Bible Defense

[Typhoon1244]

"Vestigal organs" and "homologic structures" are not interchangeable terms. Human arms and birds wings are homologic. The "leg bones" in whales are not homologic to anything. They are a leftover, a "vestigal" structure.

The "Cambrian explosion" was a period of both dramatic evolution and dramatic changes in Earth's geologic and atmospheric sturcture. Many new life forms were emerging, and the process of fossilization was changing rapidly. But even if you ignore those factors, the Cambrian emergence still refutes Genesis. The Bible says nothing about simple life forms existing for some time, followed by a sudden blooming of life.

If I'm wrong, what's the alternative? That some invisible life form snapped its fingers, said "let there be life," and suddenly man, woman, eukaryote, dinosaur, bird, fish, and monkey all sprang into being? That's easy enough for a child to comprehend, but when we grow up, we have to put the fairy tales aside and learn to understand life as it is.

Even if you find the details of evolution questionable, the fundamentals of the modern Bible, particularly the Old testament, are utterly laughable. A six thousand year old Earth? A "Tree of Knowledge?" A global flood? A man living inside a fish for three days? Can a thinking person really take these stories at face value? Can you really place undying faith in a book of fables that has been translated and mistranslated through at least four languages over two thousand years?

 

[TWA Dude]

I find it amusing that your criticism of Christianity being able to establish a fact in a Court of Law is reduced to ridicule by your comparison to what people deem as superstition.

I wasn't criticising Christianity, I was criticising your attempt to prove something using "facts" that are very open to question.

First of all, Jesus fulfilled all the Old Testament prophecy about Him, much of which was beyond His control.

I got news for ya: not everyone interprets the prophecies the way you do. As I said before I'm not so arrogant as to tell anybody that they're wrong. Suffice it to say there's disagreement here.

Second, the witnesses to these events were not hallucinating, had memory loss, or were under the influence of anesthesia.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you were there. If it's in writing I guess it must be true, then. (read dripping sarcasm)

While an eyewitness can be unreliable, once their testimony is affixed by like testimony, the rational conclusion is that we have an establishment of a fact, and that is indeed the rule that is used everyday in the Courts.

Good point, except for the fact that the New Testament is not a collection of hundreds or thousands of eyewitness accounts. It's ONE account that RELATES of many. See the difference? Would a court accept an affidavit that states "a thousand people saw this" or would it insist on a thousand affidavits? I suspect no such records exist of the events of the New Testament.

Jews did proselytize in the Promised Land. They accepted others into their faith and their cities throughout the Old Testament.

That's a true statement. Even up until the Middle Ages there was Jewish proseytizing. Christian fundamentalism put a bloody end to that.

I have tried to show you reasons for faith in Jesus as fulfillment of God's promise in Isaiah, the Psalms, Job, Daniel, Zechariah and even the Law.

Once again, suffice it to say there's disagreement as to the prophecies of the coming of the Messiah.

So tell me, when Moses speaks to the children of Israel that escaped Egypt as they are about to enter the Promised Land he says; "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." DT 6:4 what does the word one mean in the Hebrew? You see even here, Jesus is established in the Law.

Okay, you lost me. The "Shema" you've quoted is the defining prayer in Judaism because it serves to differentiate Judaism and monotheism from the pagans. What is it you think it has to do with Jesus?

 

[huncowboy]

Well that gets to a moral issue. One of the problems of humanism is to define a moral set of standards that is not based on the Bible. The problem when you through absolutes out, is that nothing is defined and killing could be right. Certainly without the Law, man killed man, woman and child indiscriminately in the distant past and in different cultures. But to say one is right or another thing wrong does take a moral guide.

My point was that until we don’t know everything we will never be able to say what is right. Sure moral does define wrong or right but at the same time moral guidance is very subjective and culture oriented. Moral is evolving just like science. Because of that, moral can’t define the ultimate wrong or right since moral is already defined by factors that are not constant. However if there is God, he knows and is able to oversee everything and thus he will see the ultimate or absolute right or wrong.

This reminds me of the butterfly effect. Whether we can see the ultimate consequence and be omniscient to me is a moot question. We are not all knowing and we cannot see the total picture as you have set. Still there is a moral component upon which we must frame our decisions since we are not omniscient and cannot see the future consequences. But it takes a lot of time and effort to have to reinvent the wheel every time we make a decision to have to come up with a moral construct whether this is right or wrong. And to ask that we be omniscient too makes it impossible.
Now here's where I really differ in my opinion. Truth is truth. If truth is defined as veracity to the origin, which is a bona fide definition, like having weights that are true to the very first standard that said this is an ounce -then there are events that happened.

Well I think I messed up some English in my original post. In Hungarian truth and right is a bit interchangeable. So no, we differ but in a different aspect. You say: “Truth is truth”. Here I agree. What I was trying to say was that right can only be determined by someone omniscient and that is not us as you pointed it out earlier. Therefore unfortunately reinventing a wheel is often needed. Even the highest court goes back to very basic standards (constitution in our case) when they are trying to reason. This means they are reinventing the wheel. So I would say whenever a major aspect of life becomes known to us, or a major social change occurs we will need to reconsider morale, law, etc… quite until we would know all aspects which is never going to happen with humans in our current form at least. However truth as an event in itself is absolute except if we mix in some quantum mechanics of which I don’t know much.

It is obvious that you have spent quite some time and effort on the Bible. Certainly for the whole world it was the most influential book ever produced and I mean this in an ironic way. Lot has been achieved with the help of religion but lot has and still is being destroyed by it at the same time. This is not to be overlooked.

Now we can say that we are living in a relatively modern time. Still masses are easily manipulated even in modern countries like the USA. Thus I would expect from everyone to question what is in the Bible. You could find more scripts, more pieces of the puzzle but even if someone once proves forever that he found the original Bible with all of its pieces and can interpret it in a perfect way. Well even than all we have is a written document of one or of a few hundred different witnesses. It is still just that. I go one step further. Even if one can prove that all those witnesses saw Jesus, that still does not mean that Jesus was the person who he told he was. Even if all what Jesus did during his visit has happened the way it was described. Even than I doubt any of the witnesses was able to see what was on Jesus’ mind. I think trying to find evidences, trying to read a book as a navigation log to heaven is a very material way to reach spirituality. I think of spirituality more as something that has to come from inside, through experience. Yes we learn and evolve also by negative experiences but can you suddenly start to “love” just because in this very moment I realized that yes there was a Bible or Jesus? Thus now I am in trouble because I have not been following his way? I doubt. You may start to live God’s way right away but we can’t control our feelings. We may control our actions but the feelings like love can’t be flipped ON/OFF.

For the above I myself will always have hard time to believe in written, religious stories or books. I may never be changed by reading a book only. After reading it I may question it. How can that be a sin that may prevent me from reaching heaven?

So I do keep an open mind and I am very much looking for God while I try to explain my life and the world around me. But either God or if not him than the nature gave us brains. My brain is only getting better by experience, by reasoning by thinking by learning. If that is not what God wants us to do to get to his garden while at the same time he decided to make us this way then I have a problem with him. If I don't feel the internal need to walk the Christian way than I can't.

Anyways I hope you too keep an open mind Nothing worse than having a rigid view not that I am saying you have.

 

[vossdr1]

Actually, it requires a great deal of faith to accept evolution as the mechanism for life. Science is demonstrable. Evolution is not.
If we accept evolution then, as I understand it, we must also accept a very old earth. One of the corollaries of an old earth is a very thick layer of dust on the moon. In fact one of the concerns of the lunar landers was the fear that the lander would sink into the lunar dust or topple over, like a decoration on an iced cake. These fears were unfounded. The dust on the moon's surface was a few inches to 1 1/2 feet thick (if you look closely at the lunar lander in the pictures, you can see the anchor rods that were intended to steady the lander mashed outward). This is just one of the contentions I have with evolution and its associated corollaries.
Typhoon, you assert that religion is hoisted upon the weak minded. I think you will find that most people who are articulate about their faith have had very serious doubts about its tenants. They have had to do a great deal of soul searching and critical examination-neither of which-contrary to popular thought-is an anathema to God.
In my experience, everything in the Bible, and relationship to Jesus Christ detailed therein, I have found true.

 

[Super 80]

"Vestigal organs" and "homologic structures" are not interchangeable terms.

Only because you presuppose that what I see as homologic as being vestiges of evolution. There are two ways to explain the cause for the same effect here, it's just that yours comes solely from an evolutionary stance.

"Cambrian explosion"...still refutes Genesis. The Bible says nothing about simple life forms existing for some time, followed by a sudden blooming of life.

Here is where you are making an assumption from our culture and applying it across time and space to a very different standard that was in effect then and for much of human history. The Genesis account reflects a thumbnail sketch of creation to claim God as the creator for all that matters.

The second mistake you make is that in the Bible, an "error" of omission you would be point to is not the commission of an error. God says nothing about the creation of amphibians, shall we deny that He made them, or is the Bible wrong because it doesn't mention them? No frogs are not germane to people like their animals, but if God created them, then He certainly created everything else.

The third mistake you make is that God has already created life before the Cambrian explosion. So to say that since God doesn't say He created simple life forms is not entirely true. However the Genesis account does have simpler life forms existing for two ages before the waters teemed with life. If your test is that God didn't list everything in the Greek classification, then all you can say is God doesn't measure up to your post-Renaissance modern standards. But then again God considers the wisdom of this world as foolishness.

That some invisible life form snapped its fingers, said "let there be life," and suddenly man, woman, eukaryote, dinosaur, bird, fish, and monkey all sprang into being?

Well that's what we have with the modern form of evolution with its new punctuated equilibrium springing hopeful monsters fully formed into the world. Except in your world, it is the mindless intelligence of evolution that directs the design.

A six thousand year old Earth? A "Tree of Knowledge?" A global flood? A man living inside a fish for three days?

1. I don't hold to a young earth. Day can mean age as well as 24 hours.
2. This is a tree in God's garden. How it works is not explained. Again, an "error" of omission is not an error of commission.
3. Yes, God has shown He can do very many things with water. And there happens to be the remnants of a very large ship in the foothills of Mt. Ararat.
4. "But the LORD provided a great fish..." Jnh 1:17 This word provided comes from the word mana which can mean count, number, tell, appoint, prepare.

Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
The idea appoint of ordain is usual in the intensive stems. Twice in Dan (1:5, 10) and four times in Jon (1:17 [H 2:1]; 4:6-80, inanimate things--Daniels' food, Johan's fish, the gourd, worm, and hot wind--are under the control of God.

So this fish is a little different than an ordinary fish. This is part of the miraculous that is God's stamp of authenticity on the prophets. In the case of Jonah, we have a prophet "fleeing from his mission in the first part and only reluctantly fulfilling it in the second part. This story shows God's loving concern for all people and depicts the larger scope of God's purpose for Israel." -paraphrased from the Zondervan NASB Study Bible

Jesus had this to say about unbelief and Jonah MT 12:39 "He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here. All the synoptic Gospel accounts record Jesus referencing Jonah as a true statement of fact. So either Jesus is lying, a lunatic, or He is Lord.

Originally posted by Typhoon1244
Can you really place undying faith in a book of fables that has been translated and mistranslated through at least four languages over two thousand years?

No, the Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek and can be translated directly from those languages into English. Furthermore, direct word study is available the sheds a lot of light on what is translated. Further information is available for you to know if what you are reading in the English is a word for word or thought for thought translation because there's always more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[Super 80]

TWA dude and Huncowboy, it's late. I'm tired. I'm going to bed.

Dude, except for your dripping sarcasm, you asked some good questions and brought up some good points that need discussion, so I'll address them tomorrow when I'm refreshed.

 

[Typhoon1244]

I'll say this, Super 80, you've got quite a mind. Imagine what you could accomplish if you applied your intelect to things that really exist.

What a waste...

 

[skyking1976]

I'll say this, Super 80, you've got quite a mind.

I'll say! He just won't quit. Although I disagree with his philosophy I will say this: The guy can argue...

SK

 

[Super 80]

I wasn't criticising Christianity, I was criticising your attempt to prove something using "facts" that are very open to question.

There is an element on message boards, that if you can't source a website, or some document, it didn't happen. So one of the counter arguments to the Bible, is to question whether it occurred at all. This runs in the face of Church history. Eusibius writes:

About this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was the achiever of extraordinary deeds and was a teacher of those who accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When he was indicted by the principal men among us and Pilate condemned him to be crucified, those who had come to love him originally did not cease to do so; for he appeared to them on the third day restored to life, as the prophets of the Deity had foretold these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.

This is also backed up from the very earliest Christians in Jerusalem. If you remember, although you may not have read Acts, the Apostles converted a large number of Jews, 3000, just 50 days after the Passover. Filled with the Holy Spirit, as prophesized by God through the prophets, the Apostles stirred up the religious leaders of Jerusalem. Here is what one of them had to say in response to the teaching and healing of this uneducated men:

Acts 5:34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35 Then he addressed them: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."

So first of all, the Bible is true. It has independent witness to it. Furthermore, all the original converts had first hand witness or more certainly knowledge of recent events. Coming at the Passover, when all of Israel comes to the foundation of peace, which is what Jerusalem means, singing psalms of David in worship to God, Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of the Passover itself would be known to nearly all. He had, after all, made quite a name for Himself.

So to say it didn't happen is to go against the very history of how the Church started. And from this small beginning it blossomed. But if the authorities could have squelched this religious fervor at having received the Good News of the forgiveness of sin through the atonement of God, then all they would have had to do is to bring out the body of Jesus while it was still recognizable and word would have spread just as fast that this new covenant was nothing more than a sham, and no observant Jew would have ever put their faith in that.

 

[Super 80]

I got news for ya: not everyone interprets the prophecies the way you do. As I said before I'm not so arrogant as to tell anybody that they're wrong. Suffice it to say there's disagreement here.

This is a very good point. I have made a study of prophecy, and I can tell you that it is not as straight forward as may seem.

First of all you can have multiple accounts of a future event. These do not all have to line up exactly either. Each one can have a slightly different perspective. Look at these two prophetic utterances from David and Isaiah:

PS 22:16 Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced my hands and my feet.

ISA 53:5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

The first is from Jesus' perspective, while the second is from a neutral position. However, both describe the same thing. It would be extremely hard for someone to tie those two prophecies together beforehand.

Another is parallel accounts. Here one author retells a prophetic time from a different perspective in order to include another aspect in the greater scheme of what is transpiring. The Revelation of John has seven different parallel accounts which overlap by my reasoning. John's use of parallel accounts to go back over a period of time to complete the whole picture is a common literary device from this time and culture. This is used as far back as Moses' time, and the second Genesis account starting at Gen 2:4, is really a parallel account which gives more detail on something we're really interested in, the origins of man's relationship to God. Parallel accounts in prophecy fill in areas of particular interest and is the prime reason you cannot read the book of Revelation linearly like a novel.

Another major tool to decipher prophecy is the use of dual focus. Here one item of interest becomes a pivot point for shifting the measure of prophecy from the near term to the far. One example of this in the Bible is the use of babies to relate to Jesus.

MT 1:22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"—which means, "God with us."

While the name of our Lord was not Immanuel, nevertheless the prophecy that was to be a sign to Isaiah was fulfilled by the testimony of the apostle Matthew, and literally, God walked on the earth with us. The sign turned prophecy is the dual focus. Here in Matthew we see this dual focus concerning Isaiah’s son foreshadowing the Heavenly realm. Another instance where Matthew uses an earthly birth in dual focus is the lost prophecy of the Nazarene.

“…(S)cholars who have studied the scrolls say a previously unknown line of text found in a Qumran version of 1 Samuel (4QSama) contains language that is startlingly close to Matthew’s. It appears at the end of 1 Samuel 1:22, where Hannah, mother of the prophet Samuel, vows to take her newborn son to the temple at Shiloh, “that he may appear in the presence of the Lord, and remain there forever.” The Qumran fragment adds a final clause that does not appear in the traditional text: “and I will make him a Nazir forever.”—Jeffery L. Sheler, Is the Bible True?, (HarperSanFrancisco: Zondervan: First Edition, 1999), p154.

Here in both cases, Matthew shows us that what was meant as a sign has a far term sense which shifted or pivoted about the birth of a child to that of Jesus. Perhaps the greatest pivot point in the Bible is Daniel 11:31 where in speaking about the Abomination of Desolation (hassiqqus mesomem) set up by Antiochus Epiphanes IV in 168 B.C. then shifts in dual focus to a future event that will occur at the mid-point of the seventieth 'seven' foretold in Daniel 9:27 (siqqusim meshomem the nuances of the wording make for a very interesting word study and show how these two 'abominations' can be differentiated).

While certainly symbolism plays a part in prophecy, most of those symbols can be discerned either through a systematic study or by revelation in the Bible itself where terms and visions are explained. And certainly there are other types of near and far as with the prophecy to David concerning his "son" who would build the Temple, as well as the aspect of an observer true point of view that is used in much of the Bible that conflicts with our Western, post-Renaissance, detached, factual reporting style. But the last major tool to discern the Bible is the use of gaps in prophecy.

To see how gaps in prophesy can exist, we have an excellent example in the New Testament when Jesus began his ministry. In Jesus’ time, it was customary for the adult men to read from the Torah, and to do so in turn covering the whole of the law and the prophets from beginning to end on their appointed day. Starting Jesus’ ministry, Luke gives this account:

LK 4:16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. 17 The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

LK 4:18 "The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
LK 4:19 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

LK 4:20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, 21 and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

We can now see how Jesus fulfilled the prophecy that started in Isaiah 61:1, ending with the favor of His death and resurrection as a gift of salvation for us. But the day of vengeance of our God was not proclaimed at that time, because the day of vengeance whereby God judges the world is still to come.

ISA 61:2 to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor
and the day of vengeance of our God,

So in one verse, we have two events, the year of the Lord’s favor and the day of vengeance separated by at this point almost two thousand years. Until the fulfillment of the gospel and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, this prophecy had escaped the proper assignment of time by the Pharisees of Jesus’ time, and they had negated the gap between ministry and conquering and were looking for a hero and not a sacrifice.

So while the Bible does go in forward motion in the text, there can be large gaps of time even in a single verse. A large part of prophecy has gaps. This is what makes it so difficult. As pervasive as gaps are, I have come to refer to God as being the God of the Gaps, because God can span large gaps of time in prophecy.

However, in viewing the gaps, there is a way of looking at either end as having something in common, a theme to the passage. Thus, in spanning a gap, the point of the narrative is expressed in both sides of the gap in time, in analogous fashion, as even a rope foot bridge spans a chasm linking two cliffs. Here in Isaiah, that theme is the visitation of the LORD on earth. The first time, or advent, is Christ’s ministry, but the second advent of Christ will be as one who administers God’ wrath. The chasm is the Church age in between. Viewed in this way, there are two very different events that line up one after another, and using the example a bridge between cliffs, God’s perspective moves from one cliff to the other and crosses the chasm without being in it, or mentioning it.

 

[Super 80]

That's a true statement. Even up until the Middle Ages there was Jewish proseytizing. Christian fundamentalism put a bloody end to that.

Well I'm glad to see we are in agreement that proselytizing itself is not without past practice. I acknowledge that certain forms where an individual gets in your face and screams that you're going to Hell occurs, and I understand that such behavior has a very low conversion rate. Still, public preaching is not without precedent although Paul's style was quite a bit different. The first century Church was an example of compassion, and early Christians up to the fourth century literally took in those cast out by society as an expression of love. To come to know Christ, a personal relationship has to be cultivated, and what is done on this message board, is mostly intellectual and can be used to disseminate information because most of the message is lost in the medium.

However, I disagree that Christian fundamentalism is the root cause to anti-Semitism. The real culprit is found in one of the parallel accounts of Revelation as being Satan. God chose the Jewish people to bring salvation to the world. God elevated the low tree and made it grow tall to borrow some of Ezekiel's symbolic speech. This has made the Jewish nation an object of persecution by Satan. Here is how John relates it in a parallel account that spans nearly two thousand years.

REV 12:13 When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14 The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent's reach. 15 Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. 16 But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. 17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring--those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

Placing a time on this verse means having to tie it in with the Gospel account when Jesus sends his disciples out into the world empowered against Satan. Jesus is the ‘strong man’ and has invaded Satan’s realm. If it were not Satan’s then he could not have offered it up to Jesus after His fast with the last temptation. (Satan is very much a legalist.) But because Jesus has bound Satan, He can cast out demons. As Jesus does everything in accordance with His Father, doing what He does, so too can Jesus confer that authority onto His disciples. In Luke, Jesus describes this same heavenly battle whereby Satan is cast out.

LK 10:18 He replied, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven…”

The verb fall is in the aorist tense signifying a summary occurrence, while Jesus’ sight in the verb saw is in the imperfect tense. “The imperfect tense shows continuous or linear type of action just like the present tense. It always indicates an action continually or repeatedly happening in past time.”(—Corey Keating) It is important to note that Satan’s fall is a summary occurrence, while to Jesus with His unique perspective, Satan’s fall is a continual event: he was doomed to fall from the very first, which recalls Genesis 3:15.

This puts the time of the battle in Heaven sometime during Christ’s first advent. Now both twin accounts (Rev 12:1-6 and 12:7-12:17) have a beginning that can be tied to historical events. Going back to the first twin account with the woman, the nation Israel, confirmation for the timeline puts it before Christ’s birth. The second account of the beast, or devil, puts it past Christ’s birth with the assessment that it comes during Jesus’ ministry before His crucifixion but before the ascension occurring afterwards mentioned in verse 12:5 before.

I note that Christian fundamentalism is a recent event starting in the mid-nineteenth century revival of Protestantism. The anti-Semitism practiced in Europe for much of her history and what is openly practiced in Muslim countries has nothing to do with Christian Fundamentalists, which is often used as a pejorative term against believing Christians. Evangelical and Bible-oriented Christians consider themselves to be a logical extension of the Jewish faith. As such, the commandments to love and not practice the cruelty history tells us has been inflicted upon the Jewish people is the order of the day.

But this Bible study shows the real author of anti-Semitism is Satan. He has used the ignorant and uneducated to pursue the woman, Israel. (For an example of the symbolic use of a beautiful woman to stand for the nation of Israel, read Ezekiel 16.) So while I acknowledge Christians have played a part in anti-Semitism, what those people have done stands apart from how the Bible says we should treat each other.

The Jews did not cruxify Jesus. We all did. And even by Jesus' example, He forgives the Roman soldiers that are carrying out their commands for execution. So for the Christian, the Jews of that period are not to blame for the taking of our Lord. Because Jesus came to give His life in ransom for many, no one took it. But He laid His life down when His work was finished.

 

[Super 80]

Okay, you lost me. The "Shema" you've quoted is the defining prayer in Judaism because it serves to differentiate Judaism and monotheism from the pagans. What is it you think it has to do with Jesus?

This is something I wrote back in 1998.

God referred to himself as Elohim. And later God said, “Let us make man in our image...” Why does He speak in the plural? Who is He talking to? If you didn’t know that Elohim was a plural word and if you read just the English without any knowledge of the Hebrew original; you would only know that it said God, which sounds singular to me. You would think that God is talking to someone else, maybe the angels. It was not until I found out that in the very first instance of His account of creation, He refers to himself in the plural that when He says Us, He still means God. There’s more than one person in the figure of God. The implications hit me like a brick, and I staggered around for some weeks sorting out this new concept.

Deuteronomy 6:4; “Hear, 0 Israel. The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” Well that pretty much sums it up for me. I thought that there was one God. That Jesus was pretty good, and this Holy Spirit was just a spirit. I also found out that when the Bible used Lord, it referred to Adonai, which is a title; when it referred to LORD, that was a name and that name was Yahweh. Okay, Yahweh refers to God, and Adonai must be Jesus; that there was none greater than God, and it was He who was in the Garden of Eden, and He who was in the burning bush when He told Moses His name. And this verse pretty much summed it up. Yeah, they could talk all that trinity stuff, but I didn’t understand it, and I thought: no, there’s God, and then there’s Jesus, and I didn’t know much about the Spirit.

But then I found out that the word ‘one’ in Deut 6:4 was not a word that meant just one, although that is it’s most commonly defined translation. The word used here is echad. This word for one also conveys the meanings of: altogether, unique, and united, according the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. In fact, this is the same word for one that God uses in Genesis 2:24b, “...a man will...be united with his wife and they will become one flesh.” Whoa. No one would confuse my wife with me, in fact, we are as opposite as can be. And we’re one.

I came up with a dozen and a half different Hebrew words from the Concordance for the word one as used in the Old Testament. What is interesting is that there is a word, yachid, which does mean, only one, solitary. While this is the meaning which I would have ascribed to “one” in Deuteronomy 6:4, it is not the word used. Rather, this is a united, or altogether one, which has connotations beyond the normal meaning you and I would assign to the word one in the English translation. The Hebrew tells a better story on this account, than our scientific English. I would, when contemplating, think about what this meant. Elohim was God in the plural, that God was the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; the united one: synergy-cool.

 

[Herman Bloom]

My problem with your arguments, Super 80, is that no mater how many times I or others demand to the contrary, you INSIST that the process of evolution implies Godlessness.

To me, your refusal to face the beauty of "evolution" implies a belief that since you can't fathom it, neither could the creator. It's the same arrogance that seems to be the source of the "creationist" belief: that human beings could not have "evolved" from "beasts" because we are just so much more special.

It's an affront to God.

 

[huncowboy]

Since I got here from a different thread I posted before I have read the previous posts. But then I figured I better read the whole thing and because I am working security in the afternoons I have plenty time.... It took me THREE shifts (mostly because of the interruptions) to finally read up to the last post today. Like I read one page then next day we had 2 additional.

Just wondering any of you flying at all LOL? Super 80 you sure need a trip man

Jokes aside I find this thread interesting although the lack of a poll. May be a mod could edit it to have a poll. What is your take on the bible? Is it accurate or not? Just kidding...

 

[Super 80]

Herman,

I don't insist evolution means Godlessness, quite the contrary. All I insist is that there is no evidence for the theory of evolution as demonstrated by a slow gradual change of a species into something that is incompatible with its former self. For instance, dogs and cats can't mate, but they supposed came from some primordial animal that was a blend of the both. Supposedly, this canine-feline split into two distinctly different branches. Now while they may resemble each other on an outward appearance, their individual DNA, RNA and cellular makeup, not to mention fundamental bone structure are entirely different. Now this is different than a German Shepherd and a Dachshund. Although different breeds they can still be cross bred. And I note that after 50,000 years, we're still the same as our ancestors as far as bone structure and there isn't any race of man that can't interbreed with any other even after being separate for thousands of years.

There is a fundamental problem with evolution being a force set in place by God which by random chance ends up with Man as the highest form because God said He created Man.

If evolution was the way that God created, changing the DNA structure, especially when the critical change occurs that does not allow for cross reproduction, I'd think we'd have some evidence for gradual change somewhere in the fossil record with millions of species.

If God is directing evolution as you propose, then He would still be creating. At some point, there would have to be a change between one species and another, again, with enough number all at once that would preserve that change in the environment. That is the new species would have to be raised by the old, and of significant number that they could find each other when the remnant of that brood survives infancy in order to mate and propagate the new species. This would look more like the fossil record where we see what the Darwinists call punctuated equilibrium.

However, in this model, there is not so much different between a creating God and a directing God that anything remains of the origin mindless process of random mutation and natural selection which is able to foresee bigger and better animals as the natural progression of life. And the funny thing is that the older models seem to do just fine in their niches from ferns to worms. So if bigger is always better and more complex rather than simple is the way evolution works, why then did the simple smaller remain? Didn't the process that worked them up say it was more competitive?

Another thing, how did creatures that didn't know anything, through a process that is not directed at all, come up with complex locomotive designs under water and in the air?

Now God could have used evolution as is your proposal, but when you have God putting evolution in place, you've just changed His title from Creator to Director. However, what is the same is that both titles would be in a position to design the new creatures and that is just how Darwin biologists refer to the Nautilus and other wonderful creatures -design. And design, especially intelligent design (and there is wonder in the simplest of one-celled creatures) speaks for a designer and that would be the Creator, God.

 

[Super 80]

For the above I myself will always have hard time to believe in written, religious stories or books. I may never be changed by reading a book only. After reading it I may question it. How can that be a sin that may prevent me from reaching heaven?

So I do keep an open mind and I am very much looking for God while I try to explain my life and the world around me. But either God or if not him than the nature gave us brains. My brain is only getting better by experience, by reasoning by thinking by learning. If that is not what God wants us to do to get to his garden while at the same time he decided to make us this way then I have a problem with him. If I don't feel the internal need to walk the Christian way than I can't.

Anyways I hope you too keep an open mind Nothing worse than having a rigid view not that I am saying you have.

I can't say I understand all your issues here because it is so hard to communicate personally through a message board. Here's where knowing a Christian that knows his or her faith and is trying to walk in it could really help you. I'll try to take these on in short fashion though.

Sin is rebellion from God. The more you know about God, then it is easier to rebel actually. Paul talked about not knowing sin until he knew the Law. Now knowing the Law didn't make him sin, but it sure gave him some more ideas. This is also why there is discernment in judgment between those who know the Law and those who do not. I guess you could say the same thing about those having knowledge of Christ and those that don't.

Once you decide to look for God, I think you'll find Him in the Bible. I would suggest starting with reading the Gospel of John, and maybe moving on to Romans for some more instruction by Paul after that.

Get a version of the Bible that is easy to read. The original manuscripts were written in the everyday language of the people. There is a new Revised King James that brings Shakespearean English at least into the twentieth century or you could opt for the New International Version which has a slightly different textual basis for its translation. But what I notice about reading the Bible is that I get more and more out of the same passages. This book has the ability to speak to your heart.

Go to a Church. Mine has a contemporary style with pop tunes an electronic drum set (so we can turn it down) and a couple of guitar players. We need a piano player for the electric piano, but otherwise, it's a small group of worship singers on stage with the words in PowerPoint projected onto a screen. The sermons tend to be informative as well as culturally relevant. Anyway, find some Church that is to your liking and ask questions. Fellowship is important because we are meant to have relationships.

If you decide after doing that to profess your belief in Christ, then take the first step of obedience and get baptized. From there you can start taking your walk with Christ. Sound easy? Trust me it's not. But God doesn't lay a heavy burden on us, and He's always there to help: just pray; you'd be amazed at the results.

Oh, and you're right; I do need to get up flying again.

 

[TWA Dude]

Super 80 wrote:So first of all, the Bible is true. It has independent witness to it.

There's a communication problem here. I argue one thing and you think I'm arguing something else. I'm not arguing against the Bible per se or Christianity. Since my religion differs from yours obviously there's lots of disagreement and that won't change. What I argue is that just because your sacred texts say something is so doesn't mean that it's a fact. I'm sure there's a fun discussion on what constitutes a "fact" somewhere but I'm not interested. Using the current court system as the standard won't work because we're talking about texts so old as to be impossible to verify. Archaelogy backs up a lot of the history told in the Bible but obviously that only works in the broadest sense.

However, I disagree that Christian fundamentalism is the root cause to anti-Semitism.

I presume you know that I didn't say that. There are many root causes to anti-Semitism but more important are the causes for continuing anti-Semitism. Plain old ignorance is the largest culprit.

Elohim was God in the plural, that God was the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; the united one: synergy-cool.

I actually enjoyed your dissertation on the Shema. As you know I have some knowledge of Hebrew so of course I knew that Elohim is a pleural. Suffice it to say I disagree with your interpretation of its meaning.

I'm sure you've noticed I'm debating your "Bible-study". Not only am I not qualified to do so, but I've not read the New Testament and furthermore your Old-Testament translations often differ from mine. I know we've discussed this before so I'll leave it at that.

Dude

 

[Super 80]

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

we're talking about texts so old as to be impossible to verify.

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. Considering the earliest converts in the first two decades were also Jewish, there would be a strong probability for a scribe to have become converted with training with like what Paul had. So having a tradition of reverence for the Word of God in the Christian community would not be unlike that in the Jewish community. After all, these people are placing their faith in Scripture just as your ancestors did.

I presume you know that I didn't say that. There are many root causes to anti-Semitism but more important are the causes for continuing anti-Semitism. Plain old ignorance is the largest culprit.

Oh I agree whole heartedly. But the way you worded it placed the greatest blame on Christian Fundamentalists and fundamentally, violence is not sanctioned at all in the New Testatment as a preferred method of dealing with people.

I actually enjoyed your dissertation on the Shema. As you know I have some knowledge of Hebrew so of course I knew that Elohim is a pleural. Suffice it to say I disagree with your interpretation of its meaning.

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.

In my mind, this explains some of the duality of the words Jesus used in the great commission; Mt 28:19 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Here you have one name for three. It is like God poking three fingers into A. Square's world in Flatland and the beings there seeing three roughly round circles, and asking God if He is three, and He says 'No, not three circles, but one hand.' Of course they wouldn't have any clue what a three-dimensional hand is, but the point is we don't have any idea of God in the Spirit is like either past our limited realm of space and time.

As one preacher remarked to me as I sought to dwell on this thought of the Trinity in one Godhead, 'Did you think an omnipotent eternal God would be simple?'

 

[Super 80]

There's a communication problem here. I argue one thing and you think I'm arguing something else.

I actually enjoyed your dissertation on the Shema. As you know I have some knowledge of Hebrew so of course I knew that Elohim is a pleural. Suffice it to say I disagree with your interpretation of its meaning.

I know what you mean about getting meanings mixed up. This is a very hard way to communicate.

As a matter of fact, I want to acknowledge that I may have misconstrued your difference of opinion on interpretation. If speaking of Elohim as being plural denotes more than one, there is an equally likely condition that the Hebrew uses the plural to denote the greatness of God. No argument there.

However, the use of Elohim was secondary to Moses' description of the LORD, YHWH as echad which means altogether, unique, and united. That is where I find Jesus in Deuteronomy 6:4 because Moses does not claim singularity for God's character.

 

[Timebuilder]

A few days out of town, a trip to New York, and look at what I miss!!

Just to jump right in, but the past two posts and the publicity surrounding the Mel Gibson movie which is coming out suggest to me that I should point out this Bible fact:

The Messiah was first revealed to the Jews in the prophecy of the Old Testament. His ministry was first intended for them, and then beyond them to the gentiles. Everything that happend, the crucifixion included, was a part of God's plan. There is no reason to be against the Jews, since they are valued by God.

Since the Messiah was not identified by many Jews, either in person or during the centuries that followed, the Great Comission applies as much to them as it does to the people of Togo, China, or the mountain tribes of South America.

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