Why do some believers of Christ feel the bible is withou error?

ToBeLoved · Aug 29, 2015

Robban said:
Hope this is on topic,
Matt 2:18,
v 17 says then the prophesy by Jeremiah was fulfilled.

It is nothing like what the prophet Jeremiah prophisied
similar maybe in Jeremiah 31:14,
then he continues in v 15,

15,"So says the Lord, refrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears,
for there is reward for your work, says the Lord,
and they shall come back from the land of the enemy."

In Matt it is supposed to be about boys murdered under 2yrs old,

Thus says the LORD: “A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more.” [Jeremiah 31:15]

Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah: “A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be comforted, because they are no more.” [Matthew 2:16-18]

I don't see what the conflict is that you are seeing. Can you be more specific?

Robban · Aug 29, 2015

ToBeLoved said:
Thus says the LORD: “A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more.” [Jeremiah 31:15]

Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah: “A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be comforted, because they are no more.” [Matthew 2:16-18]

I don't see what the conflict is that you are seeing. Can you be more specific?

There was a purpose why Rakel was buried where she was,
and not in the Cave of Machpelah with the other Patriachs and Matriachs,

Things don,t just happen,
she was buried where she was just so that when Israel was led into captivity they would pass her burial place and be comforted.
Read my post again, Jer 31:15.

And you tell me how this has anything to do with what is in matt 2.

Because I consider it an abuse and an insult.

ToBeLoved · Aug 29, 2015

Robban said:
There was a purpose why Rakel was buried where she was,
and not in the Cave of Machpelah with the other Patriachs and Matriachs,

Things don,t just happen,
she was buried where she was just so that when Israel was led into captivity they would pass her burial place and be comforted.
Read my post again, Jer 31:15.

And you tell me how this has anything to do with what is in matt 2.

Because I consider it an abuse and an insult.

I do not understand what you are trying to say, nor what you consider to be an abuse or an insult.

You need to be more detailed if you want people to understand what it is you are trying to say. The prophecy was about Herod ordering all the children under 2 years old to be killed after he heard that the Messiah had been born in Bethlehem.

You seem to be talking about a burial site. I am confused.

Robban · Aug 29, 2015

ToBeLoved said:
I do not understand what you are trying to say, nor what you consider to be an abuse or an insult.

You need to be more detailed if you want people to understand what it is you are trying to say. The prophecy was about Herod ordering all the children under 2 years old to be killed after he heard that the Messiah had been born in Bethlehem.

You seem to be talking about a burial site. I am confused.

Maybe you are confused, I don,t know,
You will have to think about it.

But you must know, the tide has turned for Israel,
The party is over.

No more holocaust, no more a doormat for the World.

I will retire now for some rest,

I wish you an enjoyable evening.

smaneck · Aug 29, 2015

Blank Stair said:
I'd suggest this thread would be better off in a Christians only forum. This way the topic itself doesn't provide invitation to those who are opposed to Christianity, God, and the Bible, to feast on the question with their hateful answers.

This was a question posed by a Mormon who are no longer allowed in the "Christians only forum."

smaneck · Aug 29, 2015

ToBeLoved said:
I always find it interesting that most people who say the Bible is inaccurate have a web site or some other resource that spoon feeds them this information and they have not extensively studied the Bible for themselves in the original language.

Have you studied the Bible in the original language?

LoAmmi · Aug 29, 2015

ToBeLoved said:
Thus says the LORD: “A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more.” [Jeremiah 31:15]

Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah: “A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be comforted, because they are no more.” [Matthew 2:16-18]

I don't see what the conflict is that you are seeing. Can you be more specific?

I can. The problem with that interpreation of Jeremiah 31:15 is that it is in direct conflict with Jeremiah 31:16 and beyond.

16 This is what the Lord says:

“Restrain your voice from weeping
and your eyes from tears,
for your work will be rewarded,”
declares the Lord.
“They will return from the land of the enemy.
17 So there is hope for your descendants,”
declares the Lord.
“Your children will return to their own land.

This is not about a group of children that are going to die as you can clearly see that they will return from the land of the enemy and back to their own land. How does this make a bit of sense if we're talking about a group of children killed by a ruler trying to stop the Messiah? The entire part of Jeremiah is about the restoration of Israel. Read Jeremiah 30 as well. This is pulling one sentence out of an entire work and saying it is a prophecy. Where in the text do you see this stand alone? The chapters and verses are later inventions, so it isn't those.

smaneck · Aug 29, 2015

ToBeLoved said:
First of all why are you bringing your individual issues with the decisions God has made to a conversation of whether OTHERS feel the Bible is with or without error? That is not the discussion on this thread, although it might be interesting topic for a new thread.

I think we need to stay on topic.

It is up to the person who starts a thread to decide when it is getting off topic.

smaneck · Aug 29, 2015

ToBeLoved said:
Thus says the LORD: “A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more.” [Jeremiah 31:15]

Read the entire chapter. It is more than apparent that Jeremiah was talking about the Babylonian captivity.

Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah: “A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be comforted, because they are no more.” [Matthew 2:16-18]

Here is the thing. If this atrocity actually ever happened, don't you think Josephus or some other contemporary source would have noticed? Josephus hated Herod. Why would he leave this incident out of his history if it actually happened?

I don't see what the conflict is that you are seeing. Can you be more specific?

Here is the verse that follows the verse referring to Rachel weeping for her children:

"This is what the LORD says: "Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears, for your work will be rewarded," declares the LORD. "They will return from the land of the enemy.

Did the children Herod supposedly murdered 'return from the land of the enemy?'
No, if this actually happened they were dead not in exile from which they could return like the Jews did.

ToBeLoved · Aug 29, 2015

smaneck said:
Have you studied the Bible in the original language?

Yes. You?

LoAmmi · Aug 29, 2015

smaneck said:
Here is the thing. If this atrocity actually ever happened, don't you think Josephus or some other contemporary source would have noticed? Josephus hated Herod. Why would he leave this incident out of his history if it actually happened?

Forget Josephus. Why did Luke?

ToBeLoved · Aug 29, 2015

LoAmmi said:
I can. The problem with that interpreation of Jeremiah 31:15 is that it is in direct conflict with Jeremiah 31:16 and beyond.

16 This is what the Lord says:

“Restrain your voice from weeping
and your eyes from tears,
for your work will be rewarded,”
declares the Lord.
“They will return from the land of the enemy.
17 So there is hope for your descendants,”
declares the Lord.
“Your children will return to their own land.

This is not about a group of children that are going to die as you can clearly see that they will return from the land of the enemy and back to their own land. How does this make a bit of sense if we're talking about a group of children killed by a ruler trying to stop the Messiah? The entire part of Jeremiah is about the restoration of Israel. Read Jeremiah 30 as well. This is pulling one sentence out of an entire work and saying it is a prophecy. Where in the text do you see this stand alone? The chapters and verses are later inventions, so it isn't those.

You have an issue with the scripture, not I.

It says in Matthew that the ONE verse, verse Jeremiah 31:15 was prophesized by Jeremiah.

I see the prophecy in Jeremiah. I see the prophecy fulfilled in Matthew.

I AM NOT pulling a verse out and saying it is prophecy. The verse in Matthew clearly states that it WAS a prophecy. The verses are in their entirety in Post #341 in case you would like to view them again.

LoAmmi · Aug 29, 2015

ToBeLoved said:
You have an issue with the scripture, not I.

It says in Matthew that the ONE verse, verse Jeremiah 31:15 was prophesized by Jeremiah.

I see the prophecy in Jeremiah. I see the prophecy fulfilled in Matthew.

I AM NOT PULLING A VERSE OUT AND SAYING ITS A PROPHECY. The verse in Matthew clearly states that it WAS a prophecy. The verses are in their entirety in Post #341

You see the "prophecy" in Jeremiah because Matthew says it is one. If I gave you Jeremiah to read and you had never read Matthew, you would not conclude that the sentence referenced was a prophecy about children being killed. Matthew does this as he seems intent on making parallels between Jesus and Moses. I wouldn't even say he did that clever of a job unless, of course, you trust Matthew implicitly and refuse to question.

I again point out that there were no chapters or verses in the original text as they are an invention of the Middle Ages. So Matthew didn't pull a verse; he pulled a sentence. It's ok, he pulls half a sentence out of Hosea which is worse, but this one still is bad.

Matthew isn't scripture to me, so I have no problem with scripture.

ToBeLoved · Aug 29, 2015

LoAmmi said:
Forget Josephus. Why did Luke?

Since there are 4 gospels, why would each gospel author need to write about the exact same thing for it to be valid? That's not really a good argument.

ToBeLoved · Aug 29, 2015

LoAmmi said:
You see the "prophecy" in Jeremiah because Matthew says it is one. If I gave you Jeremiah to read and you had never read Matthew, you would not conclude that the sentence referenced was a prophecy about children being killed. Matthew does this as he seems intent on making parallels between Jesus and Moses. I wouldn't even say he did that clever of a job unless, of course, you trust Matthew implicitly and refuse to question.

I again point out that there were no chapters or verses in the original text as they are an invention of the Middle Ages. So Matthew didn't pull a verse; he pulled a sentence. It's ok, he pulls half a sentence out of Hosea which is worse, but this one still is bad.

Matthew isn't scripture to me, so I have no problem with scripture.

Well, if Matthew isn't scripture to you and you have no problem, than all is good. Next.

LoAmmi · Aug 29, 2015

ToBeLoved said:
Since there are 4 gospels, why would each gospel author need to write about the exact same thing for it to be valid? That's not really a good argument.

It's not a good argument to say that someone who intended to write the history of Jesus from a baby would completely ignore an instance where his parents had to flee due to the leader ordering all infants killed in order to kill him. That means that Luke would have known about this and decided it wasn't important enough to comment upon. Would mean that Luke wasn't interested in presenting the actual history if such important events as the flight to Egypt are deemed unimportant.

ToBeLoved · Aug 29, 2015

smaneck said:
Read the entire chapter. It is more than apparent that Jeremiah was talking about the Babylonian captivity.

Here is the thing. If this atrocity actually ever happened, don't you think Josephus or some other contemporary source would have noticed? Josephus hated Herod. Why would he leave this incident out of his history if it actually happened?

Here is the verse that follows the verse referring to Rachel weeping for her children:

"This is what the LORD says: "Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears, for your work will be rewarded," declares the LORD. "They will return from the land of the enemy.

Did the children Herod supposedly murdered 'return from the land of the enemy?'
No, if this actually happened they were dead not in exile from which they could return like the Jews did.

Why would I feel Josephus would need to have written about it? Josephus was alive about the time of Jesus, not Jeremiah.

ToBeLoved · Aug 29, 2015

LoAmmi said:
It's not a good argument to say that someone who intended to write the history of Jesus from a baby would completely ignore an instance where his parents had to flee due to the leader ordering all infants killed in order to kill him. That means that Luke would have known about this and decided it wasn't important enough to comment upon. Would mean that Luke wasn't interested in presenting the actual history if such important events as the flight to Egypt are deemed unimportant.

Like I said, there are 4 gospels. I have no problem with the fact that not every event is in each gospel. It's not an issue.

Aren't you trying to show that the Bible is in error? Not including an event is not an error.

fatboys · Aug 29, 2015

LoAmmi said:
It's not a good argument to say that someone who intended to write the history of Jesus from a baby would completely ignore an instance where his parents had to flee due to the leader ordering all infants killed in order to kill him. That means that Luke would have known about this and decided it wasn't important enough to comment upon. Would mean that Luke wasn't interested in presenting the actual history if such important events as the flight to Egypt are deemed unimportant.

Luke didn't write Luke. Much of it was copied from mark

LoAmmi · Aug 29, 2015

ToBeLoved said:
Like I said, there are 4 gospels. I have no problem with the fact that not every event is in each gospel. It's not an issue.

That's fine. I know Christians that have said that before.

Aren't you trying to show that the Bible is in error? Not including an event is not an error.

I think the baby events of Matthew and Luke cannot be reconciled together easily and it takes tremendous leaps of faith to believe that it gels. But if people want to believe it, that's fine. When they want me to believe it, then it becomes an issue.

Why do some believers of Christ feel the bible is withou error?

Well-Known Member

-----------

Well-Known Member

-----------

Baha'i

Baha'i

Dispassionate

Baha'i

Baha'i

Well-Known Member

Dispassionate

Well-Known Member

Dispassionate

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dispassionate

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Dispassionate

Similar threads