Bible Defense

[TWA Dude]

Posted by Super80:Okay...I think I might know who I'm talking to since you say we've had this discussion before.

Sorry, I thought you already had me figured out. I posted as B717Flyer on PB's and SJ's. Does that knowledge make this any less fun?

I don't disagree with you all that much, but I must say of all the ancient books, we have more copies closer to the original from more sources with the New Testament than any other book in history.

Dude, I can run off 100,000 copies of anything at Kinko's but that doesn't mean it happened as written. Obviously the writers believed that what they wrote was true. As you know there are a couple billion non-Christians on this planet. I wouldn't dare ask, "how can so many people wrong", but I might ask, "how can so many people be right??

Alright, but I thought that the same word being used in Genesis to describe the oneness of the male-female bond differed from a strict argument for monotheism when it is applied to the LORD as Moses taught.

Well I can't disagree with that. You know there's a reason why rabbis wrote hundreds of texts intrepreting the often sparse Hebrew of the Tanach (Torah, Prophets, and Writings). You also have your own interpretation which conforms with Christian theology.

However, the use of Elohim was secondary to Moses' description of the LORD, YHWH as echad which means altogether, unique, and united.

There's also the word b'yachad. Though the "b" prefix means "in" the whole word means "together".

That is where I find Jesus in Deuteronomy 6:4 because Moses does not claim singularity for God's character.

I'm sure you're familiar with the Bible Codes. (I even have a computer program that searches the Torah for whatever word or event I'm seeking.) There's a lot to be found there that can be completely contradictory. As I said before it's not about being right or wrong. You're probably aware that Christianity has very different ideas about sin and salvation from Judaism. Since I'm not proselytizing I'll go no further.

Dude

 

[TWA Dude]

It is not too late to recognize the Messiah, and accept His finished work that He took on for you.

Timebuilder, when the true messiah comes you're gonna be really embarrassed.

Sorry, but you were proselytizing so I couldn't resist. Don't take it personally.

 

[Timebuilder]

I don't take it personally. I am directing my comments to anyone who is expecting a Messiah that is other than the one they have.

No one else has met all of the tests and lineage and prophecy. Now, here is where it gets dicey.

He IS returning, but He will call those who have already trusted Him. At that point, it's too late.

What has Christ failed to do, in your opinion, that He is not Lord?

 

[Super 80]

Sorry, I thought you already had me figured out. I posted as B717Flyer on PB's and SJ's. Does that knowledge make this any less fun?

I thought it was you.

"how can so many people be right??

It's a God-thing.

I'm sure you're familiar with the Bible Codes.

No, there's a book called Bible Codes -what do you mean?

There's a lot to be found there that can be completely contradictory.

That's why I try to use a systematic study. It keeps one in check so one verse is not skewed out of proportion to its meaning.

For instance, I developed a set of General Rules of Interpretation / questions to ask to discern meaning from other scholars:

• Who is speaking? The author (none of the Old Testament books have a definite author and some of the New Testament as well) is not always the speaker. At times, God’s own Voice; His Voice when speaking through the prophets; and the Word of God as delivered by an Angel / Man in Linen is the speaker.

• Who is the intended audience? What is said by a Levite Priest has different applicability when directed at the pagan nations surrounding Israel than it would to the nation of Israel.

• What is the context of the passage? How does the verse fit in with it? If symbolic, as with trees, how does the verse fit within the context of Scripture where trees denote nations/lineages?

• What are the customs and culture of the time the passage was written? Does the cultural mores of a time dictate the confines under which a verse can be said to be true? Does knowing that sheep herders and women were not considered reliable witnesses in a Jewish Court in the first century reflect on God’s wisdom to reveal His Son’s birth and resurrection and His characterization of Man’s wisdom as folly?

• What is the original language? Is there more than one possible translation from the Hebrew to the English as is often the case? Shades of meaning do not necessarily contradict an interpretation, but may be thought of as adding layers of meaning to enrich a word. What is the voice and mood in the Greek for a verb, or the case for a noun? Considering these will narrow the meaning or enlarge the possible meanings with multiple shades.

As I said before it's not about being right or wrong. You're probably aware that Christianity has very different ideas about sin and salvation from Judaism. Since I'm not proselytizing I'll go no further.

Oh please do, I want to learn what the differences are from your perspective.

 

[TWA Dude]

No, there's a book called Bible Codes -what do you mean?

All I mean is that one mathematical analysis of the Torah has found phrases that describe significant events in world history. The exciting part is that future events are inevitably also described -- if we only knew how to interpret them.

For instance, I developed a set of General Rules of Interpretation / questions to ask to discern meaning from other scholars:

I applaud your systematic method but your religious beliefs still skew the conclusions. To take an extreme example, an athiest has no trouble discounting the existance of G-d for the simple reason that there's no physical proof. Faith by definition means there's no physical proof. Your faith leads you to certain conclusions that differ from mine.

Does knowing that sheep herders and women were not considered reliable witnesses in a Jewish Court in the first century reflect on God’s wisdom to reveal His Son’s birth and resurrection and His characterization of Man’s wisdom as folly?

Huh?

Oh please do, I want to learn what the differences are from your perspective.

I can only speak for myself and not for my religion.

I atone for my sins by righting those individuals whom I've wronged and the rest I atone before G-d on the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur. Humans are born pure and free from sin and remain so until freewill changes that. I don't concern myself with any thoughts of an afterlife; riteousness brings forth its own reward and wickness its own punishment. What or whom I believe in won't affect my salvation; only my deeds and prayers will. And that's all I have to say about that.

Dude

 

[Timebuilder]

I atone for my sins by righting those individuals whom I've wronged and the rest I atone before G-d on the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur. Humans are born pure and free from sin and remain so until freewill changes that. I don't concern myself with any thoughts of an afterlife; riteousness brings forth its own reward and wickness its own punishment. What or whom I believe in won't affect my salvation; only my deeds and prayers will. And that's all I have to say about that.

Ah.

Perhaps this is why only a remnant of the chosen people will remain.

How sad.

 

[Herman Bloom]

Super 80

Please take Typhoon's advice and read JUST ONE up to date science textbook. Biology, Chemistry, Genetics, Biochemistry...take your pick. You are posting things that are known to be wrong.

And please don't post anything about the scientific community having some sort of agenda. It doesn't, apart from searching for the real, physical truth. Only Christianity has the agenda (at least, I should say, your particular brand of Christianity, which I find dangerous and damaging to OUR faith).

 

[TonyC]

Super 80

Please take Typhoon's advice and read JUST ONE up to date science textbook.

I can't help but chuckle. Am I to understand that the supreme source of unequivocally accurate state of the art scientific data is a TEXTBOOK? That's too funny.

Perhaps you should compare a textbook of today with a science textbook of 50 years ago. Do you think they're the same? Not hardly. What makes you think today's text is any more accurate than the text of 1953?

 

[TWA Dude]

Ya know, Timebuilder, for all of Super80's religious pontifications he at least knows how not to cross the line into outright offensiveness. You do not. I have no respect for your opinions and I trust you won't miss it when I no longer reply to you.

And by the way, this "remnant of the chosen people" remains in no small part due to Biblical prophecy and in spite of those who think like you do.

 

[Super 80]

Humans are born pure and free from sin and remain so until freewill changes that.

It's too late to get into much of a discussion on your post, but the first thing that I looked into was original sin. I know before in thinking about how children will be judged that there is no age listed in the Bible separating childhood as a period of innocence. In the wilderness, those under the age of 20 were spared punishment but the rest died in the desert for the next 40 years for their rebellion against God. And I know 13 is the age of manhood, but I can't find any real statement saying we are born pure and free from sin.

The first word search I did was on "heart." Hearts are divided in judgment between those that are upright or set on God, and those that dwell on evil or are haughty or wicked. The Tanach does not make a theological point of original sin like the New Testament does, but I was wondering though how you would interpret or reconcile these OT verses with the idea that one can be born pure and free from sin?

GE 6:5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood.

PS 14:1 The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.

PS 14:2 The LORD looks down from heaven
on the sons of men
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.

PS 14:3 All have turned aside,
they have together become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.

PR 20:9 Who can say, "I have kept my heart pure;
I am clean and without sin"?

ECC 7:20 There is not a righteous man on earth
who does what is right and never sins.

ECC 7:21 Do not pay attention to every word people say,
or you may hear your servant cursing you--

ECC 7:22 for you know in your heart
that many times you yourself have cursed others.

JER 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things
and beyond cure.
Who can understand it?

JER 17:10 "I the LORD search the heart
and examine the mind,
to reward a man according to his conduct,
according to what his deeds deserve."

 

[Timebuilder]

Only Christianity has the agenda (at least, I should say, your particular brand of Christianity, which I find dangerous and damaging to OUR faith).

Well, my misguided friend, I can only speak for "Christianity" as described in the Word of God. Not your brand? According to the Bible this is God's brand of "Christianity", essentially His directive on following Him and His teaching.

That's pretty clear.

I have no idea what you might suggest would be "another" brand of God's Word. Does it perchance involve idols, and repetitive prayer, specifically prohibited by the Bible?

And by the way, this "remnant of the chosen people" remains in no small part due to Biblical prophecy and in spite of those who think like you do.

Christ spoke about being "offensive". He said that many, like you, would not recognize Him, and be "offended" at the suggestion that He was the Messiah.

In fact, what now remains of the "chosen people" is largely the result of "people like me." Christians, who acted during WWII to shut down the death camps and stop the ultimate "ethnic cleanser", Hitler.

So, the fact that there was an end to the holocaust before Hitler finished his evil plan is the result of others who care about the people whom God has identifed as being important.

You're welcome, on their behalf since most of them have died.

Unfortunately, Biblical prophecy also predicts that few will accept the Messiah before He returns to call His people, which now includes those who recognized Him as Messiah and savior.

That is the sad part, indeed.

From Matthew 13:

54 And when He had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, "Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?" 57 So they were offended at Him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house."

(emphasis added)

So offense is not in any way unique, but should be overcome so that your eyes can be opened, and your ears can hear.

 

[TWA Dude]

And I know 13 is the age of manhood, but I can't find any real statement saying we are born pure and free from sin.

I would say that's because there's no need. What sin could a newborn possibly have committed?

The Tanach does not make a theological point of original sin like the New Testament does, but I was wondering though how you would interpret or reconcile these OT verses with the idea that one can be born pure and free from sin?

Those verses show G-d being angry at sinful people. Humans, being only human, are sinners. I think we're dancing around an issue here: are men culpable of sins committed by others before them? On Yom Kippur we atone for our sins and nobody else's. Our actions and prayers alone will lead to foregiveness (or not).

Dude

 

[Herman Bloom]

"Well, my misguided friend, I can only speak for "Christianity" as described in the Word of God. Not your brand? According to the Bible this is God's brand of "Christianity", essentially His directive on following Him and His teaching."

Thanks, Timebuilder, for illustrating my point.

Fundamentalists like you are dangerous because you tend to think "compassion" means converting those who share different views and condemning those who will not.

 

[Timebuilder]

I would be illustrating your point if this was "according to ME", which is not the case.

Fundamentalists like you are dangerous because you tend to think "compassion" means converting those who share different views and condemning those who will not.

"Compassion", according to God, means (among other things) following the great commisssion of Matthew 28, making the compassion of God available to them, those who have not yet trusted Him for salvation. That's the only compassion worth having after you follow the directive in Matthew 22:

"36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" 37 Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

I can't condemn anyone. It seems to me that is what you are trying to do.

So, if someone gains from this, Herman, that's a small price to pay when someone calls this "dangerous."

 

[Super 80]

I would say that's because there's no need. What sin could a newborn possibly have committed?

Well, there is no ability for a newborn baby to have committed an intentional sin because they have no knowledge of the Law. They are flesh though. So, although a minor theological point, they do have something in common with us, and that is selfishness. A baby thinks nothing more than what its wants and needs are. So the matter of a newborn gets to its heart. In this respect, we cannot fathom or judge the newborn's heart, so I cannot say from one child to the next.

However, one thing I did go through in my marriage counseling was generational curses. In mapping out my known ancestors, there is a distinct pattern of sin repeated through the generations that affects all the men in my family. This spread out over four generations from the first of my line to come to America 130 years ago. This goes back to something in the Law.

EX 20:4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

EX 34:4 So Moses chiseled out two stone tablets like the first ones and went up Mount Sinai early in the morning, as the LORD had commanded him; and he carried the two stone tablets in his hands. 5 Then the LORD came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the LORD. 6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

DT 5:8 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 10 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

The idea of original sin is found in the law. You can be literally born into sin because of your father, going back three and four generations. However, God's love goes back even farther.

Children themselves are not blameless either. A child can make an internal non-verbal vow. Again, no one can fathom the heart, and as a rule, our hearts are far from the Lord.

PR 20:7 The righteous man leads a blameless life;
blessed are his children after him.

PR 20:8 When a king sits on his throne to judge,
he winnows out all evil with his eyes.

PR 20:9 Who can say, "I have kept my heart pure;
I am clean and without sin"?

PR 20:10 Differing weights and differing measures--
the LORD detests them both.

PR 20:11 Even a child is known by his actions,
by whether his conduct is pure and right.

PR 22:15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child,
but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him.

So in this case there is a difference in even children, and the heart of a child is folly. Paul, a schooled Pharisee in all of the Law from the time of Jesus put it this way:

1CO 13:11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.

In becoming a man, Paul was able to put that folly behind him and come to worship God, the first command God gives to us.

But to where a child goes whether to heaven or hell when stillborn, I cannot say. David says this of his child:

2SA 12:22 He answered, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, `Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.' 23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

Since David had a heart to the LORD, I presume here that that child will be comforted in Abraham's bosom. Perhaps David is speaking as just passing into death. God knows and God will judge, and He judges the heart.

I think the bottom line is that we all have sin issues, even from the very beginnings of our life. If it is a sin not to worship God, then even the youngest can be said to be at fault, but again that is a matter of the heart and beyond any of our understanding to discern. However for us here and now, each of us does have sin to reconcile with God.

 

[Timebuilder]

One part of this that the curious may consider is the clarity and complete nature of Romans, 3:23-

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".

No some. Not atheists. Not agnostics. Not Jews. Not Christians. Not Muslims. Not adults. Not children.



"All."

 

[blueridge71]

You're right typhoon. How about antibiotic resistant bacteria? Certainly didn't take millions of years

Apples and oranges. This is a case of adaptation (Microevolution if you prefer).

There is a huge gap between selective breeding of bacteria having an aquatic creature sprout legs and live on land. The bacteria is essentially the same as when it started. The difference is that characteristics found in a few at the beginning (otherwise they would have all been killed by the antibiotics), are bred into the rest of the population.

Different breeds of dogs have also been used to justify evolution. However, dogs were bred into different types over a long period of time with human intervention (intelligent design). Even so, in the end, they were all still dogs.

I think you missed the point on my watch analogy. It was just that: an analogy. It does stand, however. The point is that the odds against something complex resulting from random chance are astronomically small. It takes more faith to believe in that than it does to believe that God created us all.

And speaking of ignoring evidence, you guys are excellent at ignoring anything that could make your skepticism shaky.

 

[Herman Bloom]

The chances are not really all that slim when you consider how many billions of iterations have been carried out. If you do the math it becomes quite obvious. It's all just a digital process...quite elegant and simple, actually.

Again, please read up on this.

 

[Timebuilder]

It's all just a digital process...quite elegant and simple, actually.

We are close to agreement here.

A simple, elegant process that exists because of a master designer, a designer waiting to see us make the choices to which our freewill leads us, in light of the completed Word that we have been given. Will we trust ourselves, or will we trust God?

Regardless of why an organism might change in some small way, the organisim has to exist in the first place.

 

[TWA Dude]

This goes back to something in the Law.The idea of original sin is found in the law. You can be literally born into sin because of your father, going back three and four generations.

Do you not find it disturbing that one could be guilt of sins committed by others? Hasn't that practice been outlawed? I don't know which "Law" you're referring to, but I suspect it's not one of mine.

But to where a child goes whether to heaven or hell when stillborn, I cannot say.

I find this disturbing. We're talking about a yet-to-be-developed mind that's incapable of evil. What kind of religion attributes sin to a newborn? What's the point? Once again we you seem to be dancing around the issue. I truly don't understand the concept of Original Sin. I'm sure you can and will quote from texts (probably not from the OT) yet I don't expect I'll see the logic.

Dude