<p>Nikki, you don't mean the English KJV other English versions; there are so many, and their inaccuracies are well known, but a few English speakers still seem to think some inaccurate English translation is literally true. Which version in which language do you mean is the accurate one?</p>
<p>^ we have already been through this, I forget in which thread. </p>
<p>
[quote]
why wouldn't we believe the Bible is the literal Word of God
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because no where in the bible does is say that the bible is literal. I think if it was meant to be taken literally, there would be something in there about reading it in the literal sense. I am not arguing that everything is a bedtime story, and I myself am a Christian, you seem to keep forgetting this. Throughout the course of biblical history, god was constantly changing his stance on things, or making certain things more clear. The writing of the bible didn't just happen in one day, it took thousands of years for the revelations of god to be compiled. So if throughout biblical history, god changes/makes his stances clearer, then why does this suddenly stop circa 400 AD when the vulgate biblical cannon was created. I think that we are constantly receiving new revelations from god, and that the bulk of Modern theology (not biblical literalist theology, but Lutheran type stuff, or catholic, but you guys seem to hate the catholics) represents the ever changing influence of God in our world. I do not think or our faith is a static thing that can be described holistically and effectively in book like the bible, let alone any book that one is told to read as an instruction manual for spiritual enlightenment.</p>
<p>Heh Tboone, great arguments. =D From an observer's perspective you're fighting and winning the battle.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Chritians take the Bible as the literal Word of God because so much of the Bible has come true.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you make a million predictions, some of them are bound to come true. There was a Greek philosopher who's name started with A... (I can't remember but he's extremely famous) he made a ton of predictions. He predicted 9/11 and the tsunami and loads of other stuff. But you know why people don't take him seriously? It's because for every correct prediction he made 10 incorrect predictions and that's a pretty pathetic record.</p>
<p>The Bible is intended more as a guide than anything else. You're too emotionally invested in this. And, I think, you believe that if the Bible is wrong you'll have to start from scratch. Your purported understanding of God and his will, and everything else. Maybe that scares you. If I was as wrong as you are now, it'd scare me.</p>
<p>^^ You thinking about Nostradamus?</p>
<p>Oh damn. Yea. Nostradamus. Cancel the beginning with A part. -__-</p>
<p>Nostradamus it is. And turns out he's French too. Sigh.</p>
<p>Nostradamus was french too, not greek, and he was an astrologer, not a philosopher.</p>
<p>not a bad forum, bad posters</p>
<p>o_0</p>
<p>Maharishiyogibear ...you seem to have missed the last Father Flanagan Ecumenical Memorial Lecture in Omaha?</p>
<p>Well known actor Patrick O'Brien gave a rousing talk (totally absent of teleprompters, btw :cool:) enlightening his topic "There Are NO Bad Boys: Only Absentee Dads, Teenage Welfare Moms, and PIA Students Who Can't Stay in School due to ADD, STD, LSD and ABC, i.e. Lack Thereof"</p>
<p>Nah, you've got it all wrong.</p>
<p>Lets try this again:</p>
<p>Because no where in the bible does is say that the bible is literal. I think if it was meant to be taken literally, there would be something in there about reading it in the literal sense. I am not arguing that everything is a bedtime story, and I myself am a Christian, you seem to keep forgetting this. Throughout the course of biblical history, god was constantly changing his stance on things, or making certain things more clear. The writing of the bible didn't just happen in one day, it took thousands of years for the revelations of god to be compiled. So if throughout biblical history, god changes/makes his stances clearer, then why does this suddenly stop circa 400 AD when the vulgate biblical cannon was created. I think that we are constantly receiving new revelations from god, and that the bulk of Modern theology (not biblical literalist theology, but Lutheran type stuff, or catholic, but you guys seem to hate the catholics) represents the ever changing influence of God in our world. I do not think or our faith is a static thing that can be described holistically and effectively in book like the bible, let alone any book that one is told to read as an instruction manual for spiritual enlightenment.
Tboonepickens is online now </p>
<p>any takers, NikkiIL, WP?</p>
<p>First, not everyone hates Catholics. Some Catholics are not Christian...just as some who claim Protestant or Lutheran or Pentecostal faiths are not Christian. Some Catholics practices stray from Biblical standards, such as praying to the Mother Mary or St Peter, but that doesn't mean all Catholics follow those practices. Those who follow any denominational beliefs or non-denominational beliefs can stray from His Word as no man (or woman) is perfect but it doesn't mean the entire denomination is flawed.</p>
<p>Second, faith isn't static. It grows and changes, as our understanding of God grows and changes. The longer we walk with the Lord, the larger our faith becomes as we see more proof of the Truth.</p>
<p>Third, God doesn't change...not His stance or His Word or what He says is right and wrong. What changes is our understanding of God. We also change our concept of God and His beliefs. But God Himself has remained the same since the creation of man.</p>
<p>Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord, I change not"
James 1:17 "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning"
Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, so he does not lie. He is not human, so he does not change hismind. Has he ever spoken and failed to act? Has he ever promised and not carried it through?"</p>
<p>Fourth, regarding the Bible...The Bible is the Word of God...as a Christian, you should be able to agree with this belief. So, if the Bible is the Word of God, how can one state that the Bible cannot be taken literally when looking at the following Scriptures:</p>
<p>Psalm 18:30 "God's way is perfect. All the Lord's promises prove true. He is a shield for all who look to him for protection."
Psalm 33:4 "For the word of the Lord is right; and all his works are done in truth"
Pslam 119:105 "Your word is a lamp to guide my feet and a light for my path."
Psalm 119:111-112 "Your laws are my treasure: they aremy hearts delight. I am determined to keep your decrees to the very end."
Acts 18:28 "He refuted the Jews with powerful arguments in public debate. Using the Scriptures, he explained to them that Jesus was the Messiah"
Romans1:2 "Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures."
Galatians 3:10 "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."
Ephesians 6:17 "Put on salvation as your helmet, and take the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God."
2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
Hebrews 4:12 "For the word of God is alive and powerful. It is sharper than the sharpest two-edged sword, cutting between soul and spirit, between joint and marrow. It exposes our innermost thoughts and desires."</p>
<p>Biblical prophecy that has been literally fulfilled:</p>
<p>The Messiah's mother would be a virgin Isaiah 7:14
The Messiah would suffer Isaiah 53:2-12
The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem Micah 5:2
The Jews would survive Babylonian rule and return home-written 626-586BC, fulfilled 536BC Jeremiah 32:36-37
Enemies would move into the land of Israel-writen 1400BC, fulfilled beginning about 721BC Leviticus 26:32-33
Temple of Jerusalem would be destroyed-written during 1st Century, fulfilled 70AD Matthew 24:1-2
Jews would be exiled-written during 1st Century, fulfilled 70AD Luke 21:24
Daniel tells of the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem-written about 530BC, fulfilled 70AD Daniel 9:24-26
Zion would be "plowed like a field"-written sometime between 750-686BC, fulfilled 135AD Micah 3:11-12
Rome's destruction of Israel-written as early as 1400BC, fulfilled 70AD Deuteronomy 28:49-52
Babylon's gates would open for Cyrus-written between 701-681BC, fulfilled 539BC Isaiah 45:1
Babylon's kingdom would be overthrown, permanently-written between 701-681BC, fulfilled 539BC Isaiah 13:19
Babylon would be reduced to swampland-written between 701-681BC, fulfilled 539BC Isaiah 14:23
Tyre's fortresses would fail-written about 750BC, fulfilled 333-332BC Amos 1:9-10
Tyre's stones, timber and soil would be cast into the sea-written between 587-586BC, fulfilled 333-332BC Ezekiel 26:12
Edom would be toppled and humbled-written between 626-586BC, fulfilled about 100BC Jeremiah 49:16
The Jews would avenge the Edomites-written 593-571BC, fulfilled about 100BC Ezekiel 25:14</p>
<p>This is just a small sampling of Biblical Scripture that has been literally fulfilled..many more have as well. How can a book that wasn't meant to be considered to be literal have so many prophecies that have been literally fulfilled?</p>
<p>Nikki, you can't use the bible to prove that the bible has validity!</p>
<p>You believe the bible because you want to, nothing more!</p>
<p>Ok Nikki, then what does this mean: (Mathew 19:12) For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.</p>
<p>Does Jesus want me to cut of my *****, because that is my literal interpretation of his commandment. (the censord word is an anatomical structure, not a profane word)</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Bible is the Word of God...as a Christian, you should be able to agree with this belief
[/quote]
which specific doctrine is this. I am truly interested. I thought that when god gave man words, he did it in secret on top of a mountain, and carved it on stones, but hey, what do I know, I am just a simple lay Christian. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Third, God doesn't change...not His stance or His Word or what He says is right and wrong.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If god doesn't change, then why does he change his name from yaweh to elohim, and clearly has different personalities between the two.</p>
<p>"God doesn't change"</p>
<p>Nikki, from your standpoint of the bible being definitive, what is the bible reference for this claim?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ok Nikki, then what does this mean: (Mathew 19:12) For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.</p>
<p>Does Jesus want me to cut of my *****, because that is my literal interpretation of his commandment. (the censord word is an anatomical structure, not a profane word)
[/quote]
Tboone,</p>
<p>Again, this is where studying the Bible in its original text would do you some good. The word eunuch has many meanings, not all of which mean having to chop off a part of ones body.</p>
<p>1.) a bed keeper, bed guard, superintendent of the bedchamber, chamberlain
a) in the palace of oriental monarchs who support numerous wives superintendent of the women's apartment or harem, an office held by eunuchs
b) an emasculated man, a eunuch
1) eunuchs in oriental courts held by other offices of greater, held by the Ethiopian eunuch mentioned in Ac. 8:27-39.
c) one naturally incapacitated
1) for marriage
2) begetting children
d) one who voluntarily abstains from marriage</p>
<p>
[quote]
Quote:
The Bible is the Word of God...as a Christian, you should be able to agree with this belief </p>
<p>which specific doctrine is this. I am truly interested. I thought that when god gave man words, he did it in secret on top of a mountain, and carved it on stones, but hey, what do I know, I am just a simple lay Christian.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>All Christian doctrines state that the Bible is the Word of God. The Word of God isn't restricted to just the stone tablets carved on Sinai during the age of Moses. Not even the Jews are so closed minded. The entire OT is taken from Jewish scrolls. Being a "simple lay Christian" doesn't mean you shouldn't understand that the Bible is God's written Word...I have yet to meet any Christian who doesn't believe the Bible to be God's Word.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Quote:
Third, God doesn't change...not His stance or His Word or what He says is right and wrong. </p>
<p>If god doesn't change, then why does he change his name from yaweh to elohim, and clearly has different personalities between the two.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>God has many names, God, Jehovah, El, Lord, Lamb, El-Olam, El-Shaddai, Master, Shepherd, Savior, etc, etc. Elohim is used not just for the God, but was used in OT times for any god. It was also used for angel and it has also been used in the Bible for a human.</p>
<p>There are three unique personalities: God the Father, Jesus the Son, and The Holy Spirit....three yet still one. It doesn't mean that God changes, just that his characteristics have provided additional names for him.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Nikki, you can't use the bible to prove that the bible has validity!</p>
<p>You believe the bible because you want to, nothing more!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The Bible isn't proving the Bible is valid....secular history proves the Bible is valid. Secular history provides proof that OT prophecies are accurate. In fact, looking up all the BIblical events I listed as fulfilled prophecy can be proven just by researching history. If secular history proves the events happened exactly as foretold in the Bible, that same historical evidence proves the validity of the Bible.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, this is where studying the Bible in its original text would do you some good. The word eunuch has many meanings, not all of which mean having to chop off a part of ones body.</p>
<p>1.) a bed keeper, bed guard, superintendent of the bedchamber, chamberlain
a) in the palace of oriental monarchs who support numerous wives superintendent of the women's apartment or harem, an office held by eunuchs
b) an emasculated man, a eunuch
1) eunuchs in oriental courts held by other offices of greater, held by the Ethiopian eunuch mentioned in Ac. 8:27-39.
c) one naturally incapacitated
1) for marriage
2) begetting children
d) one who voluntarily abstains from marriage
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ok, well, which one of those does eunuch mean here?</p>
<p>Would depend upon ones calling. I mean, obviously, one cannot be a eunuch definition b from birth...but one could be born a eunuch by definition c. Man cannot make another a eunuch by definition of d...because then it wouldn't be voluntary, but man can make another a eunuch by definition b. And one could make themself a eunuch by any of the definitions, depending on the situation.</p>
<p>what does this mean though, the whole thing, not just eunuchs, but why does Jesus say this.</p>