Does the Errancy of Fundamentalism Disprove the God of the Bible?

Uhm.. There's no reason to think that it was God that inspired Saul to curse his son just because the Bible accurately records what Saul said. God being sorry that he made Saul king just shows that we are not puppets, Saul was not predestined to rebel against God. There is other records of Jesus's life other than the Bible. And if you don't believe the Bible is God's word then the N.T is eyewittness evidence of 7-8 people. Unless their record doesn't count simply because they were Christian. The historian Joesephus also wrote about Jesus. And you say the Bible has errors like it's an established fact. And it would be good to say exactly what versus your talking about, because not everyone thinks there are errors in the Bible. You say the bible can't be inspired because things that it records people saying aren't true, that doesn't make sense. It doesn't record them as facts but to show that people are liars and/or don't know what they are talking about.

(sorry I'm not sure how to quote yet) I understand what your saying here, but I don't completely agree that because they beleived Jesus was the Son of God that their record would nessacarily be biased.It only would be if they (either intentionally or not) wrote down more than what was implied by what they had seen and heard.I'll just use "if" here to be hypothetical, even though I believe this definately happened.1If they really saw Jesus walk on water
2If they really saw people with supposedly permenant illnesses healed
3If they really saw him alive after his cruxifiction, and also ascending into heaven
I think those three things alone would be enough to say that he was the Son of God without worrying about being biased. Even without the old testament.(Psalm77:16-19(1,does the Lord have footsteps?),Isaiah35:5-6/10(2 "ransomed of the Lord"),Psalm68:18-20(3, God would have to desend to ascend),Now if they were telling outright lies it wasn't benifiting them any.because to confess Christ would mean getting kicked out of the synagouge, and even put your life in danger.But I will say that their isn't Christianity without faith, which isn't a bad thing. And I suppose since faith as defined by the Bible is "the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen". I think most people are more convinced by the evidence of things not seen, when they see a change in a person's life, then to hear the Bible is accurate. Or to see an overly-hypocritical,(and I say overly-hypocritical because I would say everyone is a hypocrite,excluding Jesus, to a small degree at least)is more damaging then to hear the Bible is inaccurate.I don't know many of the argument for or against the traditional belief of who the authors were unfortunatly, so I can't really say much there, I'll have to look into it.About the three verses about the dead rising, it could have been diffrent times but I would say it was all the same time. If it's a diffrence like "because you know not the scriptures" and he really said "knowing not the scriptures" I don't think it would be a mistranslation, especially since God's word is spiritual all three have the same signifigance spiritually,that the dead will rise, so to me it wouldn't be any reason to say they were not inspired.The errors that I mentioned were directly from the post I was responding to. I'm not saying their the errors that everyone here is talking about. Use the peek function to see what I used to make the quoteThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-31-2006 06:27 PM

The way it says it in the Bible makes it more clear

quote:

---

Luke12:24-28Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls? And which of you with taking thought can add to his stature one cubit? If ye then be not able to do that thing which is least, why take ye thought for the rest? Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more [will he clothe] you, O ye of little faith?

---

The ravens don't store food, and if each day their isn't new food for them to eat they will die but they don't worry about it, I don't think it is saying that we should never save but just to realize if God makes it so there is food available for birds then why wouldn't he take care of his own children. And if he cares enough about the grass to give it beautiful flowers then he has something better for us. Because for us if we gave a girl pretty flowers she would probably be pretty happy, or she might be anyway, but God gave them to the grass so his concept of giving is a little bit higher.This message has been edited by Rainman2, 04-10-2006 08:47 PM

It's a great lesson from Jesus, if you read on it says to not worry about what you will eat, drink or wear; but to "seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness". And that if someone does that "all these things will be added unto you". But it's not always good to classify people as types, you have to take each case seprately, some people who might be considered intolerant are saying what they do out of genuine concern and some for pride and contention, which is what the Bible says anyway in Phil1:15 So your right, but sometimes people overgeneralize. A really extreme example would be: The theif was wearing a green shirt/everyone wearing a green shirt is a theif. Kind of the basis for racism, I don't know if there is alot in CA. but it's not non-existant here. (Our pastor preaches against it though)We live by trusting in God, and God gives food to the ravens and flowers to the grass, but to us (besides everything else) he gives, eternal life, forgivness of sin and the promise to listen to our prayer (not that he will always do what we want him to).

Well Jesus and the NT say the same thing about creation as the OT. Matter and energy, by any way we now no of can never be created or destroyed. Therfore an athiest would have to believe in the eternity of matter that simply always existed (as well as space and time). But if God created matter then why couldn't he put in place right away. Look at the stars one night, they are all put in place like a great work of art, hanging on nothing. The north star is used by sailors to find their way before compasses were invented, even the Bible mentions the constellations (but condemns astrology, as it is worshiping a thing that is created and not the creator). The sun comes up in the morning because people need to walk around without tripping and the moon at night, because most people are tired and feel like sleeping, but if someone needs to be up they have a nightlite. There's nothing random about it, it's a great design (except it is falling apart because of sin.) When you see the things God created do you think he did it by creating a huge explosion and just letting everything fall into place over billions of years?Also in an athiestic version of evolution man would have no soul, but be just the results of complex chemical reactions. And then you have to wonder if we have free will because a chemical reaction cannot controll itself and everything you thought and felt would be random and predetermined. But if God made a soul in the first living thing before it evolved, (lets say a bacteria) then would the same soul that is in bacteria be in us, or would the soul evolve with everything else. And if he could make a soul fully formed in the first life-form wouldn't it be much easier to make a body, which is something even we can understand. If evolution is how one species became all the variety of animals we see today, (from germs to bluewhales), and a squirell and the acrns he eats have a common anscestor, Then it must have reversed before all af our observable history; because every year there are fewer species of animals and the opposite of evolution. And because most evolutionists say that dinosaurs and humans didn't live at the same time even before then because they are (probably) extinct and we didn't kill them. What we see is the opposite of evolution happening.

And where does Jeuss and the NT, or the OT say this? Chapter and verse please.Mark10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.Evolutionist don't believe life was male and female in the beginning they beleive early life reproduced asexually, how it made the switch would be an intresting topic.----------------------------------------------
There isn't any proof that there are stars older than the earth. Isn't it a higher impossibility that (well first of all without explaining were anything comes from) that matter with no intelligence of it's own could arrange itself into a solar system, which is like a giant perpetual motion machine. Or a human with thoughts and feelings.

I realize that 'create' is a translation of a hebrew word that means 'create' (bara), well actually it's not exactly like our english word create, but only because God is always used as the subject. To say that God took a chaotic universe and controlled would be fine if you didn't believe the Bible and wanted to create your own God. But the book of Hebrews (written to Hebrews) has a diffrent account of creation. Heb11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Well the Catholics as a whole are not Christian, the inqusition may have expanded to include Muslims and Jews, but it was first directed at groups like the Donatists and the Albigenses, because they believed the bible and rejected infant baptism. The problem is there is no infant baptism in the Bible, (look for yourself) but they decided they should die, since they were "heretics". So if they call themselves "Christian" and they can't get the Bible right, I don't think they would get science right when they aren't even scientists.And the Protestant Church came out of the Catholic to their credit, but they still weren't like the independent Christian groups that always believed the Bible.Even athiest have said that if there was a God he wouldn't use "natural selection to create things". I would say that most people including evolutionists realize that it is a wastefull inefficient process. One evolutionist said: The bible says a good tree will bring forth good fruits but a corrupt tree will bring forth corrupt fruits. Evolution has just been a fruit-salad of death since the day it was invented. Besides coming to the defence of Nazism, Communism and slavery, people werre actually so decieved they killed thousands of Aborigines in Australia because they believed they were the missing link. There skulls were boiled, their brains pickled and there skins stuffed and then they were put on display in museums. An african pygmy named Ota Benga was put in a zoo and lived with monkeys as a display for evolution, later in life he commited suicide. And today we are capable of being just as decieved as they were.I know many people are in favour of bringing every belief together but at what cost? Say that a town was about to be destroyed by a giant tsunami any minute, one group goes to the top of a mountain were they will be safe,but the ruler of the town wanted everyone to work together to build a wall. The people on the hill know that it won't work though.The people in the town don't understand why the people on the hill aren't helping with there wall, the ruler finishes the wall and gathers his army to destroy the people who left town, just then.... well you know the rest. Not the best metaphor but whatever.....C

Well the first complete bibles probably were collected in about a.d 150, this first Bible is called the Syriac, or Peshito. Before that they had various books by themeselves, along with word of mouth. Then some guy named Origen made a translation of the Bible in Alexandria Egypt. Most translations come from these two sources, the Peshito being the good one. He took out verses he didn't feel like leaving in, a translation of his bible is what the Catholics use.I don't know if those churches called themselves "non-denominational" but they definatly did exist, it's not like Church History begins and ends with the Catholics, besides someone had to be the heretics, someone had to light Nero's gardens.Usually you can tell true Christians and fake ones apart by seeing if they are persecuting or being persecuted. My hand doesn't offend me, infact I kind of like it, plus a Christian doesn't have to worry about going to hell.Oh yeah the trinity, Jesus said "I and my father are one", so that's them, as for the holy spirit (John4:16-17)This message has been edited by Rainman2, 04-21-2006 08:11 PM

The Catholic's burned Nero's things? that's news to me lol.Acts 8:1

quote:

---

And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

---

He says he will send them a comferter who is the spirit of truth, then he says I will not leave you comfertless I will come unto you. It's just common sense God is a spirit, and only God is holy, so who is the holy spirit?Before the NT was written down it existed on two golden plates in heaven until the angel Moroni gave them to Joseph Smith who read them with a magical pair of glasses,....... Oh wait I'm not a Mormon.This message has been edited by Rainman2, 04-21-2006 08:51 PMThis message has been edited by Rainman2, 04-21-2006 09:03 PMThis message has been edited by Rainman2, 04-21-2006 09:04 PM

No about the early churches.Yeah, your right I can't think of any families that don't have infants in them. (not)A person who is born again gets baptized.And as they went on [their] way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, [here is] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
[/b]Baptizing infants doesn't make any sense, it's not going to effect that kid one way or the other. If someone doesn't tell him later he wouldn't even know he was baptized. It's not like the water itself has some kind of magic power it's an act of faith. Also it would mean that a kid who wasn't baptized would go to hell, what kind of God would do that. He said it was better to pluck out your eye than go to hell, since I'm not going to hell I think I'll hang on to my eyes.

I didn't think you were it was just a joke.
Are you Catholic?

Oh yeah, your right, the Donatist started in like 315 I think, I don't know about them baptizing infants though. They also didn't like the hierarchy of the church that was beginning to form. But the Albigenses were killed because they would not have their infants baptized.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Catholics were kind of like the Pharisees, "teaching for doctrine the traditions of men", I was just saying if they persecuted Christian because they believed the Bible and they claimed to know the Bible then it's not suprising that they would condemn a scientist like Galileo that went against what they taught about the positions of the earth and the sun (which they didn't get from the Bible.) As for Protestants and Catholics being against the Anabatist no argument there. Christians will always be hated by the world, because they are not of the world. And especially the "religious" world, after all it was the priests that stirred up the crowd against Jesus saying "crucify him". I don't think the Albigenses really didn't believe Christ had a phsicall body, but even if they did they have no right to go around torturing and killing anyone. They should be out preaching the Gospel,Jesus rebuked his diciples for such a crazy belief It's just common sense what would Jesus say if he came down and stood next to an inqisitor breaking someones shoulders, "Well done though good and faithfull servant" you have got to be kidding me. And Jesus didn't want his kingdom to be fought for with violence. He said What the Catholic church was doing was fufilling the prophecy that said

quote:

---

John16:2They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

---

(not that it started with them but was a continuing thing from the apostles time). The pope promised that whoever died trying to destroy the Albigenses and Waldenses would have full remision of past sins. So my point there was just that something the Catholic Church does is not always a reflection of Christianity.

If nobody judged anyone's beliefs then someone could believe it was okay to be a serial killer and nobody could condemn him after all who are we to judge his beliefs. I especially have the right to judge Catholic beliefs because they say they believe the Bible and if I use the Bible to judge their beliefs it should be easy for them to show how I am wrong, but even if I give my own opinion that is something I have a right to do, unless you think people should be forced into what they believe. Did I say accepting evolution makes you an athiest? I just said that even some Athiest believe if there was a God he wouldn't use something as Stupid as naturaul selection for creation. Not only was it the theorys fault that bad things happened, but it was the bad things that had been happening's fault the theory was accepted. People wanted to rebel against God, but it's kind of a scary thing to do and looking at the things that were created they could sense the creator had awesome power. So what they needed was a lie so they could convince their concience that everything was okay, they needed another way to explain the "Origen of Species".

.......This message has been edited by Rainman2, 04-22-2006 11:53 PM