The Bible—A Book From God

[mee]

So they are meant to be the same person???

It appears that Jeremiah was a modest young man. When commissioned by Jehovah, he replied: "Alas, O Sovereign Lord Jehovah! Here I actually do not know how to speak, for I am but a boy." Jehovah did not accept Jeremiah’s excuse, but told him: "Do not say, ‘I am but a boy.’ But to all those to whom I shall send you, you should go; and everything that I shall command you, you should speak. Do not be afraid because of their faces, for ‘I am with you to deliver you.’"—Jer. 1:4-8.

 

[17th Angel]

So even more confused now.. So what about what Bananabrain said?

 

[JosephM]

Mee,

Same book, same writer, same story three times....
Do you see no difference. Book may be inspired but is it 100% ACCURATE?

Acts 9:3-7
Acts 22:6-10
Acts 26:13-18

1. Did those with Saul see the light but heard not the voice or did they hear a voice but see no man?
2. Did they all stand speechless or did they all fall to the ground?
3. Did Jesus tell Saul to go to Damascus to where it would be told him the things he must do or did Jesus tell him the things he must do right there on the road?

One writer, same book, even some of it quoted in red letters.

Check it out Mee. Perhaps, your different writer or view by a different person theory of the same event isn't applicable here?

Love in Christ,
JM

 

[mee]

Mee,

Same book, same writer, same story three times....
Do you see no difference. Book may be inspired but is it 100% ACCURATE?

Acts 9:3-7
Acts 22:6-10
Acts 26:13-18

1. Did those with Saul see the light but heard not the voice or did they hear a voice but see no man?
2. Did they all stand speechless or did they all fall to the ground?
3. Did Jesus tell Saul to go to Damascus to where it would be told him the things he must do or did Jesus tell him the things he must do right there on the road?

One writer, same book, even some of it quoted in red letters.

Check it out Mee. Perhaps, your different writer or view by a different person theory of the same event isn't applicable here?

Love in Christ,
JM

saul was the one with understanding .

 

[Azure24]

The bible is not a book from God, the Bible was devised by a group of men who decided what texts they thought were worthy. There are so many other texts which could but were not entered (particularly in Jesus' period) into the Bible these are identified as New testament Apocrypha.

By the way i am not try to discredit the Bible, just aying the truth I believe it has Gods intentions but i do not believe it was made by God. For example in one of the texts not in the Bible it mentions Judas as the only one who truly understood Jesus in comparison to the four Gospels which from the earliest the latest one written increasingly makes Judas more evil. I prefer to instead look at it's teachings.

 

[Pico]

The bible is not a book from God, the Bible was devised by a group of men who decided what texts they thought were worthy. There are so many other texts which could but were not entered (particularly in Jesus' period) into the Bible these are identified as New testament Apocrypha.

By the way i am not try to discredit the Bible, just aying the truth I believe it has Gods intentions but i do not believe it was made by God. For example in one of the texts not in the Bible it mentions Judas as the only one who truly understood Jesus in comparison to the four Gospels which from the earliest the latest one written increasingly makes Judas more evil. I prefer to instead look at it's teachings.

Let me ask you something. Do you have any idea when these apocrypha were written? The dates for when the New Testament were written was within a generation of Jesus' death. The documents were being circulated around by the early church and used long before they were compiled into the Bible. They were circulated during the time that the actual eye witnesses were around and could quickly discredit any false teaching. Such books are not authoritative because they are in the Bible, they are in the Bible because they are authoritative.

The text you refer to was not written till much later after the first generation of early church had already died out, and also had other (I think gnostic) influences.

"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." 2 Timothy 4:3

 

[wil]

Let me ask you something. Do you have any idea when these apocrypha were written? The dates for when the New Testament were written was within a generation of Jesus' death. The documents were being circulated around by the early church and used long before they were compiled into the Bible. They were circulated during the time that the actual eye witnesses were around and could quickly discredit any false teaching. Such books are not authoritative because they are in the Bible, they are in the Bible because they are authoritative.

Pico, you keep repeating this yet the evidence of same is lacking. Paul started writing in 49, Mark is estimated at 70, Luke 85-90, and it goes on from there...

So those around who witnessed the birth or childhood years when Paul was writing...then we have to get the letters copied and distributed...were 60-70 years old when the average lifespan was under 40. Since the rest were written 20 years or more later and then still copying and distribution time those folks who may have seen Jesus when he was 30-33 would have been 60-90 years old at the time, again when the average lifespan was less than 40.... So it is similar to the amount of centenarians we have around now and we'd surely trust everything they said in regards to what they recalled about an event 40-50 years prior... Heck our aides to the President can't remember what they did last year!

 

[Bruce Michael]

Dear Mee,
>The Bible is a gift from God, one for which we can be truly grateful.

The Holy Scriptures are a wonderful Grace, describing as they do in the Old Testament, in gleams and glimmers, the preparations made for the Creative Word to descend to Earth; and His Ministry during those three years in the New Testament.

>This unique book reveals things that we could never find out otherwise. For example, it >tells us about the creation of the starry heavens, the earth, and the first man and woman.

This is untrue however. There is a better book than the Holy Bible- which as we know is subject to errors such as translation, printer, and mistakes made by the various men who collated it. This is all eminently provable and really no reasonable argument could be made against it. Thankfully though, the major truths are still there to be had by all.

This vulnerability is there in any of the various holy books of the many religions in this world. We know that the letter killeth and the spirit giveth life.

The better book, which is always in pristine condition is the Book of God. It is on full view to those whose strivings have made them worthy.

We must not idolise graven images, even if they are in the form of books. We worship and acknowledge the Living God Who is not subject to such limitations.

In Christ,
Your favourite Br.Bruce

 

[Pico]

Pico, you keep repeating this yet the evidence of same is lacking. Paul started writing in 49, Mark is estimated at 70, Luke 85-90, and it goes on from there...

So those around who witnessed the birth or childhood years when Paul was writing...then we have to get the letters copied and distributed...were 60-70 years old when the average lifespan was under 40. Since the rest were written 20 years or more later and then still copying and distribution time those folks who may have seen Jesus when he was 30-33 would have been 60-90 years old at the time, again when the average lifespan was less than 40.... So it is similar to the amount of centenarians we have around now and we'd surely trust everything they said in regards to what they recalled about an event 40-50 years prior... Heck our aides to the President can't remember what they did last year!

Nah, man. your Analogy of presidential aids is flawed in that the Apostles were quite different than presidential aids. The early church lived, ate, and breathed Jesus' teaching. They didn't merely disregard the memories of him untill 50 years later, when they decide to write it down. The whole of Christianity is based on the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Christ. They constantly talked about it, and since the apostles were the ones who witnessed much of his life and heard most of his teaching, they were the ones who lead the early church and taught others.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Nah, man. your Analogy of presidential aids is flawed in that the Apostles were quite different than presidential aids. The early church lived, ate, and breathed Jesus' teaching. They didn't merely disregard the memories of him untill 50 years later, when they decide to write it down. The whole of Christianity is based on the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Christ. They constantly talked about it, and since the apostles were the ones who witnessed much of his life and heard most of his teaching, they were the ones who lead the early church and taught others.

lol... and you were there to testify this as fact? If God exists lets face it He has a taste for great diversity, he is into "ideas" and not "dogmas". Books of rules are man made devices. God hardwires all his ideas in.

Tao

 

[Pico]

lol... and you were there to testify this as fact? If God exists lets face it He has a taste for great diversity, he is into "ideas" and not "dogmas". Books of rules are man made devices. God hardwires all his ideas in.

Tao

Well, what do you think the early church taught? Christianity is based on Christ, why would they talk about something else?

And how do you claim to know so much about God? The god you think may exist apparently does not care about truth. You seem to exclude the possibility that God cares about absolute truth. If God (the creator of all things) doesn't give us an absolute set of rules, then there is no such thing as right and wrong. If there's no such thing as right and wrong then there's no need for a savior and no need for Christ to die.

Your thinking seems to be exactly opposite of the Bible.

 

[wil]

.... the Apostles were quite different .... They didn't merely disregard the memories of him untill 50 years later, when they decide to write it down. ...

I thought there weren't any of the books that the scholars today actually attribute to any of the original Disciples. It was all oral tradition written down by others.

 

[Pico]

I thought there weren't any of the books that the scholars today actually attribute to any of the original Disciples. It was all oral tradition written down by others.

No, most scholars agree that Matthew and John were written by the respective apostles. Mark was written by John Mark, a friend of Peter, and Luke traveled with Paul who also asked many people who had been around Jesus so "you may know the truth from the beginning."

 

[Azure24]

I am just saying that there are so many accounts of Jesus' life. Who says one is more truthful than the other?

 

[Tao_Equus]

Well, what do you think the early church taught? Christianity is based on Christ, why would they talk about something else?

And how do you claim to know so much about God? The god you think may exist apparently does not care about truth. You seem to exclude the possibility that God cares about absolute truth. If God (the creator of all things) doesn't give us an absolute set of rules, then there is no such thing as right and wrong. If there's no such thing as right and wrong then there's no need for a savior and no need for Christ to die.

Your thinking seems to be exactly opposite of the Bible.

Truth has nothing to do with it. What you really mean is certainties. They just do not exist. You want to believe you can find truth in a set of third hand socio-political ramblings go ahead. Dont work for me. As for my "knowledge" of God... well its as good as anybody's...i.e. non-existent. The trouble with Bible worshippers is they think they know the truth when most clearly they do not. All they have is belief in their own judgement.

Tao

 

[Pico]

I am just saying that there are so many accounts of Jesus' life. Who says one is more truthful than the other?

There's ways to find out. I just finished a really cool book called "The Case for the Real Jesus" by Lee Strobel. He wants to find out what history says about Jesus (and if other accounts about Jesus' life are accurate too), and what are the most accurate documents about Jesus. If you see it in the book store, I urge you to just read the first chapter before you decide whether to read it or not.

 

[Pico]

Truth has nothing to do with it. What you really mean is certainties. They just do not exist. You want to believe you can find truth in a set of third hand socio-political ramblings go ahead. Dont work for me. As for my "knowledge" of God... well its as good as anybody's...i.e. non-existent. The trouble with Bible worshippers is they think they know the truth when most clearly they do not. All they have is belief in their own judgement.

Tao

Yes, I agree with you that nothing is certain, but is that even certain? What you have to look at is probability. The Bible is not third-hand, I don't know where you heard that from, for most credible scholars (even skeptical ones) agree that the historical reliability of the New Testament is unrivaled. No other ancient document has remotely as much historical reliability as the Bible. The gospel of Luke (as well as others) have been shown to be extremely reliable when talking about small things that were going on at the time, which greatly support that it was written by someone who actually lived then.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Yes, I agree with you that nothing is certain, but is that even certain? What you have to look at is probability. The Bible is not third-hand, I don't know where you heard that from, for most credible scholars (even skeptical ones) agree that the historical reliability of the New Testament is unrivaled. No other ancient document has remotely as much historical reliability as the Bible. The gospel of Luke (as well as others) have been shown to be extremely reliable when talking about small things that were going on at the time, which greatly support that it was written by someone who actually lived then.

Pico,
Thank you kindly for your response. I would start that uncertainty is most definitely a certainty. Otherwise I would have cleaned out the bookies long ago
I have no vested interest, no great desire to disenfranchise anybody from any truth. But the historical efficacy of the Bible is about as certain as a flat Earth, and shows, to my mind, about the same ingenuity of logic. Just now I am tired, no I am close to exhausted, so I cannot recall and have not the energy to read through and see if I am repeating myself..... but no doubt I am....after all thats what people do best. I do not give a blind hoot about what Luke or Mathew or John or Donald Duck said or did not say. The fact is we cannot trust the impartiality and authenticity of such texts when they have been subject to the interpretation of so many power mongers. Whether it be Imperial Rome, the Greek Ecclesiastics or American Evangelists they all have a pudding to sell, and sell by god they will!!
I cannot speak for Judaism but to be frank I feel the modern Christian and Islamic dogma to be equal to one another and both so full of misconceptions at the " start point " as to render them invalid choices for rational exploration of divinity or even humanity. I could give you numerous examples in support of my suppositions but what's the point? You believe the Bible to be an ineffable communication from God. This all seeing, almighty, infallible creature of logic can only devise a few contradictory texts to support his own existence!! Wow!! Aint I awed!! Aint I stopped in my tracks by the inscrutable nature of such a creator. Nope I aint. I have not seen a single example anywhere of anything but the hand/mind of man himself. And in that i rarely see anything but selfish purpose.

Tao

 

[Pico]

Pico,
Thank you kindly for your response. I would start that uncertainty is most definitely a certainty. Otherwise I would have cleaned out the bookies long ago

You seem to have missed a laps of logic in your own statement. Logicaly you can't have "A" and "not A" in the same relationship at the same time. So to say that uncertainty is certain is not logical.

I have not seen a single example anywhere of anything but the hand/mind of man himself. And in that i rarely see anything but selfish purpose.

Tao

Ah, but there is much more to the world than mankind:

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

It seems you are looking for "proof" that God exists, but the Bible says "do not test the Lord your God." You need to come to God by faith. Like Paul said in 2nd Corinthians 5:7 "We walk by faith, not by sight."

God carefully balances his existence so that those who want to know Him can, and people who don't want to know him can.

 

[Basstian]

Wow stepped into one here

Let me first briefly say that this will unless I mention an author be my own thoughts and not those of Jim Merrit (I will get to him later)

1. The Bible isnt. I could read Jimmy Buffet's Tales from Margritta Ville and build a religion. The Bible without the Spirit of God working in you is just like that. People can read it tear it apart burn it etc etc with no remorse its just a book after all. Unless you give it power in your life with faith.

2. As a parent I had underlined in my bible several guide lines. If I opened my bible to proverbs my kids got scared of what might happen. But the Bibile as far as a Parent taught me three steps instruction correction and discipline all out of Love never out of Anger
But really about any of lifes problems someone in the bible overcame with Gods help and in applying the Bible to our everyday life we see a brighter outcome for the trials we are in everyday. As Solomon said there is nothing new under the sun.

3. Hard stuff here. My question is what is the worst that would happen if I dont. If I believe just what I want and not the rest. People who dont believe the biblical prophecies can explain events in what ever manner they choose. Same as creation can be turned into a huge Bang prophetic events can be explained as fate luck and flat out good timing. I would rather believe a loving God sent messengers to warn and guide us.
I believe what I believe is what makes me what I am I did not make it it is making me it is the very truth of god and not the invention of any mortal man. (Rich Mullins pretty sure)


Traditional Wording
I believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God,
begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made;
who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven,
and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost
of the Virgin Mary,
and was made man;
and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried;
and the third day he rose again
according to the Scriptures,
and ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;
and he shall come again, with glory,
to judge both the quick and the dead;
whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and Giver of Life,
who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son];
who with the Father and the Son together
is worshipped and glorified;
who spake by the Prophets.
And I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church;
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;
and I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN.
Nicene Creed around 325 ad
I love the creed I wish it did not try to pin me to one denomination

Now back to Jim Merrit
Thats a nice list of contradictions found at
A List Of Biblical Contradictions
I am not surprised 17th angel that you did not credit the true author I would also not be surprised to find that you yourself have not sit with an open bible to look at the context that these "contradictions" are pulled from.

If I wanted to take the time I assure you I could compile a list of verses the say God is a loving God over and over and over again that would not prove that in a seperate book of the Bible it says to fear his wrath.
Harmony is a pretty cool term for the Bible like a piece of Music if only the cymbols were heard clashing it might not even sound like music
added with the rest of the Orchestra each has its appointed time and plays a part in the over all harmony and beauty of the song.