Bible: Word of God or Not

That is two times in two messages that you demostrate to me, that you have a hard time understanding me, even though I have expressed myself very clear.I never said that at all, and in that thread, I said, and posted many interpretations of what was going on, and I told you that there is no absolute meaning, although you seem to think there is. I must have expressed that several times throughout the thread.What I said, repeatedly, is that I do not believe that Jesus was wrong, and that if He was, then I don't feel like He could have been the son of God as He claimed. Jesus was also known as a prophet, and a prophet cannot be a prophet if He is wrong. If Jesus was wrong, then that starts a whole dominoe effect of other things, then He becomes just another man, and not the lamb of God, who washed away our sins, tore the curtain, and made our bodies the temple.That whole thing does not hinge on the meaning of the word genea at all. Genea can fit your description, and take on the contemporary meaning of the word, and that verse still works. We would then need to go on and show how all those things came to pass. According to some of the notes and comentaries, they did. I expressed very clearly that I would be willing to accept that the bible contains errors, but that I would not be able to accept that Jesus was wrong.I take the bible exactly for what it is worth. A collection of 66 books that are the writings of men of the time, expressing what they saw, and felt about Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit. It has been translated several times. Thousands of years have passed since those things have happened, and we sometimes have a hard time understanding why things where the way they were, because we just don't live like that anymore.But, within those words, you can find the word of God. It is very powerful, and it is a living word. It is like no other words in the world. There is truth in the bible, and once you experience the truth, you are set free, even though you feel like you do not need to be set free, or even if you do.It really sucks to get hung up on a the greek meaning of the word genea, and then ignore all the other stuff. You yourself even said you agree with much of what was said. All I am saying to you is to then just focus on what you feel is true. No. I have read the bible here and there my whole life. But most of it did not make any sense, and you could say I was like you. It is very easy to let the words of the bible turn you into an atheist, but is up to you, and not to blame on the bible itself. Our inability to see the forest through the trees, cannot be blamed on the bible, but can be blamed on ourselves, the world, our parents, and God. Just what is fair and not fair about it, is not up to me, but up to God to decide. Everything has a purpose. There is good in the bad.It's all about the journey. If Jesus is coming again, then that verse Mat24:34 can still be relevent today. The living word of the bible is that powerful.It is when you start applying verses in the bible to things in life, and start going against what the bible is trying to teach us. That is when the trouble starts mis-interpreting verses.For instance: If I took that verse about "this generation" and started a whole religion of people based on that verse, and started condemning all those who weren't part of it, then I would be mis-interpreting that verse.Or, if I took that verse, and determined that it just wasn't true, then started a whole line of disbelief based on that, then I would be mis-interpreting it.That is why faith is so important. It is believing in Jesus that gets you to know Him, in this life. That is why I mention faith to you. I did not go to great lengths to show it wasn't wrong. I provided every example of what that verse can mean, including your version. I went to great lengths to discuss it, because I found it very interesting, and God speaks to me through those discussions. It goes way beyond just those 2 verse we were discussing. You see how you are dealing in strictly absolutes?We never discussed if those things did already happen or not. We were too stuck on the meaning of just one word. I will defend the book to a point, but not to the point where I would call it the inherrant word of God. I have no way of proving that, and is why faith must play a role in it all.It is a subjective book, based on subjective faith, what could I possibly prove? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

We have made some progress!We can both conclude that we don't know why God did not use supernatural powers and smite these evil doers and save his children from having to experience ripping open women to be sure any fetuses were dead. We know God had no problem using such powers (such as stopping the rotation of the earth) before and after.Maybe these were faith-building opportunities.This was either one of those unfathomable mysteries of God or the normal everyday run-of-the-mill military tactics of a people conditioned to such mores of the day. I vote for the later.And these events did set a precedence, which we saw repeated thru the centuries. Any guy in authority wearing robes and telling you God has commanded you forth to kill - you can safely ignore the Commandment written by the finger of God. Bible believer Truthlover eagerly pointed this out earlier that if your government commands you to genocide and rape it is ok.Your analogy fails in that it involves sensory perception (ie "I am being directed into by the policeman"}. God also thought highly of sensory input as he carved "Thou Shall Not Murder" with his finger on solid rock, as we are told.These scorched earth events were cultural norms and your "Word of God" story book describes the exact same attitude as other written and pictorial works of the era. Nothing extraordinary. This why I place these writings in the same category and the Iliad and not the thoughts of a God who obviously exceeds his creation in everyway imaginable.Since this ordering of men into genocide based on a message or vision from God happens quite frequently and this is an inconsistency to his terse Commandment, how do we know which is false and which is true?

Getting back to the point of this thread...To me, the one issue on which the Bible stands or falls as the Word of God is the resurrection. Christianity views all Scripture as relating to the finished work of Christ on the cross and his subsequent resurection. If the Resurection did not occur, then we have some serious issues. If there's no resurection, then Christ is not who he said he was (God), and the Bible begins to fall apart as the Word of God. The apostle Paul puts it this way in 1 Corinthians, chapter 15 -"For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.But if Christ rose from the dead, then he showed himself to be who he said he was...Then you have to evaluate EVERYTHING he said as being real...Christ becomes the central, unifying theme of Scripture.Thus, I believe the most important question to ask about the Scriptures is whether or not Jesus Christ rose from the dead, as he claimed he would.I won't present all the general evidence for the resurrection...let me just end with this.If the resurrection didn't occur, why were all of the disciples willing to be martyred for their faith, when they knew that they were dying for a lie (if Jesus didn't really rise from the dead). On the other hand, if Jesus rose from the dead, and showed himself to his disciples and rose into heaven in their presence...you can begin to understand how 11 men who prior to the crucifixion were too ashamed of Christ to stand with him at his trial and crucifixion, suddenly "seized the world by storm" as it were...establishing the Christian church accross the entire known world in an incredibly short time, and finally, were willing to die for what they knew to be either the truth or a lie.What man would die for a lie? A martyr is willing to die for what he believes to be true. No man willingly dies for a lie, and certainly 11 men do not die for the same lie...

Your original issue was that "Thou shalt not kill/murder" is internally inconsistant with people killing under direction from God. This last post brings up all sorts of other objections but not the one of internal inconsistancy.The analogy I gave is fitting in explaining how there is no conflict in operating counter to a law if (and only if) directed to do so by the person who makes the law. How God communicated this is irrelevant to the issue you have of inconsistancy. So are the reasons why he chose to have it so (he consistantly acts through man as well as supernaturally)

I am not saying that you are wrong, I just think that your line of reasoning in supporting the resurrection is very BADLY flawed.There are plenty of people in history, even recent history, who have "drank the koolaid" so to speak. If a few DOZEN people are willing to die so that they can be wisked away on their comet to a new planet paradise then does that make them more right than the 11 who risked their lives to spread the word?Belief in Christ and belief in the resurrection should not rely upon the logic of how inconvienent it was for the diciples to spread the word. The resurrection does not stand or fall upon such a weak grounding.Christians need to stop trying to PROVE (tm) the bible and start simply telling people about Christ. It is up to the individual heart to believe or not. Trying to convince the mind that a man who was god raised from the dead is a futile exercise.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Sorry, but that is simply not a convincing argument.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

To Jazz and Jar, The dying for their faith argument not only is pretty convincing to me, but it was instrumental, along with several other things, with converting me to Christ in the first place.There are plenty of people willing to die for plenty of things. However, almost all those people are dying for something they believe in, even if you and I think they're stupid.The point is that if the apostles gave their life for belief in the resurrection of Christ, then it is extremely likely that they believed it happened. Those people who drank the koolaid, gave their wives to David Koresh, and poisoned themselves to ride a comet very likely had strong faith in those beliefs, even though we all think those beliefs are dumb.The giving their lives argument about the apostles is an argument that the apostles really believed the resurrection happened. I think it's a pretty good one.

Oh, I better add that I agree with something you said, Jazz: While I argued that it's not such a weak grounding, the ground that Jesus wanted his resurrection to stand on is the unity and love of his disciples (Jn 17:20-23 & Jn 13:34,35).Experience says that if the disciples produce the results Christ preached about, then people will believe. Not everyone, but those who can be convinced will be much more likely convinced by the power to change lives and to produce a society that's awe-inspiring to behold. That's where Jesus himself wanted to stake his reputation. American Christians are failing miserably at this and they're really not trying very hard to fix it.

Actually working thru this example has only "strength my faith" that these events and words are anything but from God. Thank you.Yes, in the last post i strayed from the inconsistent/consistent theme because I felt providing good probable support for the sources of the events, help explain why they are inconsistent and are the words of men. Remember the topic is why you believe this book is the "Word of God" or not.So to sum up....

I believe these words are internally inconsistency because the written-in-stone command was terse and to the point and without qualification. The acts describe thereafter go counter to the direct command and significantly contridict to what Jesus taught.

​

You believe that God gave some commands and then ordered some follow on commands, less formally, that qualified those commands - all consistently.

​

Agree?

​

Unfortunately many historical leaders picked up on your point and not mine This I believe is fruit of the ambiguousness.

I don't think anyone would argue that they believed in the resurection. The question is "Does simple belief in something make it true?"I don't think so.I happen to believe that the resurrection happened. I also realize that I could well be mistaken, and that not one of us will ever know the answer to that question while we are alive.In addition, I think the idea of giving your life based on some belief that there is an afterlife is just plain stupid. If that was the motivation for the Apostles dying then I would say they provided scant testimony of worth.On the other hand, if they died because they believed in a message of how one should live their lives, in unity with all other life, in the practical application of the Two Great Commandments, then it is a whole different story.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think you misunderstood what I am saying.Very simply, the accuracy of the resurrection is not given any weight by mj's line of reasoning.I was not talking about faith in Christ. Certainly, seeing what some people are willing to go through to share their faith may be a good motivator for some people to inquire about God. The perseverange of the apostles and other Christians through persecution is very noble and the fact that they did it peacefully speaks well.What it DOES NOT do is prove that the resurrection happened. My last comment about convincing hearts with faith rather than convincing minds with "proof" I believe still stands.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Men die and kill for faith!This is demonstrated everday in reading the news from the Middle East.A quick study thru the Koran with an objective view, one can quickly see that it is a lie, I suspect you agree. But faith blinds very effectively. This is a curious habit of humans.

I just had the revelation that with the above logic, coupled together with a leap-o-faith belief that the bible is the Word of God:Inconstancy is impossible within its pagesTautologically consistent dreamscape. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The point is that if the apostles gave their life for belief in the resurrection of Christ, then it is extremely likely that they believed it happened.

---

But do we know that any of them did give their lives specifically for that belief ?