being thrown around by scientists like kids playing with lego parts."
"The evidence for a 'relatively young earth' has outweighed anything I've studied on the 'billions of years' theory by a ton!"
"Thats all I can think of off the top of my head concerning websites that might contain 'young earth' studies. Most of my study of this topic over the years has come from books."

This was the point of my series of posts. You portray yourself as the guru on top the mountain When? and with both your words Which words? and tone mock those who dare to question your wisdom. Show me where I ever mocked people for questioning "my wisdom?" I wanted to see if the emperor had any clothes. Clearly he does not. In your opinion. Your evident frustration ("I'm not asking for anything other than for you to treat me fairly. I am not 'up' on everything you ask.") So asking "to be treated fairly is now frustration?" and your inability to support a single one of your "young earth evidences" ...in your opinion. highlight your blind acceptance of Kent Hovind like rhetoric. Evidenced by your statement regarding a link you posted "I've read it from top to bottom three times now and I really enjoyed learning about it". I've never heard of him before in my life until now! Part of what you read said "The authority of the Bible should never be compromised as mankind's 'scientific' proposals." So? I don't even know what that means!!! If that's what personally floats your boat, There you go again assuming you know what "floats my boat!" fine, but it really frosts my balls burrr! when someone like you publicly ridicules legitimate scientific inquiry because it runs counter to your belief system. When did I ever "ridicule legit scientific inquiry because it isn't what I believe?" When? What "frosts my marbles" is when someone puts words in my mouth like you have over twenty times in your last ten posts! :eek: 

What is the nature of science? In its purest form it's empirical and intellectual inquiry into the workings of the world (and universe) in which we live. It's a tool, honed by specific methodology. If your belief system includes God, then it is a tool provided by God to better understand and appreciate His creation. God isn't something I "include in MY BELIEF SYSTEM like I am adding leather seats to my car purchase! He IS my belief system. To deny that tool is to limit your understanding to that contemporaneous with authors of whatever scripture you follow. WHAT? That sentence means nothing! Catching a buzz off intellectualism is all well and good sir, but I think that six syllable joint your burning had a few seeds in it! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif I don't "deny" science. I am simply not bound by evolutionary mandates that warp science into a preconcieved, unfounded and utterly impossible fantasy that life came from non-life! I don't have enough faith for that! :eek: I do have faith that those "authors" were not writting for themselves. Throughout history, that which was outside the envelope of human understanding was relegated to the supernatural. In many cases yes, in many cases no! Science continues to expand that envelope, to the betterment of all. Wrong! If God is as you just said, "a part of my belief system" then God is the one who "expands that envelope of understanding" THROUGH SCIENCE! You speak of "science" as some living being who has characteristics like a human, or even (cough, cough) God! Read this link (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar05.html) from the Talk Origins archive, playtowin, you might recognize yourself. You'd have to explain your presumptions once again Kurt, I, nor anyone else can read your mind! A gift only you can lay claim to apparently. If not for science dragging your kind kicking and screaming along behind too funny! we would still be living on an earth in the center of the universe with the stars and planets above rotating on the inner surface of crystal spheres. Do I really have to show you the "scientific errors" that have occured over the centuries? How in the world do you tie me to the "earth being the center of the universe" beliefs? Holy cow! 

Does science have all the answers? No, that envelope I mentioned will always have room to grow. Is the state of current understanding always correct? No, the very idea of science is that current understanding changes to reflect new observation. Just like those scientists who believed that the earth was the center of the universe, right? :confused: 

Does science have a theory of creation? No, creation is completely outside the realm of science. Science does not address the origin of the universe, but only what occurs after. Time and nature begins with the origin of the universe, and science cannot look back beyond the beginning of time. So how was the universe created? Supernaturally, by definition. Thank you for defining the word "creation" in terms of "made" instead of "evolved." Was that ever in question here? PAY CLOSE ATTENTION to these last two short paragraphs and the next one folks? This is the "set-up" for a belief put forth in Kurts "afternote" at the bottom of this quoted post. 

How much more wondrous a creation that spans billions of years, or even billions of iterations, than one that is complete in six days. What difference would it make of how "wonderous" creation would be if it were created in a short or long time? Very strange point you make here. How much more wondrous a creation that allows for a diversity of life forms on billions of different planets than one that limits the form and function of intelligent thought to a weak creature with a short life span prone to a bad back and bad feet. Who's "limiting" anything? How much more wondrous a creation that does not limit life to that which already exists, but allows new life to emerge. "New life to emerge" from what? 

I've had my say, playtowin, and I'm leaving this forum now. But before I go I'd like to leave you with one last thought:

When you limit your God to your scripture, you limit the very power of your God. When you limit the power of the God of scripture, you limit yourself to your own power.

(afternote -- For those interested in exploring an alternate relationship between science and God than the one playtowin has to offer I suggest picking up a copy of The Language of God: A Believer Looks at the Human Genome by Francis Collins. Collins is an evangelical Christian and the former head of the Human Genome Project.)

 For those who want to know what "alternate" belief that Kurt is pushing here, but won't just come out and say it, it's called THEISTIC EVOLUTION. This is the belief that God used evolution to create mankind.

The book that Kurt promotes is nothing more than "theistic evolution" with an emphasis on evolution. http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof83.htm#TE Don't let the impressive list of accademic credentials of Mr. Collins fool ya. Or Kurt saying that Francis Collins is a "evangelical Christian." LOL, the so called "reverend" Wright is an "evangelical Christian," does that mean anything? Mr. Collins teachings are extremely contrary to the bible and the idea that he served on the "human genome project" means absolutely nothing when it comes to the legitimacy of his theistic evolution beliefs.

Ultimately, the compromise of theistic evolution leads to many other compromises in the scriptures. The reasons for this belief are many, but one in which I think Kurt is familiar with is the reason of intimidation. Some Christians, or anyone for that matter, fall prey to this false doctrine because they are intimidated by scientific credentials or technical speaches that claim "scientific conclusions." Don't be fooled!

Many who hold this view of theistic evolution will not discuss matters of biblical importance. They usually refuse biblical discussion because it reaches into realms of unfamiliarity. This is no doubt the case with Kurt, who accuses me of portraying myself as "the guru on top of the mountain" simply because I am here, on a biblical discussion thread (cough, cough) discussing, believe it or not, "biblical" topics! I never asked for a deep debate in scientific beliefs. From the begining of this mess, I answered a question Dan asked and made my beliefs clear, and my desire to not debate it just as clear ( #819890 - 04/17/08 09:44 AM ). But then Kurt got his feathers ruffled because I dared speak my beliefs breifly about something he's obviously passionate about.

He now chooses to leave this forum with the scortched earth policy of "I had my say, I'll just get out, but before I do, read this!" I've said it before, I respect your right to not talk about your beliefs publically" but I find it hard to respect anyone who's audacity put's words into other peoples mouths, promotes biblical harasy and then runs away under the guise of "the emporer has no clothes." The fact of the matter is, you've never seen my complete "wardrobe" and never will concerning matters of such minor importance. I simply have bigger fish to fry! This hasn't kept you from assuming you've "heard it all" though! But stick around, I'm sure you will, and God willing, you might pick up a thing or two from the "naked guru!" (kinda like that name! :D) I hope you find the integrity, "frosted or not," to ask and discuss the things that actually matter in life and death. The seriousness of your swan song recomendation is not ignored by those who know better. That is the reason I replied to you post more than anything else.

playtowin

May 14 2008, 05:06 PM

I wanted to take a break from this thread for a few days to allow Kurt every opportunity to reply to my questions. He's ignored those questions repeatedly and the opportunity to explain his biblical claims and personal attacks.

I'd like to apologize for getting sucked into this with Kurt. I told him from the begining that I didn't want to debate such topics, but then I got into it with him. I find these topics interesting, and the evidence for a "relatively young earth" extremely interesting. However, I repeatedly told him that it doesn't matter in the end, but continued to share with him A FEW reasons why I believe what I do about them. He was obviously just interested in arguing about non essential issues and throwing out bold claims about the bible without engaging in an actul biblical discussion. I should have understood his angle better, but fell for it. I disagree with his views, he disagree's with mine, but I'm still here hoping to engage in a civil discussion about the implications of those views. Sadly, he has taken the all too common approach to biblical discussion that I refer to as the "religious drive by shooting." It's just one step away from an anonymous opinion with no follow up.

Foolishly, I thought I would be able to speak with him about important things if I gave him the respect of answering the questions HE wanted to discuss for a while. So I set out to tell him why I believe what I believe concerning those topics that were loosely related to this thread. I guess I was wrong to expect that kind of courtesy, fairness and logical "evolution" of discussion on a "biblical discussion" thread! Maybe I wasn't though.

It's not my desire or intention to offend, but rather to promote and engage in more biblical discussion. If you are looking to be offended, you'll never fail. I can't and won't live my life in fear of sharing the truth simply because someone misinterprets my intentions or words or in fact is offended by my beliefs. However, I will take full responsibility for the times I was overly sarcastic or ugly and forgot to remember that love is the motivation behind it all. For anytime I may have done that, I sincerely apologize.

There is a large interest, even on the pdga board, in learning about biblical topics. This is evidenced by the number of "views" of this and the "Jesus" threads. Not only that, I've recieved MANY pdga private messages, e mails, phone calls, and personal encounters on the disc golf course from people who want to know more and they have been very encouraging. Since I began posting on this thread, I have yet to play a round of golf without a good conversation from people who have interest. Most people would be shocked to learn of how many people on here actually believe in Jesus, but for various reasons they don't get involved.

Some of them want to engage in the discussion, but they fear doing so because of "personal choices" they make or have made in the past. They don't want to be seen as a hypocrite. They've expressed to me how hard it would be to talk about their faith publically. I know the feeling of being bound by my shortcomings all too well. I also understand how amazing it is to have those chains broken. All I can say to them is don't wait until you "have it all together" before you choose to come to God, or come back to God. Just let Him break the chains that hold you down.

You may never want to post about your faith or discuss biblical topics on a pdga thread, that's perfectly fine. No biggie! But if you really "received God" as it were, you can be certain of at least two things. One way or another, you will find a way to express your faith somewhere because that's what winning the lottery does, it causes you to share! I Simply feel this is as good a place as any! I pray there will be more who do the same. And number two, you will be criticized for it ! Especially if you use words!

playtowin

Jun 04 2008, 08:06 PM

Just about as inspirational as it gets:

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=8cf08faca5dd9ea45513

CAMBAGGER

Jun 29 2008, 04:01 PM

Psalms 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

gdstour

Jul 27 2008, 02:00 PM

http://gatewaydiscs.blogspot.com/
group outing available with tent an Cabin Camping

Lyle O Ross

Jul 28 2008, 12:40 PM

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. - Knoxville's police chief says the man accused of a shooting that killed two people at a Tennessee church targeted the congregation because of its liberal social stance.

Chief Sterling Owen IV said Monday that police found a letter in Jim D. Adkisson's car. Owen said Adkisson was apparently frustrated over being out of work and had a "stated hatred of the liberal movement."

Adkisson is charged with first-degree murder. Police say a gunman entered the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church during a children's performance Sunday. No children were hurt.

The church is known for advocating women's and [censored] {wow, we can't say g*a*y) rights and founding an American Civil Liberties Union chapter.

rollinghedge

Jul 28 2008, 12:49 PM

This had nothing to do with religion.

local coverage (http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/28/church-shooting-police-find-manifesto-suspects-car/)

my_hero

Jul 28 2008, 12:54 PM

The church is known for advocating women's and [censored] {wow, we can't say g*a*y) rights and founding an American Civil Liberties Union chapter.

No, YOU can't say ga[/b]y rights.

I agree that this has nothing to do with religion. It was the devil that made him do it.

Lyle O Ross

Jul 28 2008, 04:10 PM

rollinghedge

Jul 28 2008, 04:48 PM

This had nothing to do with religion.

local coverage (http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/28/church-shooting-police-find-manifesto-suspects-car/)

Feeling empathy for people shot while watching a children's play at their church has nothing to do with religion?

What empathy? All you did was quote a news article.

Lyle O Ross

Jul 28 2008, 05:46 PM

rollinghedge

Jul 28 2008, 05:52 PM

So why did you post that story on this specific thread? I'd rather not ASSume things unlike other people...

kkrasinski

Aug 21 2008, 11:43 AM

Redirected from another thread.

Quotes by playtowin:

I have a big problem with any man made religion that makes Jesus out to be a liar...

...i.e. the Koran say's about Jesus and how it makes him out to be a liar.

In fact, the Koran neither explicitly nor implicitly calls Jesus a liar. In Islam, Jesus is a revered prophet, messiah (annointed one), son of Mary by divinely conceived virgin birth, but is not himself divine. His mission is to teach submission to the one God and to affirm the truth of the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). He is given the right to perform miracles and is assisted by a group of disciples. He was not crucified, but instead was risen alive to heaven. He will come again and slay the anti-christ, after which he will become the leader of the nation of Islam until his mortal death. Islam believes the modern biblical interpretation of a divine Jesus to be a incorrect.

Great justification for a millenium of war, no?

playtowin

Aug 21 2008, 03:16 PM

I never said it explicitly says Jesus was a liar. Implicitly, yes it most certainly does and not in some obscure (sp) or far-fetched way. With just a little investigation you'd easily see how and why that is a fact. I would suggest a bit more research to find this out for yourself. Any sincere search will easily give you the information you need to know that the Koran makes Jesus out to be a liar. Of course, by sincere I mean sincerely searching for evidence for both sides of that issue, not just the one you seem to be convinced of. Believe it or not, (and I can admittedly see why you'd think otherwise), I am not on here to "get you" or "prove you wrong" in anyway. Sometimes it can surely seem that way though. I can easily get caught up in a "discussion" and sometimes it can get ugly. And because of this medium, it's very hard to determine the "tone" someone is coming from. As always though, if you can't find it for yourself I would be happy to share with you why I would say that. But if it's something you're interested enough to make a post like that, perhaps a little more research wouldn't be too much to kindly suggest.

kkrasinski

Aug 21 2008, 03:42 PM

I never said it explicitly says Jesus was a liar.

(sigh) And I never said you said what you say you never said. So there. Nyah, nyah, nyah.

Implicitly, yes it most certainly does and not in some obscure (sp) or far-fetched way.

Show me.

playtowin

Aug 21 2008, 06:01 PM

Really, this is just ONE of the many ways to show that the Koran makes Jesus out to be a liar. Simply ask someone to read what the skeptics of His day asked Him and what His response was. In Matthew 26:63 those who were looking for false evidence against Jesus so they could kill Him demanded Him to tell them if He was the Son of God. What was His answer in vs.64? By the way, over 81 times Jesus made the same claim in the NT. For a further study of this, simply learn what a "shirk" is in the Islamic faith. Sometimes called "association." Then ask yourself what Jesus said, over 500 years before the Koran was invented, about who He is.

Even though the Koran includes the name of Jesus and pays lip service to Him being a prophet, it is abundantly clear that it is utterly apposed to ANYONE, including Jesus, to claim to be the Son of God. In fact there are at least 11 Suras that clearly state that Allah does not have a son. In fact one of them, Sura 9:30, says "may Allah destroy" anyone who makes that claim. This is not only a specific attack on one of the most, if not the most, basic principles of Christianity, it is crystal clear that it makes Jesus out to be a liar because what did Jesus claim? To put this SINGLE EXAMPLE (AMONG THE HUNDREDS OF OTHERS) into a nutshell, the Koran makes Jesus out to be a liar by stating that His claims are not true and that He or anyone who makes the same claims should be "destroyed."

Although you asked me to "show you," I don't know if you truly want to know this stuff, or if you are just looking for a religious debate or "bicker-fest." The bottom line is that you can find this stuff for yourself quite easily, but your quick response was to put it off on me. That doesn't sound to me like someone who wants to learn anything new, but someone who really does want to bicker. If I am wrong in thinking that, I sincerely apologize.

Don't think this is some isolated way of showing the Korans opposition to the Bible. I could go on and on about how the Koran contradicts and disputes the Bible and stands directly apposed to it's most basic doctrines. Just this one example is enough for me. How many does it take for you to say "that seems to make sense?" Not to become a Christian. That's not what I am saying. But to simply say "yes, the Koran does not jive with the bible, in fact it makes Jesus out to be a liar?" I don't say this to "win a debate" or "get you!" IMO, it isn't about you or me being right or wrong. It is a serious topic with eternal consequences. This question of the Koran making Jesus out to be a liar is not even a question. It's not even a matter of opinion. It's simply being familiar, or becoming familiar with what these books say and how their claims interact. Hope this helps...

kkrasinski

Aug 21 2008, 07:40 PM

... it is abundantly clear that it is utterly apposed to ANYONE, including Jesus, to claim to be the Son of God

Of course. Did you think this was in dispute? This is a central tenet of Islam and the most basic difference between Islam and Christianity.

The question on the table is, does the Koran directly or indirectly call Jesus a liar? Most of your post does not address this, so I'll leave that stuff alone.

... the Koran makes Jesus out to be a liar by stating that His claims are not true ...

Wrong. The Koran never states that Jesus' claims are untrue. On the contrary, the Koran disputes that Jesus ever claimed divinity. The Muslim view, rather, is that much of the Bible is not a historically accurate representation, and that Christians' interpretation of much of the Bible is inaccurate.

To use your example, Matthew 26:63-64, Muslim scholars would argue that these words come from a historical account, not even written by Matthew, penned 100 years after the incident took place. They would also point to Adam as a "son of God", Ezekial as "son of Man", peacemakers as "sons of God", Cyrus (the Persian king) as "messiah", etc.

The Koran states that truth can be found in the Christian scripture, but disputes that historical compositions such as the Gospels originated from God. As evidence, they would point out that nowhere in the Bible is the Bible mentioned. There is no divine command to be found that dictates the collection of books contained in the NIV (for example) be assembled as the sacred text. They would point to cannonical differences in various flavors of Christian Bibles and ask how would this be possible if the Bible were divinely inspired?

This question of the Koran making Jesus out to be a liar is not even a question. It's not even a matter of opinion.

This view can only be held by someone subscribing to the narrow fundamentalist view of Bible inerrancy. Islam does not concede the point.

playtowin

Aug 22 2008, 12:09 AM

... it is abundantly clear that it is utterly apposed to ANYONE, including Jesus, to claim to be the Son of God

Of course. Did you think this was in dispute? No, I didn't. Anyone can see that it was simply to establish the first point in why I think the Koran makes Jesus out to be a liar. This is a central tenet of Islam and the most basic difference between Islam and Christianity. Did YOU think this was in dispute? :confused:

The question on the table is, does the Koran directly or indirectly call Jesus a liar? Most of your post does not address this, so I'll leave that stuff alone. Not true. This is important. The question and the point I made is that the Koran "MAKES" Jesus out to be a liar. Not "calls" him a liar. That would be a literal verbatum argument that you know I never made. I think I clearly pointed out that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. The fact that you defend those who don't believe this is another issue. I think I clearly pointed out that the Koran deems that such a claim by anyone to be untrue, false, "A LIE." That is indirectly "making Jesus out to be a liar." I can't make it any clearer for you. 

... the Koran makes Jesus out to be a liar by stating that His claims are not true ...

Wrong. The Koran never states that Jesus' claims are untrue. It say's that Allah/God "has no son." Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. Therefore, the Koran does in fact make Jesus out to be a liar because of His claims. If you don't see that I don't know what else to tell ya. On the contrary, the Koran disputes that Jesus ever claimed divinity. The Muslim view, rather, is that much of the Bible is not a historically accurate representation, and that Christians' interpretation of much of the Bible is inaccurate.

To use your example, Matthew 26:63-64, Muslim scholars would argue that these words come from a historical account, not even written by Matthew, penned 100 years after the incident took place. And there are biblical scholars who believe otherwise. Some place it as early as 20 years after the "incident" took place. They would also point to Adam as a "son of God", Ezekial as "son of Man", peacemakers as "sons of God", Cyrus (the Persian king) as "messiah", etc. Then they would implicitly have to claim that Adam blasphemed Allah if they say Adam was a "son of God" because as I've already shown you that the Koran is very explicit that Allah has no son. If you want the other 10 Sura's that say that in the Koran, just say the word. 

The Koran states that truth can be found in the Christian scripture, but disputes that historical compositions such as the Gospels originated from God. As evidence, they would point out that nowhere in the Bible is the Bible mentioned. There is no divine command to be found that dictates the collection of books contained in the NIV (for example) be assembled as the sacred text. They would point to cannonical differences in various flavors of Christian Bibles and ask how would this be possible if the Bible were divinely inspired? Have you ever studied why those particular books are put together? It would clear up alot of this portion of your defense of the Koran. 

This question of the Koran making Jesus out to be a liar is not even a question. It's not even a matter of opinion.

This view can only be held by someone subscribing to the narrow fundamentalist view of Bible inerrancy. Islam does not concede the point. I believe in the inerrency of the Bible for sure. That isn't to say I believe every translation of it though. Only someone subscibing to a narrow view of "inerrancy" could hold to such a view.

kkrasinski

Aug 22 2008, 11:59 AM

It say's that Allah/God "has no son." Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. Therefore, the Koran does in fact make Jesus out to be a liar because of His claims.

When the Koran speaks of Allah having no son it is clearly referring specifically to the divinity of Jesus. Any honest reading of the text and its context confirms this. Your argument regarding Adam is ludicrous. The Bible clearly states that Adam is the son of God, yet the Koran does not dispute this. Why? Because the Bible is not claiming Adam's divinity. "Son" is used in a different context. In the same way, Muslim scholars believe Jesus' statements are not claiming divinity. This is key: Muslim's believe that Christian claims of Jesus's divinity are misinterpretation, and that nowhere does Jesus actually claim to be divine. If Jesus does not claim to be divine, then he does not lie. Plain and simple. Rhetoric that claims "The Koran makes Jesus out to be a liar" is just ignorant fundamentalist nonsense geared to instill fear and hatred in those who know no better.

Can you show me how you would explain to a Muslim why greater than half of all the Christians in the world use a Bible that includes canonical text that your does not?

Pizza God

Aug 22 2008, 12:17 PM

Let me say first off I have not read any of this thread. But this reply does not belonng in the Next Presidents thread

There are 3 basic needs of man.
Food
Shelter
Religion
Society will fail if any of these needs are not met.

I'm going to have to disagree with the last item on that short list of necessities. Countless numbers of people have died in the name of God or a religion.....in fact, whole societies and civilations have been exterminated because of differing religious beliefs.

In my mind, you just proved my point. One society felt the relegion was the "Right One" and wiped out the society that they felt had the wrong one. That is why I have a problem with "organized" religion.

Wiccan started (in todays form) about 50 years ago - considered a cult
Mormon's started up about 130 years ago - considered a cult
Islam started 1400 years ago - considered a cult
Christianity started 2008 years ago - connsidered the only correct religion????
Buddism, Hinduism, and Judism - all older than Christianity - would not Christianty be considered a cult???????

Buddism is more of a way of life.
Hinduism and judism have a lot more in common than you think.

playtowin

Aug 22 2008, 05:43 PM

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Jesus does not claim to be divine, then he does not lie.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using your own logic, the opposite would have to be true. That if Jesus DID claim divinity, then He IS a liar. And who would be "making Him out to be a liar? That's right, the Koran and apparently you too. Are you calling Jesus a liar? Or are you just hiding behind the "Muslim scholars" that believe the hundreds of verses (that were written 500 years before the invention of the Koran) that speak directly and indirectly of His divinity are all "misinterpreted?"

Not only that, those who wrote of the Christ, pointed to His divinity, both old and new testaments. They are all liars and/or they're all "misinterpreted" as well? The evidence would show otherwise. And if you honestly don't believe that Jesus was the Christ, oh boy, talk about evidence! That's someone who just doesn't want to believe at that point. Come to mention it, I think that would accurately describe alot of unbelief out there.

BTW, how do you know what version I read? Fact is, there are over 10 versions I read! I usually quote the NIV because it is written in an easy to understand fashion and most people are familiar with it. I don't put my faith in any one translation. I put my faith in Jesus. Some translations are downright "slanted" to support certain doctrines held by specific denominations. I try my best to avoid those.

Can you explain the unity of the bible? Can you explain the how the bible is so historically reliable? Can you explain why the bible is the most reliable text of antiquity? Can you explain how the bible has stayed intact? Can you explain how the bible tells of events ahead of time?

BTW, what percentage would you say, of those "Christians in the world" you speak of, actually keep John 14:15? I am not asking you to be their judge, I am asking you to just contemplate the seriousness of the average so called "Christian." There are many people who claim to be Christians in name only. To say that isn't judgmental, it's just a fact that has alot of implications when talking about what "half the Christians in the world" do this or that as some proof of reliability. The flip side to that is those who actually do trust Him have something to say about the reliability of it all, specifically because of that trust.

kkrasinski

Aug 22 2008, 06:28 PM

Hypothetical:
1.) You call yourself green.
2.) Ralph writes that you called yourself blue.
3.) I read Ralph's statement and reply "It's not possible for anyone to be blue!"

In the above hypothetical, am I calling you a liar? No. That's all I'm sayin'.

BTW, how do you know what version I read?

(sigh) I know you are neither Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. That narrows it down a bit.

And who would be "making Him out to be a liar? That's right, the Koran and apparently you too. Are you calling Jesus a liar?

WTF!!???

ah, the hell with you.

ANHYZER

Aug 22 2008, 06:51 PM

Hypothetical:
1.) You call yourself green.
2.) Ralph writes that you called yourself blue.
3.) I read Ralph's statement and reply "It's not possible for anyone to be blue!"

You would be lying...Cyanosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanosis) is real, and not just localized to testicles.

http://www.wunderkabinett.co.uk/gallery/albums/userpics/10003/blue_man.jpg

kkrasinski

Aug 22 2008, 06:56 PM

LOL!

CAMBAGGER

Aug 23 2008, 12:20 AM

kkrasinski,
The very Bible that Playtowin says he likes to read cuz it's soo easy to understand makes Jesus a sinner. Seems to me that it is not much better then the Koran he disagrees with so much.

playtowin

Aug 23 2008, 12:43 AM

kkrasinski,
The very Bible ("VERSION") that Playtowin says he ("TENDS TO QUOTE") likes to read cuz it's soo easy to understand makes Jesus a sinner. Seems to me that it is not much better then the Koran he disagrees with so much.

(sigh) Hey Sherlock, keep reading!

 Quote:

I don't put my faith in any one translation. I put my faith in Jesus. Some translations are downright "slanted" to support certain doctrines held by specific denominations. I try my best to avoid those.

Unquote 

It was about 20 years ago when I first came across folks who are known as "KJV-only supporters." This doctrine doesn't think things all the way through. It's almost like a vigorous argument against absolute truth. The second someone argues against it, their own position is destoyed because as we all probably know, to say that there is no absolute truth is to hold to an absolute truth. So to continue arguing against absolute truth, well.... you get the point. This one about the NIV "making Jesus a sinner" is monumentally self defeating. It's own logic destroys itself and to continue in it, well....you get the point. You really didn't think this one through Cam. I sincerely pray you abandon the KJV only doctrine with all of it's implications someday. You've demonstrated publically that at this point in your walk it means more to you than even the unity of believers. I hope you can calmly, in a non defensive way, examine the logic you've sunk so deeply into.

I've made several attempts to help you understand in pages past. Given you more than enough material on it. I've "agreed to disagree" and even purposed a "stay away from the debate approach." But unfortunately you have rejected it all in the never ending quest to support such a transparent doctrine. Now, you've gone so far as to shove your false doctrine into an interaction that had nothing to do with you. Ultimately I don't care what implications your post falsely makes of me.

If you are wondering why I haven't spelled it out for you, again, it's because I am angry with you for what you've done and if you understood the scripture correctly, anger itself is not sin. Otherwise your doctrine would be correct. It's what you do in your anger that is sin and right now, there is no way I am going to do it while in my flesh I want nothing more than for you to be standing in the fairway with a driver in my hand. Especially when it's a brand new destroyer with a sharp beaded edge, and a killer PIAS Crowley Tourney stamp!

CAMBAGGER

Aug 23 2008, 09:51 AM

kkrasinski,
The very Bible ("VERSION") that Playtowin says he ("TENDS TO QUOTE") likes to read cuz it's soo easy to understand makes Jesus a sinner. Seems to me that it is not much better then the Koran he disagrees with so much.

(sigh) Hey Sherlock, keep reading!

kkrasinski

It was about 20 years ago when I first came across folks who are known as "KJV-only supporters." This doctrine doesn't think things all the way through. It's almost like a vigorous argument against absolute truth. The second someone argues against it, their own position is destoyed because as we all probably know, to say that there is no absolute truth is to hold to an absolute truth. So to continue arguing against absolute truth, well.... you get the point. This one about the NIV "making Jesus a sinner" is monumentally self defeating. It's own logic destroys itself and to continue in it, well....you get the point. You really didn't think this one through Cam. I sincerely pray you abandon the KJV only doctrine with all of it's implications someday. You've demonstrated publically that at this point in your walk it means more to you than even the unity of believers. I hope you can calmly, in a non defensive way, examine the logic you've sunk so deeply into.

I've made several attempts to help you understand in pages past. Given you more than enough material on it. I've "agreed to disagree" and even purposed a "stay away from the debate approach." But unfortunately you have rejected it all in the never ending quest to support such a transparent doctrine. Now, you've gone so far as to shove your false doctrine into an interaction that had nothing to do with you. Ultimately I don't care what implications your post falsely makes of me.

If you are wondering why I haven't spelled it out for you, again, it's because I am angry with you for what you've done and if you understood the scripture correctly, anger itself is not sin. Otherwise your doctrine would be correct. It's what you do in your anger that is sin and right now, there is no way I am going to do it while in my flesh I want nothing more than for you to be standing in the fairway with a driver in my hand. Especially when it's a brand new destroyer with a sharp beaded edge, and a killer PIAS Crowley Tourney stamp!

Wow, that sure is Christian like, I feel like that was a personal attack. Grow up. You'll never have unity of believers is everyone is reading and studying from a different manual. They say and teach different things.

Quote
The very Bible ("VERSION") that Playtowin says he ("TENDS TO QUOTE") likes to read cuz it's soo easy to understand makes Jesus a sinner. Seems to me that it is not much better then the Koran he disagrees with so much.
Quote

Why would you even want to worship a God that can't even preserve or give you a PERFECT word? Good luck with him raising you from the dead, jeeze he's gonna have real problems according to your philosophy. And why would you want to study a book that has the same errors in it that the Koran- the book you obviously don't care about has?

Again, pot calling kettle, come in kettle.

playtowin

Aug 23 2008, 03:05 PM

In fact, the Koran neither explicitly nor implicitly calls Jesus a liar.

 I honestly wish it weren't true. You can choose to believe that or not. But I know this isn't about me, so I guess that part doesn't even matter. You can also choose to believe this is the only proof or not. If you do, you simply don't know yet. The Koran clearly makes Jesus out to be a liar despite other contradicting and very confusing verses you've learned. In case it isn't understood what I'm posting, this is three different translations of two different verses in the stack of ways the Koran makes Jesus and His disciples out to be liars. You may not like that wording, but that is what it ultimately does. This, is "fact," word for word. 

037.152

YUSUFALI: "Allah has begotten children"? but they are liars!

PICKTHAL: Allah hath begotten. Allah! verily they tell a lie.

SHAKIR: Allah has begotten; and most surely they are liars.

AND

009.030

YUSUFALI: The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

PICKTHAL: And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!

SHAKIR: And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

 Now, do you remember what the greatest sin as a Muslim (a follower of the Koran) is? It's called a "shirk." Please look it up...

kkrasinski

Aug 23 2008, 05:19 PM

Clearly you are correct, since in all the verses you show above the plural pronoun "they" agrees so well with the singular "Jesus". And certainly you are correct from the preceding verses that "they" who say "Allah hath begotten" is Jesus. Wow, how could I have been so stupid as to assume that english translations would be correct in basic grammer.

For the record, I'm not Muslim. I have never learned any Koranic verses nor have I posted any. I'm not defending Islam, except to show that your idiotic view is unfounded. But I guess I should expect nothing less than idiocy from someone who concludes, after an entire dialog of my repeating "the Koran does not imply Jesus lied", that I'm calling Jesus a liar.

I'm done wasting my time here, but I'll give you one thing -- you're entertaining!

playtowin

Aug 23 2008, 08:36 PM

The Bible: Jesus claimed to be the Son of God.

The Koran: any claim like that, by anyone is a lie.

What does that "make Jesus out to be?"

playtowin

Aug 24 2008, 03:48 AM

Grow up.

...Good luck with him raising you from the dead...

...pot calling kettle, come in kettle.

playtowin

Aug 24 2008, 05:12 AM

Why would you even want to worship a God that can't even preserve or give you a PERFECT word?

Again, pot calling kettle, come in kettle.

 Here is just a handful of questions someone may want to consider when calling the KJV "PERFECT." 

Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised five times? Do you just say "all of them" and simply call a revision "an addition?"

If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, or as you put it "PERFECT," then why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?

Why did the KJV translators use marginal notes showing alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is "PERFECT" there would be no alternates to offer by those who were supposedly used by God to give us the "PERFECT" version.

In defending the KJV's use of archaic language, do you really think it is a good thing that a person must use an Early Modern English dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading? If you don't then please explain how someone comes to know what a "Armhole" (Jer. 38:12), or what "Winefat" (Isa. 63:2; Mark 12:1) and a "Bloody Flux" (Acts 28:8) is???

Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"? (I'll answer this one. NO, they weren't liars, a poor transtlation is just that, a "poor translation." BTW, the majority of the KJV is NOT a poor translation IMO, but those who think it's perfect avoid these questions like Barack avoids town hall meetings!

Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words � would you say the KJV was "PERFECT" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850? :confused:

 This particular "handful" had more than five "fingers." There are at least 100 more questions like them that I know of. I've asked you most of them before and you never responded to ONE as far as I know. What are you hiding from? More importantly, what or "whom doth thou clingeth upon?" ;) J/K Translation, "what or who are you clinging to?" Jesus, or a form of "version worship?"

This is not meant to slam you or the KJV. I use it quite a bit and for the most part, I think it is a good translation. It has it's good parts and it's bad parts but in no way is it "PERFECT." I have never in my life made the claim that any other version is "PERFECT." I have reasons for each version I own and study. Some parts of those versions are poorly translated but can still be useful for different purposes. Like studying how and why many false doctrines or biblical misconceptions are present in the minds and hearts of people today. Not to slam. Not to feel superior. Not to boast. But to help, share, and avoid the heartache of deception. Ultimately, to grow in the knowledge God affords us.

Cam, I really do pray you would consider the sincerity in which this is posted and the seriousness of the issues that are raised. Please take your TIME to examine this through before you respond? The implications are far reaching and never as simplistic as you've made them out to be. These things must be thought through.

Snide responses are very understandable in the fast paced heat of weighty discussions. I've fallen into that mode of defensiveness countless times as I continue to live and learn. But this is a chat forum! We (Me too!) have only ourselves to blame if we don't take the time to respond wisely. Criticism in all forms will always be there, but even more so when defensive emotions control your response.

kkrasinski

Aug 24 2008, 03:47 PM

A sampling of what the Koran actually says about Jesus (Isa):

[2.136] Say: We believe in Allah and (in) that which had been revealed to us, and (in) that which was revealed to Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub and the tribes, and (in) that which was given to Musa and Isa, and (in) that which was given to the prophets from their Lord, we do not make any distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit.

[3.45] When the angels said: O Marium, surely Allah gives you good news with a Word from Him (of one) whose name is the '. Messiah, Isa son of Marium, worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those who are made near (to Allah).

[3.52] But when Isa perceived unbelief on their part, he said Who will be my helpers in Allah's way? The disciples said: We are helpers (in the way) of Allah: We believe in Allah and bear witness that we are submitting ones.

[3.55] And when Allah said: O Isa, I am going to terminate the period of your stay (on earth) and cause you to ascend unto Me and purify you of those who disbelieve and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the day of resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, so l will decide between you concerning that in which you differed.

[3.59] Surely the likeness of Isa is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, Be, and he was.

[4.157] And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

[4.159] And there is not one of the followers of the Book but most certainly believes in this before his death, and on the day of resurrection he (Isa) shall be a witness against them.

[4.171] O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.

[5.110] When Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! Remember My favor on you and on your mother, when I strengthened you I with the holy Spirit, you spoke to the people in the cradle and I when of old age, and when I taught you the Book and the wisdom and the Taurat and the Injeel; and when you determined out of clay a thing like the form of a bird by My permission, then you breathed into it and it became a bird by My permission, and you healed the blind and the leprous by My permission; and when you brought forth the dead by My permission; and when I withheld the children of Israel from you when you came to them with clear arguments, but those who disbelieved among them said: This is nothing but clear enchantment.

[5.112] When the disciples said: O Isa son of Marium! will your Lord consent to send down to us food from heaven? He said: Be careful of (your duty to) Allah if you are believers.

[6.85] And Zakariya and Yahya and Isa and Ilyas; every one was of the good;

[61.6] And when Isa son of Marium said: O children of Israel! surely I am the apostle of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Taurat and giving the good news of an Apostle who will come after me, his name being Ahmad, but when he came to them with clear arguments they said: This is clear magic.

[5.116] And when Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! did you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah he will say: Glory be to Thee, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it; Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in Thy mind, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things.

playtowin

Aug 24 2008, 07:25 PM

I can understand your words quote: "the hell with me."

I can make sense of you saying quote: "I am done waisting my time here."

What I don't know is what your point is in quoting Koran verses that attack the most basic elements of Christianity? So I'll just ask you, what is the point of your list?

If it is just to say that Jesus is mentioned in the Koran, well who said He wasn't?

If by "actually" as in "what the Koran actually says" you mean I somehow misquoted the text, I can see that, but I think I quoted it correctly, especially when referencing three different versions and posting them side by side.

If I had to take a guess, your pride has you clinging to the thinly veiled notion that I ever meant literal, as if I ever said something like "the Koran says in this or that verse that JESUS IS A LIAR!" Try it man. Just highlight and copy me saying "the Koran makes Jesus out to be a liar," then say I meant literally but I just couldn't find the verse! HA! If you are actually going to say this, I want you to google the words "intellectual integrity."

I guess you could try to pawn it off as "it wasn't talking about Jesus but His Apostles, or the disciples, or just the day to day believers that trusted Jesus based upon eyewitness accounts handed down for hundreds of years before the Koran was invented. The Koran DOES specifically impune those guys, word for word. But what you'd fail to see is that when "they" make the belief in Jesus as God a lie, they make Jesus out to be a liar, and that's what it is "actually" saying.

kkrasinski

Aug 24 2008, 08:28 PM

the Koran makes Jesus out to be a liar

005.116
YUSUFALI: And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.
PICKTHAL: And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden?
SHAKIR: And when Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! did you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah he will say: Glory be to Thee, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it; Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in Thy mind, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things.

005.117
YUSUFALI: "Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things.
PICKTHAL: I spake unto them only that which Thou commandedst me, (saying): Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. I was a witness of them while I dwelt among them, and when Thou tookest me Thou wast the Watcher over them. Thou art Witness over all things.
SHAKIR: I did not say to them aught save what Thou didst enjoin me with: That serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord, and I was a witness of them so long as I was among them, but when Thou didst cause me to die, Thou wert the watcher over them, and Thou art witness of all things.

Using playtowin's fallacious logic from another perspective:
The Koran states Jesus says he never claimed divinity (highlighted in bold above).
The Bible states Jesus is divine.
The Bible makes Jesus out to be a liar.

playtowin

Aug 24 2008, 10:54 PM

Quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the Koran makes Jesus out to be a liar

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

005.116 All this verse shows is that the Koran teaches against the Bible. Jesus ACTUALLY did say to worship Him! Kurt, did you use this verse of the Koran to show that it's "making Jesus out to be a liar" in three versions!? Seems like a bit of overkill! Ha! If not, please tell me why you quoted this verse? 

YUSUFALI: And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.
PICKTHAL: And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden?
SHAKIR: And when Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! did you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah he will say: Glory be to Thee, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it; Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in Thy mind, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things.

005.117 Different verse, same conclusion. That the Koran makes the bible/Jesus out to be lying about who and what He is. Thist isn't "rocket-surgery" Kurt. 

YUSUFALI: "Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things.
PICKTHAL: I spake unto them only that which Thou commandedst me, (saying): Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. I was a witness of them while I dwelt among them, and when Thou tookest me Thou wast the Watcher over them. Thou art Witness over all things.
SHAKIR: I did not say to them aught save what Thou didst enjoin me with: That serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord, and I was a witness of them so long as I was among them, but when Thou didst cause me to die, Thou wert the watcher over them, and Thou art witness of all things.

Using playtowin's fallacious logic from another perspective:

The Koran states Jesus never claimed divinity (highlighted in bold above).
The Bible states Jesus is divine.
The Bible makes Jesus out to be a liar

 Oh man! You were so close Kurt! Even though you said "the hell with me" I am gonna give ya partial credit! But using the SAME logic I used, you'd get this:

The Koran states Jesus never claimed divinity (highlighted in bold above).
The Bible states Jesus is divine.
The Bible makes Mohammed out to be a liar.

Even though it was invented over 500 years after Jesus' earthly ministry, the claim that Jesus was only a prophet by the Koran or anyone are clearly condemned by the Bible. The Bible is clear on who you must believe in, and it aint the prophet Jesus, it is God in the flesh Jesus!

Your scenerio assumes that the Koran is true. Can you give good reasons why the Koran is true? Can you give reasonable responses to the criticisms that fall upon the Koran? I believe you can do that with the Bible, but you can't do that with the Koran.

Kurt, come here! Look at me! :DDon't take this the wrong way, but you are really being a wanker about this. This is all about me saying "the Koran makes Jesus out to be a liar." There is nothing more to this than that. What is so difficult for you to "get" in that phrase? You know I wasn't saying there is a verse in the Koran that say's "Jesus was a liar."

At some point I gotta joke about this Kurt, for crying out loud, YOU "don't even believe" what you are defending! You can say your not defending the Koran but you are, period. I tried to make you see the obvious. I'll reword it just for you ok? How's this:

"The Qu'ran makes Jesus out to be a liar!" :p

playtowin

Aug 25 2008, 01:00 AM

The [NIV] makes Jesus a sinner. ...Why would you even want to worship a God that can't even preserve or give you a PERFECT word?

http://www.kjv-only.com/matt5_22.html

CAMBAGGER

Aug 25 2008, 08:55 AM

Quote
The main reason for the difference is due to differences between manuscripts. The textual evidence (manuscripts, quotes from Early Church Fathers, etc.) is pretty much split as to what the text should be.

However, textual evidence aside, I'd like to point out a few observations:
Quote
NOTICE he says "TEXTUAL EVIDENCE ASIDE", then he says he has some "observations"-not evidence, observations. This guy also says "For this reason, I think it's possible that some ancient scribe added "without a cause" in order to remove the possibility of someone accusing Christ of sin in John 2:13-17, but didn't think it through." really? Come on now.

DIFFERENT MANUSCRIPTS, that is the key. They teach different things.
Eph 4:26a says "Be ye angry, and sin not:"

So did God sin beacause he has had people killed?

playtowin

Aug 26 2008, 01:42 AM

If you believe the KJV is a "PERFECT" translation, then here are a few questions to consider:

Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised five times? Do you just say "all of them" and simply call a revision "an addition?"

If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, or as you put it "PERFECT," then why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?

Why did the KJV translators use marginal notes showing alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is "PERFECT" there would be no alternates to offer by those who were supposedly used by God to give us the "PERFECT" version.

In defending the KJV's use of archaic language, do you really think it is a good thing that a person must use an Early Modern English dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading? If you don't then please explain how someone comes to know what a "Armhole" (Jer. 38:12), or what "Winefat" (Isa. 63:2; Mark 12:1) and a "Bloody Flux" (Acts 28:8) is???

Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"? (I'll answer this one. NO, they weren't liars, a poor transtlation is just that, a "poor translation." BTW, the majority of the KJV is NOT a poor translation IMO, but those who think it's perfect avoid these questions like Barack avoids town hall meetings!

Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words � would you say the KJV was "PERFECT" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850? :confused:

playtowin

Aug 26 2008, 02:04 AM

When you answer these there are many more that I'd like to... ah nevermind, we'll cross that bridge when we... (sigh) who am I kidding! Why don't you answer them?

This is one time when "SERIOUSly kidding" means two things. I may have put this in a "wiseguy" way, but dude, before you pm me again with a pile of questions about my personal beliefs on other issues, please answer these serious questions that IMO prove that the KJV is not a "perfect" translation. I've heard of "thread drift" before, but this is worse than Obama avoiding a town hall meeting without a telepromter!

CAMBAGGER

Aug 26 2008, 08:45 AM

Again, I can't make you believe the word of God an it's obvious you do not. Do you agree that we will all be judged according to God's word? What a great God YOU serve that is going to judge us all according to his WORD and we don't even have it preserved for us??? He says his word is perfect and forever settled in Heaven. What does he mean by these things? If the KJV is NOT the correct version, show me what is. Again, I've got verses that tell me his word is perfect and forever settled in Heaven. Are the verses wrong to, or can you show me? And if the verses are wrong, how can you tell which are wrong and which are right? Maybe blood doesn't mean blood, or all doesn't mean all. The different bibles teach different things because they come from different texts. Your desire should be to show me, not be little me with questions based on man's wisdom. God used man-filled with the Holy Spirit to write his word and copy it. Is that not sufficient for you, is that too hard to believe?

You rely a bit too much on man's wisdom and knowlegde, like that link you put up here to view. That was all observations and his ideas. The "reasoning" you've used in the above posts falls along the same line as the guy's link you put up.- That stuff you sent me absolutely rediculous. He is probably one of the idiots that would say "can God build a rock so heavy that he can't lift?"

2 Tim 2:15 says to STUDY, not to read. There is a difference. You compare scripture with scripture, not with some idiot's "observations".You don't think it's possible to look things up to find meanings? If everyone had to be as smart as you and know everything to be saved, most of us would go to hell.

Again, I don't know how God could raise Jesus from the dead or you can believe you will be raised and he can't even give us a perfect study manual when he says we will be judged by it??? My OBSERVATION is that it doesn't add up. ;) Or maybe it's just common sense. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

switzerdan

Aug 26 2008, 06:34 PM

I don't really want to jump back in here right now.

A) I don't have time for it as my Master's program has restarted. :(

and

B) I'm having too much fun watching playtowin and camerelli show us yet another problem with religion. :D

But, in my summer reading I came across this quotation again and thought I'd share it with you.

"Rationality is the recognition of the fact that existence exists, that nothing can alter the truth and nothing can take precedence over that act of perceiving it, which is thinking�that the mind is one�s only judge of values and one�s only guide of action�that reason is an absolute that permits no compromise�that a concession to the irrational invalidates one�s consciousness and turns it from the task of perceiving to the task of faking reality�that the alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind�that the acceptance of a mystical invention is a wish for the annihilation of existence and, properly, annihilates one�s consciousness."

It's from Ayn Rand in her novel Atlas Shrugged.

playtowin

Aug 27 2008, 03:59 AM

Quote: "Your desire should be to show me..." 

 You say the KJV is a "perfect" translation. These questions pretty much "show" that it's not. Half of these questions are my own Cam. They're totally "on topic," not tricky, and very fair questions in light of your bold claim. This discussion and your refusal to answer them (and subsequent excuses) have even drawn Dan out of the woodwork along with his mischaracterizations of "religion." This time he's even quoting Ayn Rand! The queen of "me, myself, and I." With his definition of "religion" I can understand his sarcastic glee.

I have no problem whatsoever if you want to discuss KJV-onlyism. I have no problem with your passionate conviction of it. But these questions are totally reasonable and relavent. Buck up cowboy, a lively biblical discussion on here can be rough at times, especially when bold claims are made, I should know! But if you are going to make the claim, you should be willing to face up to it when those claims are questioned. People will believe you or they won't, but to simply light the flaming bag, knock on the door and run doesn't show much integrity IMO. 

Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised five times? Do you just say "all of them" and simply call a revision "an addition?"

If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, or as you put it "PERFECT," then why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?

Why did the KJV translators use marginal notes showing alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is "PERFECT" there would be no alternates to offer by those who were supposedly used by God to give us the "PERFECT" version.

In defending the KJV's use of archaic language, do you really think it is a good thing that a person must use an Early Modern English dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading? If you don't then please explain how someone comes to know what a "Armhole" (Jer. 38:12), or what "Winefat" (Isa. 63:2; Mark 12:1) and a "Bloody Flux" (Acts 28:8) is???

Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"? (I'll answer this one. NO, they weren't liars, a poor transtlation is just that, a "poor translation." BTW, the majority of the KJV is NOT a poor translation IMO, but those who think it's perfect avoid these questions like Barack avoids town hall meetings!

Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words � would you say the KJV was "PERFECT" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?

playtowin

Aug 27 2008, 04:06 AM

"AND NOW I SEE THE FACE OF GOD, AND I RAISE THIS GOD OVER THE EARTH, THIS GOD WHOM MEN HAVE SOUGHT SINCE MEN CAME INTO BEING, THIS GOD WHO WILL GRANT THEM JOY AND PEACE AND PRIDE. THIS GOD, THIS ONE WORD "I."

AYN RAND

switzerdan

Aug 27 2008, 04:28 AM

This time he's even quoting Ayn Rand! The queen of "me, myself, and I."

This indicates to me that you, like many people, do not understand the deeper implications of her philosophy. But, I would not expect this of someone who seems to put such a high value on faith as opposed to reason.

"AND NOW I SEE THE FACE OF GOD, AND I RAISE THIS GOD OVER THE EARTH, THIS GOD WHOM MEN HAVE SOUGHT SINCE MEN CAME INTO BEING, THIS GOD WHO WILL GRANT THEM JOY AND PEACE AND PRIDE. THIS GOD, THIS ONE WORD "I."

AYN RAND

I'm curious as to why you chose this quotation. Do you agree with its sentiment that each individual is their own god? I can't imagine you agreeing with it. That's why I'm curious.

It could simply be that you, like many people, perceive rational self interest incorrectly and you are using this quotation to show your disgust that Objectivism places a higher value on the individual than Christianity does.

(I'm merely speculating with this guess and in no way attempting to say this is definitively what you had in mind.)

playtowin

Aug 27 2008, 08:59 AM

I don't really want to jump back in here right now.

Anyway...

Beleive me, I understand her. I grew up in Seattle, the shrooms were plentiful!!! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

switzerdan

Aug 27 2008, 05:28 PM

Dave,

Firstly, even with your less-than-optimal command of the English language, you surely understand the difference between "I don't really want to jump back in...", which shows a reluctance to involve oneself in something, and "I'm not going to jump back in...", which shows a refusal to involve oneself. ;)

Secondly, this comment,
Beleive me, I understand her. I grew up in Seattle, the shrooms were plentiful!!!

truly does show that you don't get her. Understanding Objectivism has nothing to do with doing 'shrooms'. Drugs only serve to obfuscate reality and prevent you from perceiving the world with your full rationality. Objectivism requires reason and a rational thought process - not faith and whimsical thinking.

Finally, my original question still stands. I'm curious why you chose the quotation from Rand that you did. Can you give me any insight as to your thinking on that?

Lyle O Ross

Aug 27 2008, 06:44 PM

Interesting Quote from Rand. I wonder how many people think this indicates that she thought man and God were one, as opposed to her real philosophy, that man is God?

"Rand advocated rational individualism and laissez-faire capitalism, categorically rejecting socialism, altruism, and religion. Her ideas remain both influential and controversial."

Ayn has to be a real ball buster for today's conservatives. On the one hand she is consistent with their concept that each man should take what he can get, no matter who gets in the way. On the other hand, she was a good atheist.

What's really funny is that Ayn was writing about her vision of the perfect man. Basically she was writing her own version of the romance novel. :D

As for Objectivism, I don't see how someone of religious faith would support someone who developed this philosophy? As I understand it, the idea is that concepts and values are determined by reality and man's job is to figure them out. I would think that the religious would think that values were God's purview, not an aspect of reality?

Lyle O Ross

Aug 27 2008, 07:13 PM

BTW Switzer,

I'm in the Ayn was an idiot camp. My feeling is that she was a product of the outcome of the Russian Revolution who because of her own bitterness about that event was led to develop a philosophy in direct opposition to it. Not hard to understand, but hardly original. That combined with the observation that much of her philosophy was meant to define her ideal male seems pretty pathetic in review. Not that she wasn't smart...

switzerdan

Aug 27 2008, 08:00 PM

The circumstances behind the development of her philosophy hardly matter, do they? Argue against the ideas, not the person behind the ideas.

Lyle O Ross

Aug 28 2008, 01:08 PM

While I understand the case you are making, and might even say that an environmental role in directing someone's actions is not unexpected, in this case, the whole package is pretty weak IMO.

So, I live through the Russian revolution, thus my philosophy is there should be no Socialism, I move to America where there is rampant and uncontrolled Capitalism, and a Capitalistic Society where one can get rich if one works hard enough; I wrap that up with my romantic idealistic image of a male as a philosophy. Yawn!

Even in that I might see some value except she was so obviously pandering to the mood of the time in her actions and eventual testimony. I'm just not impressed.

Lets view Ayn as a scientist. The scientists who get recognized are those who develop truly novel ideas. We call them inventors. A scientist who simply builds on old ideas or things already in place might be a good scientist, but we view them distinctly differently. They aren't even called inventors, they are called innovators. Ayn was an innovator, one might even argue she was a good innovator. But she is no Nietzsche, No Marx (Groucho or other), she's not a Freud etc. Yes, she was reasonably smart, but not in the same caliber as true philosophical thinkers.

In my opinion, an intellectual leader should lead, they should develop something that defines society and redirects it, or at least how it thinks. Ayn simply wrote a philosophy based on a a couple of historical incidents which she experienced. She didn't even appear to look beyond those two major incidents at the greater history of our species. Even worse, she wrapped it all around her personal ideal of the perfect male. At least Freud understood how our desires and lusts drove our behaviors as opposed to writing about his perfect version of a girlfriend.

Lyle O Ross

Aug 28 2008, 01:20 PM

Now, lets take one issue as a direct point. Separation of Economies and State. When Ayn was writing, this is what existed (at least in part in America). It is essentially a Libertarian philosophy (although Ayn decried any possible connection). The eventual outcome of that lack of a relationship between Economic action and State was that the unmitigated desires (shall I say greed) of businesses led to actions which ultimately resulted in the Great Depression. That is, a completely free business community doesn't have the foresight to think about the long term impact of their actions, thus leading to actions which eventually lead to a crash.

You'd of thought that one lesson would be enough. But no! At least part of the recent resurgence of Ayn is via the business community and business schools. They like Ayn... They want our government to like Ayn, and they've had some success in that. We've spent the last 30 or so years taking down the regulations built after the last large separation of Economics and State. The end result... pretty weak.

There are so many holes in Ayn's basic beliefs that one has to conclude that she simply took what was going on, did not even evaluate whether it was viable long term, but simply took the short term gains as "good" and wrote it up as a philosophy. NOT GOOD ENOUGH!

switzerdan

Aug 28 2008, 07:51 PM

playtowin

Aug 28 2008, 11:01 PM

I tried to respond but there were user/technical problems. If I get distracted by somthing for a while, or just take a long time to type a post, when I click "continue" sometimes it say's "expired" and when I click back it is erased. I did that last night but was too tired to try to retype what I said. As far as I can tell I would have to "copy" before I click "continue" to avoid that. If anyone knows something else please inform?

I'll never duck your questions intentionally Dan (cough, cam, cough) and I appreciate the fact that you understand and acknowledge that, thanks. There's two things in the questions you asked. The objective philosophy and Rand in general. As far as "in general" goes, Lyle put it best and I gotta give him credit for doing it so concisely and accurately. I couldn't have worded it any better. It described what I would have tried to say very well:

Quote:

I'm in the Ayn was an idiot camp. My feeling is that she was a product of the outcome of the Russian Revolution who because of her own bitterness about that event was led to develop a philosophy in direct opposition to it. Not hard to understand, but hardly original. That combined with the observation that much of her philosophy was meant to define her ideal male seems pretty pathetic in review. Not that she wasn't smart...

Unquote

I said the "shroom" thing only to point out that I think she's crazy! Nothing more cause I didn't want to get into it that day. No analysis or description of what drugs do to the mind was necessary. But if you are a d'evot, e of hers, I could see how you would react that way.

Only a guess, but you probably aren't a fan of her as much as you are a fan of the "objective" philosophy that she propogated, modified and was very good at appearing fluent in. Of course, hypocrisy also played a big role in describing her and her, um, "stuff."

I quoted that particular quote of hers to point out two aspects of her life story (post socialism years) as I see it. Narcissism and antipothy towards God.

I would be interested in discussing the "objective" topic and how it relates to the bible but Obama is about to tell us how America sucks and he's experience and belief in God is enough to fix it. Maybe later...

sandalman

Aug 28 2008, 11:47 PM

i always thought atlas shrugged was more of a prediction or description of a possible outcome.

businesses do not typically diminish their clients. it may be proper for a govt to keep an eye on things businesswise, but meddling and over-regulating is usually counter productive.

" We've spent the last 30 or so years taking down the regulations built after the last large separation of Economics and State. The end result... pretty weak."

do you mean the results during the regulated times was bad or good? ... the success of the de-regulation process? ...

playtowin

Aug 30 2008, 04:18 PM

Cam, please stop pm'ing me and saying essentially that I am going to hell? I asked you some simple questions when you continued, unprevoked, to interject your belief that the only way to go to heaven is to read the King James Version. You answered them by asking me a plethera of off topic questions. I'd be glad to answer any question you have when you ask me them in an orderly manner. But to answer my original questions by giving me 30 or so questions and ignoring mine does not seem very orderly or fair IMO.

As I've said many times before, I am learning how to discuss biblical topics without letting sarcasm or ugly things get involved. It's not always easy. It's a learning process that can be very difficult at times. Please, in the interest of a fair and calm discussion of a seriousl topic, would you please answer these five simple questions that focus only on your claim that the KJV is "perfect." These questions are "attitude-free" and in no way do they get "off topic."


1. Which KJV edition is "PERFECT," since it was revised five times?

2. If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, or as you put it "PERFECT," then why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?

3. Why did the KJV translators use marginal notes showing alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is "PERFECT" there would be no alternates to offer by those who were supposedly used by God to give us the "PERFECT" version.

4. Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?

5. Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words � would you say the KJV was "PERFECT" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850? 

I'd like to get beyond this with you. But JUST THESE FIVE QUESTIONS ALONE reveal evidence that directly contradicts what you've said. There are many more, but can you please focus on these and help me understand why the obvious implications of them are false?

CAMBAGGER

Aug 30 2008, 04:48 PM

First of all, I've only PM'ed you with responses to your pm's to me so enough about that. I understand now that you are the Great Oz and don't like to be asked questions. I told you I was working on a respose to your questions in a pm you sent me this morning. I didn't realize you had me on a timer. I have asked you nowhere near 30 questions, just a few simple ones. No need to lie and exagerate. I guess with your "know it all" attitude you're too good to answer those. Yet you continue to demand I answer your questions. Again, what a great god (with a little g) you serve that can't even preserve his own word, what great power he has.

It is up to each individual to use whatever bible they choose, I stated I believed the KJV is the perfect word of God and that's what I use and will continue to use. You know that the verses say he has preserved his word forever. So where is it preserved for us and how? Or is God a liar? You've shown me nothing on here or in your pm's to convince me otherwise. All that you've shown me are observations and opinions, and you know what they say about opinions- they're like, well you know.

As I told you an an earlier post, we disagree. You can't leave it at that? You have no facts to show me. You either believe God has preserved his word like he said or you don't.- and You don't. That doesn't mean you're going to hell, and I never said that.You've done a great job at twisting words though.
The version of the bible that someone reads is not the determining factor of who goes to hell or not. But, some of the versions have twisted the verses to make them say different things. What is the need for the revision committees to omit the "blood" from some of the bible versions? Is the blood not important?
How can I ask you questions in an orderly manner? Please let me know.

As I wrote in my earlier PM, we are all to be in 1 mind, 1 accord and 1 judgement, speaking the same things. How can this happen if we are using different texts?

1 Cor 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

My hope is that we can have a bible discussion without the bad side effects. Any Christian should be able to discuss their beliefs openly. Just know that when or if we do discuss doctrine or other issues, I will be using a KJV bible.

playtowin

Aug 30 2008, 08:43 PM

quote:

"Be careful though because you may just get saved and learn the truth...

Good luck with him raising you from the dead."

Unquote

If I'm not going to be raised from the dead, where am I going to be Cam? If I read up on the KJV only, I need to "be careful because I might just get saved." Well what does that make me now Cam? Unsaved? If I am unsaved and and not going to be raised from the dead, where am I going Cam? That's not "twisting your words," as you say. That's following them to there logical conclusion.

You've never "left it at that" Cam. Even when I asked you to in a pm. Before this topic got going again I pm'ed you when you interjected your KJV only belief into an unrelated topic that didn't involve you. I politely asked you to not do this again. Your response was to say "I can post anything I want because I pay my pdga dues." Even when you weren't even a part of the discussion and the topic had nothing to do with the KJV. Then you misquoted me to the core and said in a twisted attempt to discredit that the NIV says Jesus is a sinner!

An "orderly" manner would be to answer a question before you ask one.

Quote:

You have no facts to show me.

Unquote

What is unfactual in those five questions?

playtowin

Aug 30 2008, 08:53 PM

I understand now that you... ...don't like to be asked questions. Now that is funny! Ask away! But if I ask you first, don't answer with a list of unrelated questions. Answer, then ask. It's just staying on topic.

CAMBAGGER

Aug 30 2008, 09:59 PM

If not the KJV, show me the perfect word of God. I am open if you can show me. You and I both know the verses say that he has preserved his word for us. Where is it? I want to be right for God, not to win arguemments with you. Please show me. Do those verses not mean what they say? If they don't, how do we know Saved means Saved, or Eternal means Eternal?

Again, how can your god raise you from the dead if he can't even preserve his word? Why would you even want to serve a god that doesn't even have the capability to preserve his word for us, especially when he says that we will all be judged by it??? What great power he has. Follow that to a "logical" conclusion. ;)

You've said quite a few things in pm's that need not to be mentioned on here. You really should listen to yourself.

There are plenty of times I have not liked what someone has written on here- oh well, I had to suck it up and deal with it.

Maybe you should petition the pdga to suspend anyone who replies to one of your posts w/out permission or by request. You could get your own thread and all. Maybe even have your very own moderator, man then think of the power you'd have. All that knowledge AND moderator, the possibilities are endless. I'd say in a year or two you may even get a book deal, then who knows how far you can go from there. Sky's the limit baby!

playtowin

Aug 31 2008, 05:17 AM

If not the KJV, show me the perfect word of God. I've never said there was a perfect version or translation and never will. Unless of course you consider "orinigal" to be a "version!" Personally, I don't clasify an "original" as a "version." Only those that come after the original do I label as "versions." I know, you're not asserting that the KJV was the original, but that it was translated from TR. I am just clarifying what I believe the "perfect" is and isn't.

In the process of translating a word or words from one language to another, there are a variety of different words that can convey a thought from the original language. Some languages don't even have certain words that fully convey the meaning in the original text.

The good, or more accurate translations are those that utilize the evidence available that show which word is closest to it's original meaning. That is just one of the many reasons why we have revisions.

To date, the KJV has undergone 5 different revisions that I am aware of. Information grows from century to century that helps to determine the accuracy of translations. The mistakes that were made in the original KJV are legendary. Does that mean it wasn't worthy of study? Of course not, it meant that as information grew, so did the need to revise the original. Does it mean that God can't preserve His Word and thus save? Of course not, because the message isn't a version or a particular translation, it is Jesus and the sacrifice He made on the cross. Trusting what He did for us is paramount to anything else. 

I am open if you can show me. You and I both know the verses say that he has preserved his word for us. Tha'ts not what you just implied. You just implied in the first sentence of this quoted post that the "perfect word of God" means "perfect version/translation." Two different things. Just read John 1:1 in the KJV, NIV, or NASB. Is it talking about the scripture or Jesus? Just read vs. 2 and it is clearly talking about Jesus.

John 1:1

KJV (King James Version) - " In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

NIV -(New International Version) " In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

NASB (New American Standard Bible) - " In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

By the way, just a thought, if the KJV, NIV, NASB, etc... all say the exact same thing in that verse, does that mean the translators of those versions "got it right?" If they got it right in that verse but are unworthy of leading one to salvation, then why isn't the KJV held to the same standard? I mean, if the KJV was perfect, why would it need revision? If it needed revision, how could it been seen as worthy of leading one to salvation? This doesn't strike you as a double standard in the least? [color]

 Where is it? I want to be right for God, not to win arguemments with you. Please show me. Do those verses not mean what they say? Can you please quote these verses or list them instead of assuming that I believe they say the same thing that you believe they say? If they don't, how do we know Saved means Saved, or Eternal means Eternal? 

 Again, how can your god raise you from the dead if he can't even preserve his word? I never said He can't preserve His word. You have made it to say "preserve a particular version," not message. And that message is Jesus, NOT a version. Read John 5:39, it's not a book of scripture, old or new that saves, it's Jesus alone. It's all about Him, not a version. Why would you even want to serve a god that doesn't even have the capability to preserve his word for us, especially when he says that we will all be judged by it??? Please quote the actual scripture, not just paraphrase it? Where does it say, even in the KJV that it is only a version that will be our judge? Please quote that verse and show me how it could mean that a particular version translated into English in the 1600's is the only thing we will be judged by? What great power he has. Follow that to a "logical" conclusion. ;) Once again, I never said "He couldn't preserve His Word. 

 You've said quite a few things in pm's that need not to be mentioned on here. You really should listen to yourself. If you're going to imply it, quote it. I've never said "your god can't raise you from the dead" or "your god can't do this or that." Believe me, I do listen to myself, I am ashamed of how I've reacted to you at times, but never again.

 There are plenty of times I have not liked what someone has written on here- oh well, I had to suck it up and deal with it. Then why the never ending questions? Why not take the time to answer my five questions and then you can ask me anything you want? I have not recieved one response to them in days now. Only that "your looking into it," days later. But I have recieved pm's, posts and many questions that have nothing to do with it. 

 Maybe you should petition the pdga to suspend anyone who replies to one of your posts w/out permission or by request. You could get your own thread and all. Maybe even have your very own moderator, man then think of the power you'd have. All that knowledge AND moderator, the possibilities are endless. I'd say in a year or two you may even get a book deal, then who knows how far you can go from there. Sky's the limit baby! I am not going to respond to this kind of stuff, ever again Cam.

playtowin

Aug 31 2008, 05:22 AM

John 5:39

"You diligently study the Scriptures ( OT ) because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me ( Jesus ) , yet you refuse to come to me to have life."

playtowin

Aug 31 2008, 05:29 AM

In light of the fact that I asked you these first, I think I've been more than fair in answering your questions. Now, will you please address these questions before moving on to anything else?

1. Which KJV edition is "PERFECT," since it was revised five times?

2. If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, or as you put it "PERFECT," then why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?

3. Why did the KJV translators use marginal notes showing alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is "PERFECT" there would be no alternates to offer by those who were supposedly used by God to give us the "PERFECT" version.

4. Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?

5. Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words � would you say the KJV was "PERFECT" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?

Lyle O Ross

Aug 31 2008, 06:28 AM

In truth, there is no consensus among economists concerning the causes of the Great Depression. While there are certainly economists who lay the blame on big business and big business alone, there are also economists who lay the blame solely on government interference in the market.

Furthermore, there was no completely free business community in the decades preceding the Great Depression. During the Progressive Era (1890-1918), the government wrapped its tentacles firmly around big business and the economy. If Rand had started writing in the 1830's, I might agree with you about the separation of economy and state. However, since she was first published in the same year FDR was elected (1932), I think the laissez-faire era of America business was long gone.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this Dan. The essential argument you are making is that it is too complex to tell. I hate the it's too complex argument. Mainly because my training in biology showed me that nothing is too complex.

Typically, people will not support a position that isn't in their best interest. An economist denying that unmitigated business activities played an important role in the Great Depression is someone who is quite possibly influenced by their relationship to business - perhaps even subconsciously. I find such arguments almost useless. It's sort of like a scientist working for a tobacco company saying that cigarettes don't cause cancer or a scientist working for Exxon saying that there's no global warming.

There are few who will deny that the use of "phony money" in the stock market prior to the crash was a leading cause of the crash and that proper government regulation would have prevent that behavior.

On the other hand, IMO, one of the solutions to the Depression was the New Deal (a case of great government interference) and I will agree with you, that can be argued endlessly. But you can't deny that the job creation and the middle class that came about during the next 50 or so years occurred during a period of great prosperity, and now that we have trashed our economy that middle class seems to have dried up somewhat. I'm not arguing cause and effect simply pointing out the correlation and saying we should consider whether there is cause and effect.

As for the "over-regulation" that occurred during the end of the 19th century and your argument that government interference caused it - I know nothing about that history, but will look. However, given that the poor and middle class have typically had little representation in our government, especially in that period, I'd be inclined to wonder if the rich didn't do it to themselves rather than the opposite. I'd be much more likely to argue that in an attempt to give themselves advantages, say in trade for example, they put in place laws to protect or enhance their businesses that backfired. This is not the same type of regulation that I am arguing about, and that position, IMO, only supports the notion that business is incapable of regulating it's own behavior.

The business - government relationship in America is an evolving one, where most typically, the rich, who control government in many cases, try and mold it to their benefit. I'd argue that the evidence suggests they are pretty inept at this. It has only been in the last 60 years that any other voice than that of the rich has had any real impact on our government whatsoever. That has been one of the most profitable periods of our history. In response to that, business evolved and in great part regained control or at least severely lessened those other controls put in place to limit their rapacious behaviors. The end result is what we currently see. Let's remember that the types of controls removed were those meant to avoid monopolies (see Microsoft), unfair lending (see the mortgage crises), and many other practices where business was prevented from taking advantage of the public and workers. And what we directly see right now is that they are indeed taking advantage.

Back to Ayn. Ayn's hypothesis is flawed in much the way that Marx's hypothesis is flawed. Each presents a model for human activity based on a human ideal that doesn't exist. In Marx's case, he was mistaken in his notion that humans would work for the greater good without incentive. In Rand's case, she argued that business would only act in ways consistent with their own growth but not intended to hurt or restrict the growth of others. How very silly of both of them to so underestimate human greed.

That the very underpinnings of Rand's philosophy were damaged goods when she wrote isn't a testament to her creativity, rather they pointed out that she couldn't even look around her to realize that her view of business was wrong. If she was writing about a utopia that didn't exist, one where businesses acted without trying to restrict the best interests of others, she should have said so. Then we could have smiled about her science fiction. The fact that she wrote this garbage right after business proved her wrong simply says that like some economists, she was probably affected by self interest.