Determining a book's truth.

I genuinely mean it this time after this, my next thoughts on Tyre will be in the other thread : )But I don't think all of what you all are saying adds up. One of you say Neb never conquered Tyre. Remember Tyre had two parts, land and sea, and from what I gathered, at least one of you were saying he never took either. However, what I had been saying, and at least one of you said as well was that he conquered the marketplace type land part. As for Neb not taking the island part, read the text:Eze 26:3 therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves.
Eze 26:4 They shall destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers, and I will scrape her soil from her and make her a bare rock.Many nations, not just Neb. Note also the change in pronouns after he's talking about what Neb will do:Eze 26:11 With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets. He will kill your people with the sword, and your mighty pillars will fall to the ground.
Eze 26:12 They will plunder your riches and loot your merchandise. They will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses. Your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters.He, He, He, THEY, The shift is that it is suddenly the many nations he is referring to.To jump back real quick, the verses you specify, 6 and 8, show that Neb is doing things to the mainland, not the island.On to other things.Thanks for reminding me of your previous post. I had forgotten about in the midst of everything else. I'll go to those at the end of this, for now, Daniel.If you Christian, it makes sense to believe Daniel, because Jesus believes Daniel, because he references Daniel. So now we are faced with a predicament: Either Daniel is wrong, and Jesus didn't know that, which makes him not the Son of God, and thus everything about Christianity to be in vain, or Daniel was correct, at least in this instance.(his reference)Mat 24:15 "So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),Sorry for being a little slow, but just to clarify one of your statements: BCE would be BC correct? So 300 BCE would be 300 years before the year 0? And CE marks the beginning of time recording (0-2007?) Sorry, just want to be sure I understand. : )While I see your point about why people might create a post-hoc thing, my question is why would Daniel be? What benefit would it be for the one faking it up? And if it was, why would it still be here? The point is, even if none of the texts predate the time of Alexander, do they predate Rome? Rome is a major part of Daniel's predictions, and the things associated with Rome."They are vague and sometimes a little off at first" Where are they inaccurate? as for being vague at first, oftentimes it refers to events that are current, like Neb. ruling, so what would be the point of him going into great detail about his rule? They already know what is happening.Please go into more detail into what you think on Daniel. Give an example of someone who may have benefited from his writing. If so, why throw in the accounts of Daniels life, and the life if his three friends? Wouldn't it make more sense for it to be an all out 'prophecy' without cluttering it up with stories?Sorry, this got long again, one more section! On to Equ. previous post:The different 10 Commandments is because it is two different times. Are you familiar with Moses? He broke the first two stone tablets, and thus had to re-write them. However, as he already knew what was going to be on them, there was no real need to re-say everything. Plus, if someone was going to write something, this would be kind of an obvious contradiction, don't you think? Someone wouldn't screw up on something like 10 Commandments.Herod: There were multiple herods, that may or may not explain, I'm no geneologist, I'll see what I can do to explain the other geneology things, but that isn't really my forte simply because I'm unfamiliar in that area.Peter denied three times. I looked in John and in Mark. Both say he will deny 3 times before the cock crows (exception is one of the accounts, I believe Mark, says it will crow twice.).If the writers of the Gospels were moved by the Spirit to write the Gospel, it would most likely have given them the knowledge of the events. Think of it this way, I tell you a story, and ask you to write it down, and I tell someone else the same story and ask them to write it down. Different people will accent different things, and pay more or less attention to others. There is a purpose to having multiple gospels, otherwise there would be just one.But I think that address most of them at least.

Granted, Jesus was man. He was the Son of God, however, and he is the one we are supposed to look to as an example. This can only truly be done if he was in fact a perfect man, who never sinned, and if he never sinned, it would make sense that he really knew the Scriptures. And what about the Jews? Why would they have included Daniel with the Scriptures? Assuming it was because someone wrote it in the manner you suggested, I doubt it would have worked. A prophet in Israel was immediatly known as a man of God, and that is why his works are "published". As such, Daniel had the book of Jeremiah, and (I cannot yet confirm this, but I think I can shortly) I believe there is evidence of books being held shortly after being written. So the "book" of Daniel would have been available to the people of Israel very quickly as opposed to being something that was "found".I'm no expert in linguistics, so I know nothing about the language style used in the books. If it is of any significance, Daniel was in the King's court, and would no doubt have been well educated, and may have used different speech then others at the time. I don't know if that holds any water or not. It probably doesn't, but just to throw it out there : ).On the article you posted, just to comment on one part of it: The Jews should have always believed in the Resurrection of the dead. That is one of the biggest and most important of beliefs, as they were descendents of Abraham, and he believed in the resurrection.There is a purpose to having four gospels. I know this won't make much sense, but if you'd like I'll try and elaborate a bit later.Rev 4:7 the first living creature like a lion, the second living creature like an ox, the third living creature with the face of a man, and the fourth living creature like an eagle in flight.Each of the creatures it refers to is one of the gospel. The lion=matthew, ox=Mark, and so on. This is because each gospel depicts a different aspect of Christ ranging from King, Servant, Son of Man, Son of God.No Gospel says he will deny after the cock crows. Perhaps, in mark, the first cock crow was a warning to Peter. Imagine in his position how the first crow could be a trigger. He denied three times. Not six.The Spirit moves them and they write about the different aspects of Christ. Just because John only includes 8 Miracles Jesus did, and other accounts include more, doesn't mean there is a contradiction, it means john was looking at something else.Each account reveals something different. So some will skip somethings, emphasize others, and such.

I know of Israel's history. I just kinda referred to Judah as Israel because they more fulfilled the role that Israel was supposed to fulfill.People tested to see if a sign came to pass. Daniel would have been known as an interpreter at least after his interpretation of Neb. dream of the image and then later his dream of the tree. Or even if they didn't accept those then once Persia took over as he predicted that as well.When the Septuagint was written, Daniel would have already had to have been part of the Scriptures at the time. For how long, we don't know, but it was likely not a recent addition.To retouch on a previous post: If Daniel was a fabrication, why use a royal person as the person to be receiving the dreams and prophecies? Daniel, according to the book, was a large figure, and no doubt had popularity among the Jews. Think about it, imagine the US was conquered by Russia, and yet we somehow have the vice-president of the new nation as an American, that is something we would be proud of, and would be known among everyone.
So Daniel is in this high position, with many things of great significance happening to him. Israel would know if this man was not who the book was claiming. Why, because the book places him as second in command over all of Babylon. Daniel's exploits would have been known to the people, and they would know if this new thing was in fact nothing.On a different note, what are some thoughts on this:
Isa 45:1 Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him and to loose the belts of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed:
Isa 45:4 For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen, I call you by your name, I name you, though you do not know me.
A prophecy that names a man before he was born, as well as predicts the role he would play in helping Israel.Isa 45:13 I have stirred him up in righteousness, and I will make all his ways level; he shall build my city and set my exiles free, not for price or reward," says the LORD of hosts.Thoughts?

I cannot discuss the flood because I do not know enough about all that would be involved to accurately say whether or not it could or could not happened (I know that there is a section dedicated to the discussion of the Flood). I do know, however, that scientists that know more than I do believe that the flood happened, and they must have some reason to do so.
I've never looked for them myself, but I have heard at least (like my brother watched and told me about one) about documentaries that explain both how the flood could have happened, and how it could have made things to how they are today in correspondence to a 7000 year old earth."Especially debating those who have actually READ the book." Out of curiosity, are you insinuating I haven't?Personally, I believe in a literal (for the most part, exceptions are prophecy in which we are often times told things represent something else) interpretation of what the Bible says. This includes floods, plagues, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as read, miracles done by Christ, 7 day Creation, and many others.However, to attempt to answer your question: (I'm going to do this as if I was now convinced that the flood never happened)1. This is what I would most likely believe.
2. I don't think Jesus is/was God in the first place. If God were to willingly write a book filled with deception, I have two comments: 1. Why? 2. If such were done, there would be no way to know what did happen and what was false, such as the Plagues, if people like Abraham and David existed or not, and other such questions.
3. So you mean that people misquoted him? I think if that is what happened, then we really have nothing to go on as to who he was and thus what he taught, and this whole thing of believing in God is rather pointless since then his plan couldn't be completed.
4. So an invention of the early gov't to control the masses: I doubt they could have done as good a job as they did, but I would probably go for the first as said earlier.On another note, I don't know if we are getting very far with this discussion, it seems everyone isn't exactly approaching this with an open mind, myself included. As such, nothing will really change about what we all think, and thus all of this will be in vain. So, I ask that if we are all going to take part in this, the least we can do is consider each others points and questions.

I think there is probably a deeper meaning in why the cock crows twice in Mark, but at the moment I'm not sure what it is. Back to this in one second.Translationwise, I think the typical Bible, as in not a translation that is summaries of what people think it says (the Message etc), like the KJV, NKJV, RSV, NIV, ASV, CSV, and such, that is what I am going off of.Something curious to consider as well about translating things:
Some languages cannot express certain things in words. The Inuit tongue (Eskimos) only have two words for plants: they mean big vegetation, and small vegetation, as in trees and grass, while they have over 30 words for snow which can describe safe to walk on snow, ice, hard snow, etc.
The point of this seemingly random tangent is that somethings will be lost in translation. So we may miss some meanings of things. Such as the word for wife, is something to the extent of Kallah (apologies if I misspelt), and it is taken from the root meaning to make perfect. So when a man (like Adam) finds a wife, it completes the two:
Pro 18:22 He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the LORD.To quickly summarize, the Bibles that include the normal 66 books.
But back on track: All scholars do not agree on things, I'm still looking into this, but according to Josephus, Alexander the Great was shown a prophecy about him when he came through, it was either Daniel, or Zechariah. So here would be evidence that it was written during his time at least. And if that is the case, it still predicted the division between his four generals.As for the Gospels, they focus on different aspects, and each writer attempted to do a certain thing. Matthew, I'm not sure, he emphasized Jesus' position as King, so he likely included more about his miracles and such, not completely sure though.
Mark is like the cliff notes gospel as it is a lot shorter, and it focuses on Jesus as he was a servant (washing disciples feet, healing the sick, showing him as being self-sacrificial etc).
Luke goes into the most historical detail, or at least detail in general.
John focuses on Jesus as the Son of God. And was written with a different purpose as it was depicting him differently. Differences include the only 8 signs, the few parables, and such.AS for the explanation of it, I can speculate, which if you wish I'll do, but for now I'll just say that the writers likely looked at it and saw the importance was Peter's denial. And so they neglected details such as the numbers. I'll let you know if I think of a more concrete answer.

My point with that statement was that a well known and respected historian supported the book of Daniel as being written when it was.

I may be leaving soon, so at any time I may need to suddenly close this off. Advance apologies. I'll respond more fully later if such happens."Besides, doesn’t your “hidden meaning” explanation cause a worse problem? If the gospel is designed and given by the all perfect holy spirit, then why would a loving holy spirit make some of it’s meaning hidden from everyone, including Christians - especially if this meaning is the “good news which brings eternal life”? Doesn’t an apparently obvious problem like this make it likely that a person will fall away from Christianity, and thus be condemned to burn forever? Does that mean the Holy spirit did this intentionally to make some people fall away and be burned in Hell? Does that sound like a loving and competent Holy Spirit?" (Sorry, I don't know the finer details of forum work, so I don't use actual quote boxes. : )Pro 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.The message of the gospel is on the surface, and the essentials can be found there, other details are still there underneath, and it is up to us to find it. What we are discussing is a detail that seems to contradict. Not a core fundamental. Its a paradox, but that means we can learn from it.As for the language point I made, reread what I said. Imagine if you had never heard of Japan, and somebody recited a hikaue (sp?) to you, you would wonder at why the structure was as it was. Or for a different example, if something that didn't fit anything you were used to, such as if you had never heard of dancing before, and music stated and people started dancing around, you would be quite perplexed as to why they did so. Im the same way, the gospel writers may be coming from backgrounds in which they use things such as metaphor, and possibly even plays on words to give meanings. Now, while I don't know if those statements are factual, it is the point I was trying to get across with the initial language point. And while this means we miss out on finer details, it doesn't mean the whole message is hid from us."Just looking at your list, the NIV has more text removed from it compared to the KJV as the entire books of 1st and 2nd peter, including some that change the meaning of the text." ?? Explain? Are you saying 1&2 Peter aren't in there? Because they are.The first Bible printed (as far as I know) was the KJV, and included 66 books. And then others have been added in afterwards.I'll try and find sources on Josephus. Short on time right now."are you saying that you know something that current scholars have missed?"
There are many numbers of scholars, some agree with what I have been saying, others with what you are saying, if it were otherwise, and the proof was that solid, it would have been taught to everyone and we wouldn't be having this discussion.Something I want to point out, the HS didn't control people when they wrote, it gave them knowledge of events that they may not have known otherwise, and helped them recall from their memories other events.Leaving. More later.

Thanks for the correction.I in my mind knew that, but didn't piece it together. Sorry about that.Real quick:
"The KJV was a politically correct compromise Bible created to try to minimize the conflicts between the Anglicans (and a few other Protestant Sects) and The Roman Catholics in Great Britain."Are you sure about that? That would have increased conflicts, as the Church didn't want the common people to read the Bible on their own.We all must agree, there has been much corruption in the Catholic system. The Great Schism is evidence of that.
On the topic of corruption, it happened very quickly.Let me ask you all something, now I have a point I will attempt to prove in doing this, but what is (assuming God created this world and had a plan and such) the plan? Why?
Part of this plan involved Jesus. Why? What is his role? What did he come to do? Did he do it?I know these seem like basic questions, but they are important.
My next question, which I should probably wait for a reply for, but I'll go ahead and launch into it anyway.Jesus came and preached for three years. To the Jews. What did he preach? What was different than what the chosen people already knew?

One thing I want to say about translations/canons/whateveryouwantocallthem, if you were to ask someone, and I mean your everyday Joe, what the bible was, I don't think they would spew things out like "the latin vulgate" or "Milan's approved version", they would do a number of options:
1. look at you like, why are you asking this? Its like asking whats a horse
2. They don't know what a bible is and as such can't answer.
3. They would probably just say "its the bible" if asked for more specifics, you'd probably get an answer like "the kjv"Something I've noticed is that you don't find a whole lot of other kinds in everyday places. Sure, in a library or bookstore, more options are available, but when you see someone buying a bible they are getting one of two things: Either a translation in which it interprets for them (Message, etc), or a Bible (KJV etc). The KJV is one of the bestsellers in the world, and while that isn't because the Bible is so widely read, it means that rich churches buy them, and enough of them to keep them high on the list.Something mentioned earlier was not wanting one jot or tittle to be off of the holy word of God, and while that is undoubtedly the most desirable option, when translation is subject to translator interpretation of vowel marks that may or may not be present, it can lead to some trouble. That's why there are so often notes in margins and such that say "Or (insert other word here)".What is the end if one does not serve God? And then how is that fair? Is it fair to the native Americans who never had a chance? I think God gives everyone an opportunity somehow. Look at the book of Jonah, and there are some people that were warned to shape up and then not punished.God worked with more than just the Israelites:Amo 9:7 "Are you not like the Cushites to me, O people of Israel?" declares the LORD. "Did I not bring up Israel from the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor and the Syrians from Kir?I think everyone has a chance to come to God, they just have to not reject the opportunity.2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

If Jesus preached nothing, then there was no point in him having a three and half year ministry. He instructed his disciples to go out into the world and proclaim the gospel. He went out as well and proclaimed the gospel. Next post on this will help explain the significance (sorry this is taking so long). The question that will lead to that answer is what is the gospel? It is a very simple message and the basic message is summarized in one verse.MSG 106&7I'm of the opinion that things got mixed up very quickly in Christianity. The most when Constantine appeared and made it more nationwide. This will be addressed in later posts.The primary point I suppose that can be drawn from that tangent is that of corruption. Most of the regular system has been strewn with corruption. IE, all of the kings that wanted the pope on their side during wars because it made the other people look like they were fighting against God.Something about the overall message of the bible is that it is almost always viewed with pre-prejudiced ideals, because everyone already knows about basic things right? wrong. Some of the things that some would take to be "yeah, duh" type things, I think are actually not true. I won't get into that now though, as it will also be in connection with next post.As you've said, I will admit that I do have a limited view on things dealing with Canons. One way at least to determine what is or isn't true is if the messages agree with each other. Ex. If one said David killed Goliath by breaking his legs and then beating him to death with a camels leg, there is obviously a problem, and then work would have to be done to determine which was correct.
Not just in details would you have to look, but in principle as well. The books have to give the same overall message when talking about things, otherwise there would have to be two different whatever they're talking about, or one has to be wrong.

Apologies. I wasn't specific enough.I meant in saying different kinds, as in different canons and such.The canon most often seen, and what is generally reffered to as the Bible, and I believe in most cases the general authority on what is or isn't scripture, is the one that follows the 66 book pattern (KJV, NASB, ASV, CSV, etv, I mean etc).

I have read the entirety of the Bible. I've never sat down with the plan of reading and over the course of a month read it cover to cover. But I've read a lot, and have been reading it from a young age.If a message agrees it is truth. A cop cannot find the guilty person if one says the doctor shot the man, and the other says the lawyer did it.
It is about perspective, and two people very rarely ever have the same perspective of something.Please bring another contradiction, and though I did not do well on explaining the cock, perhaps I could shed some light on other areas.God seems to be different in Gen.1 & 2 because there is a principle involved called God Manifestation. Let me know if I should explain what this means. It is a fundamental principle in understanding God, the angels, and Christ.

quote:

---

But even in the Western Canon, there are variations. There are a group of book that most Protestants consider the Apocrypha while the Roman Catholics call them Deuterocanonical. As you can see, that means a "Second or Secondary Canon".

---

So a distinction is made even among them as to the two canons. However, even if there are two canons, that means they believe both. And if they believe both, they should be able to work out of either.

First, let me give a clear example of how we can misunderstand something the bible says because of language barriers:Joh 2:4 And Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come."Here we have the Christ, who is supposed to be our example addressing his mother as "woman". Is this grounds for being disrespectful to our parents? Is this a biblical contradiction because we are told to honor our father and mother?
No. In the Hebrew culture (language, custom, not quite sure what to call it), it was a respectful term, although its literal translation is woman, which to us is disrespectful.As for special principles, let me point out another contradiction to you:Exo 3:4 When the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, "Moses, Moses!" And he said, "Here I am."Act 7:30 "Now when forty years had passed, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in a flame of fire in a bush.So one says an angel calls, the other says God, so the question is then who called? The answer: God speaking through the angel. The angel spoke with all of God's authority, like a messenger proclaiming the kings orders.As for the proverbs, it is rare to find context in proverbs, as they don't always connect to each other. Some chapters have a common theme, not all of them. As for this, the point is that God has hidden things, and its like a treasure hunt. We find them, and take joy in the fact that we discovered a deeper meaning to what was said. Compare the glory of Kings.Look up the definition of paradox. It means something that is in fact true.
"I walk these crowded streets alone"
Contradictory? Yes. Paradox? Yes. What is says: Even though I'm surrounded by people, I'm alone. Do you see what I was getting at earlier? There aren't contradictions that hold water. It seems on the surface to contradict, but it in fact does not.Everything can be explained. I'm not throwing you "mystery" garbage. Let me ask you something, with all that I've been saying, discussing, and what knowledge I have of the Bible, how old and how intelligent schoolwise would you say I am?
I don't try and ask this to my own credit, but to show something next point.NIV is a translation in which the translators took a passage, read it, and then said, " we think it says..." And wrote down what they thought the author was trying to say. While that makes it more readable, it makes room for translator error. This makes some adverse to using it. Someone I know's favorite example is (I think this is the verse, I don't have an NIV on hand):2Sa 5:11 And Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, and cedar trees, also carpenters and masons who built David a house.however, the NIV calls the house palace, because as a king, that is likely what David built.I'm sorry I have to answer a question like this, but the authors of the Bible were men; who were moved by the Holy Spirit to write what they did and as such did so without error. They were moved, not controlled. IE, if they went off, I suppose it corrected. Like Matthew thought "Jesus was crucified with four thieves" And then the HS steps in and gives him a refresher, and suddenly Matt is like "Oh, wait, that's not it"Something about the Church. What is the ultimate hope for believers? What is in it for them? Hint, its not what you think, and it is what positively screams at you if you read without preconceived ideas.Jn. 3:16 is true, but it wasn't Jesus purpose. He came to proclaim something, and that was that he was the messiah, and that something called the kingdom of God was coming soon.The verse answer I was looking for is:Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.The Good news of the Kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ (who he was). Jesus always talks about this thing called "the kingdom", yet we rarely hear about that do we?compare what he says in the Lords Prayer:Luk 11:2 And he said to them, "When you pray, say: "Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come."your kingdom come" what was meant by that? From what I've seen, it is something that got eliminated throughout the years from church doctrine.I as well have noted differences in the accounts of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicals. They are currently not my forte. I will however say, that the description of the spear is a metaphor for saying "it was really big". Any Giant would have a big spear if he used a spear.I disagree with your logic of the contradiction there in Exodus. I have explained my reasoning on it. It is part of the Torah, this part especially was likely written by the same dude, Moses or not, and if he would make a slip like that, there would be a ton more around it.Pythagoras. Perhaps this can prove a point. I've never really heard of this guy. Your everyday Joe has probably never heard of him at all.Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.Mar 13:31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.Luk 21:33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.Why is Jesus still here when so many other religions have fallen through the cracks? Why don't people still worship Baal because orgies are part of the religious service? Because there is something different. His words won't pass away, and to today, almost 2000 years later, they haven't passed away. Yet Pythagoras, he has passed away, in the sense of the world, his words have passed away.The Quran and the book of Morman claim to be (pretty much) the third Testament, and in that, they disagree with the first two. If it is the same God in all of them, why does his plan change throughout the books?Alright, lets give this a shot... Hopefully that quoted, now, to answer:hitman slaughter a family: Jehu killing the house of Ahab.
severed heads of 70 children: False, I think you misquoted. This is the house of Ahab again, and they weren't all likely children (a couple may have been), and the heads weren't ordered to be put in baskets by God, but by Ahab.
Human Sacrifice: Four or so examples. Abraham. However, it was a test of faith on his part, and he wasn't allowed to carry it out. Jesus, a form of human sacrifice I suppose. Jephthah, his only daughter given as a burnt offering. And I don't know if this one counts, but Joshua curses Jericho and for its gates to be set up, and it's foundations laid, it cost one their oldest, and youngest sons.
Pie from monkey fingers: false.
Killed children: Done during conquest of Canaan. Why, because if you are exterminating mice (not to equate people to mice, but bear with me), and you leave the babies because they haven't stolen food, spread disease, or anything, they grow up into those big mice you just finished exterminating.
Genocide: covered above. I may have mixed up the two... I know children were ordered not to be spared, but I do not think it was ever ordered specifically that children be killed.
Failed to follow through on his word: When? Does repenting of what he said count as failure to follow through with his word? Other examples are when he didn't give all the land to Israel because they didn't listen. I think all of the instinces when he 'goes back on his word', there were two sides to it.
Torture innocents as part of a bet: Job.
Flying people"...this ones a bit more tricky, I can't think of anything off of the top of my head, but it is said that angels at least flew, but as for people, I don't think so.
Jumping doorknobs. Unless it is in a prophecy I'm unaware of, it is not there.
Talking animals: Balaam. Oh, and some sheep, because Jesus said, "as a sheep before it's shearers is dumb..." So this means they talked on occasion, but not around their barbers : )
Army of Zombies: You are referring to Ezekiel, no? One, that was a vision, two, they were more than zombies.

Matthew misquotes, but I believe it also quotes things we don't have. There were other prophets, and prophecies that have been lost. My take on that, God doesn't see a need for us to have them.I'm very glad that you brought up that contradiction about heaven and hell, because you are right to a degree.There is a reason the current concept of hell is viewed like Hades, it is because that is what it is. When Constantine merged with Christianity, he brought things with him, one of those is the modern concept of hell. Many ideas of how hell is come from revelation, a clearly symbolic book for the most part. It was a vision and as in most vision, things stood for something else. Let me give an example, and what I think is its interpretation:Rev 16:13 And I saw, coming out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs.
Rev 16:14 For they are demonic spirits, performing signs, who go abroad to the kings of the whole world, to assemble them for battle on the great day of God the Almighty.I want to look at the frogs. They are called unclean spirits who go abroad to kings (gov't leaders) of the earth to bring them to battle.
So what are these spirits? Liberty, Fraternity, Equality.
picture of an old french banner lazarusunbound.com (granted its a christian site, but I was having trouble in keeping the search short.But the point is this, Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality, was the War Cry of the FR. And things like liberty keep nations at war today *coughiraqcough*.In the OT, the concept of Resurrection is there. Abraham knew God could raise Isaac if he died, and he must have believed it at his own death, otherwise he would be in heap of trouble as he never received the land. Plus, if he ascended to heaven, he never received the land still, and God has been slack in his promise.
The fact is, nobody except Christ ascended to heaven. That is something that has been screwed up throughout Christianity.Act 2:34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, "'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand,David was the man after God's own heart. And he didn't make it. I think I'm way below the mark.If Heaven were what the goal was, why have a Resurrection? The fact is, a book can only be true for a person if its interpretation is correct. Since people start off with the idea of 'heaven' as the place of eternal reward, that is what they think about when they read.As for hell, it is as the OT interprets it. You die, and just that happens, you die and are dead. Lazarus died, was dead for long enough to stink, and then was brought back to life. He didn't come declaring that heaven was so awesome, so people better be good, and he didn't say hell was so bad people better shape up, no. He died, and was dead, it was like he had been asleep. That is how Jesus refers to him when he tells his disciples he is going to raise him.The reward has always been this: Resurrection and eternal life, this takes place in something called the Kingdom of God.The punishment is eternal death. Oblivion (and not like the game). It is like a continual state of unconsciousness. They cease to exist.Faith and works. A balance. compare James: Faith without works is dead. you show faith by works, but works can't save you because none of us are perfect. So we need faith.Wealth and luxury are a blessing, but they can also be a snare. Money is evil in the way that it can become and idol because you dedicate all of your time to it. It becomes more important than God or anything else. That is wrong. Having money isn't wrong, but having a lot can be dangerous.Even in the Old Testament they loved those of other nationalities. David had an alliance with Tyre. I think the kings name was Hiram. They are told to treat sojourners well.
They had a reason, and were told to fight then. Now is not the time to fight.Women have always been valued and important. Roles may shift a little as time goes on, but the hard fast things didn't change.