Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Of course they are...because you have no other form of reference.
I am not derailing but offering the answer to staying on the correct course, to getting on the right track. You asked a question, yes, and Satan is indeed a factor, but only after the fact. But again, you can't even vary from your own mindset to consider the root cause.
I'm glad you brought up the timeline...because that is the problem: In this world, time is the media by which God has [by design] unfolded His timeless reality, to the broken. Time, simply allows each person to experience all things in their own time. But to grasp the answer to your question, you must understand the providence of God: the delay that corruption provides to cause even the scriptures to be confused, serves His purpose to carry the original problem forward to all generations ... But one could not even imagine it so, without first understanding that it is a finished [timeless] work. We exist within the pages of a finished tale, that plays out a single act into many complex details in the lives of all who are effected, beginning and end.
On the contrary, you are out in left field and don't know it: There are no errors in scripture, and Satan is not the root cause.I am asking for a sensible answer to my question. You are giving me nonsense.
On the contrary, you are out in left field and don't know it: There are no errors in scripture, and Satan is not the root cause.
You are "confusing" scriptural error, with human error.Yes there are. We've been over it and over it.
AGAIN:
The Zedekiah contradiction (short version)
1. Josiah had four sons, and they are listed in order of birth (1 Chronicles 3:15). In order, they are Johanan, Jehoiakim/Eliakim, Zedekiah, and Shallum/Jehoahaz.
2. Jehoahaz is 23 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 23:31,2 Chronicles 36:2).
3. Jehoiakim succeeds Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:33-34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).
4. Jehoiakim is 25 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 11 years (2 Kings 23:36, 2 Chronicles 36:5).
5. Jehoiakim is succeeded by Jehoiachin, who reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 24:6-8, 2 Chronicles 36:8-9).
6. Jehoiachin is succeeded by Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:17, 2 Chronicles 36:10).
7. Zedekiah was 21 years old when he became king, and reigns for 11 years (2 Kings 24:18, 2 Chronicles 36:11).
8. The chronological progression from 2. to 7. tells us that Jehoahaz is 23 years old (2.) + 3 months (2.) + 11 years (4.) + 3 months (5.) = 34.5 years old (or at least would be if he were alive) at the same time that Zedekiah is 21 years old. But 1. from the very top tells us that Jehoahaz is Zedekiah's younger brother. Therefore Zedekiah is younger than his younger brother, a contradiction.
QED
The Zedekiah contradiction (long version)
1. Josiah had four sons, and they are listed in order of birth (1 Chronicles 3:15). In order, they are Johanan, Jehoiakim/Eliakim, Zedekiah, and Shallum/Jehoahaz.
1a. Jehoiakim=Eliakim (2 Kings 23:34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).
1b. Shallum=Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:30,Jeremiah 22:11).
2. Jehoiakim had two sons (1 Chronicles 3:16), one of whom is named Zedekiah.
3. Note the important distinction which I will maintain: Zedekiah in bold is the son of Josiah, and Zedekiah with the underscore is the son of Jehoiakim.
"Zedekiah" was 21 years old when he became king and reigned 11 years (2 Kings 24:18). First assume this is referring to Zedekiah.
I. Jehoahaz is 23 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 23:31,2 Chronicles 36:2).
II. Jehoiakim succeeds Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:33-34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).
III. Jehoiakim is 25 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 11 years (2 Kings 23:36, 2 Chronicles 36:5).
IV. Jehoiakim is succeeded by Jehoiachin, who reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 24:6-8, 2 Chronicles 36:8-9).
V. Jehoiachin is succeeded by Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:17, 2 Chronicles 36:10).
VI. Zedekiah was 21 years old when he became king, and reigns for 11 years (2 Kings 24:18, 2 Chronicles 36:11).
VII. The chronological progression from I. to VI. tells us that Jehoahaz is 23 years old (I.) + 3 months (I.) + 11 years (III.) + 3 months (IV.) = 34.5 years old (or at least would be if he were alive) at the same time that Zedekiah is 21 years old. But 1. from the very top tells us that Jehoahaz is Zedekiah's younger brother. Therefore Zedekiah is younger than his younger brother, a contradiction.
Now assume it is Zedekiah that reigns.
Then this contradicts the prophecy given that Jehoiakim will have no offspring reign after him (Jeremiah 36:30), since Zedekiah is his son. And this is not a "bounce" on the throne because he reigns for 11 years.
QED
By the way, it turns out that it is Zedekiah. Jeremiah 37:1 confirms this.
You are "confusing" scriptural error, with human error.
...Because Satan has influence over people and the world, and because people are born into that influence, the scriptures are only error-free via the Holy Spirit. Which means if you simply take the scriptures at face value, they are no better than the writings of fallible men.
- Scripture has no errors.
- Satan is prone to error.
- Humans are prone to error.
Yes, it's all "Greek" to you. I get that.I cannot understand your rambling.
Yes, it's all "Greek" to you. I get that.
But if you are going to ask questions about a language that is not your own...you can either come to terms with a translator, learn the language, or stop asking questions.
What is wrong with admitting that? You believed it for 20 or so years, and then in becoming an atheist, you admitted it was nonsense.
You want Satan to be the answer we give, OK, but guess what? Jewish ideas of Satan are not the same as Christians. Satan is not some ultimate evil all powerful counterpart to God. He is a very minor player to Jews, so minor that if the book of Job is removed, there is hardly any mention of him in our books. So because Jews do not have a cosmic boogeyman, I can only say that any mistakes are because of humans.
And no hope for those who will not see.You're typing gibberish in English. There is no translator for that.
And no hope for those who will not see.
Every change and advancement of mankind went just like that. And each time there were the naysayers.I'll try this for a doctorate. Present a thesis of nonsense and then tell them it's their fault for not understanding, lol.
I think you're making an assumption: that God requires at least "a single perfect copy" in order to accomplish his task. I don't think he does, because both Israel and the Church survive and are growing to this day.I addressed this in the OP:
I know that some Bibles will be corrupted by man - I could easily type one up myself and change some things - but why has God allowed the corruption of the text to get so bad that there is not a single perfect copy on earth? And how does this reconcile with Psalms 12:6-7?
I think you've constructed a hypothesis that you can't prove, unless someone finds heretofore-undiscovered manuscripts that say something meaningfully different than the currently-known ones do.The productions of JWs or Mormons are irrelevant to the discussion because I'm talking about the errors in the Bible which exist in all known copies. If Satan had altered the Bible, he would have done so when it was still fresh and there weren't New Testament scholars because there wasn't even a New Testament yet, not to mention the fact that back then there was no printing press and the vast majority of people were illiterate. Quite easy to make changes in that environment. He wouldn't wait until now when the majority of the world is literate and educated, and there is the free exchange of ideas via the internet.
Since you said the production of the NWT is off-topic I'll leave it at that.You are calling a sincere Jesus-based religion demonic. Let's pause for a moment here.
Stepping outside of the Christian-only sphere for a moment, all that any manuscript historian can do is work with the data currently available. The New Testament is finest example of ancient document preservation anywhere in the world. If it's not good enough for you, I don't know of anything else that would be.Normal Christianity is founded on grace through faith, no works needed. But what if the idea that no works are needed is a lie inserted by Satan to encourage Christians to skate by doing what they think is the minimum, when in fact works are required? How would you know the actual truth? All you can do is trust a God who is already known to allow corruption in the Bible.
I don't, but I don't worry about it because there's no other ancient document so well- and widely-preserved as the New Testament. It's all downhill from there.Again, such a point is irrelevant. I'm asking how you know Satan hasn't corrupted the source material, not the heretical spin-off religions.
He imputes righteousness to us through the blood of Jesus. But we still sin, obviously, seeing as the Lord's Prayer includes a request for forgiveness.He does require perfection from us. I thought that's why Jesus had to die...?
I think you seem to spend a lot of thought on a hypothesis that you can't prove.See here's the problem. We know that there is an error in the list of returning Jews from exile (in Ezra and Nehemiah) because we have two lists which disagree with one another. This is most likely a result of scribal error. Satan is likely disinterested in that portion of the Bible, and if he actually did want to change it, he probably would've changed both accounts to be wrong and yet agree with one another so as to disguise what he did. If he were to change something important (such as works vs no works), he'd make sure that he is messing with an issue that appears only once or else if it appears multiple times then he'd likely alter all other instances. Perhaps the works/no works is a bad example because there is some confusion on that... but there are other things he could've altered and we wouldn't know.
I think you're making an assumption: that God requires at least "a single perfect copy" in order to accomplish his task. I don't think he does, because both Israel and the Church survive and are growing to this day.
I think you've constructed a hypothesis that you can't prove, unless someone finds heretofore-undiscovered manuscripts that say something meaningfully different than the currently-known ones do.
Since you said the production of the NWT is off-topic I'll leave it at that.
Stepping outside of the Christian-only sphere for a moment, all that any manuscript historian can do is work with the data currently available. The New Testament is finest example of ancient document preservation anywhere in the world. If it's not good enough for you, I don't know of anything else that would be.
I don't, but I don't worry about it because there's no other ancient document so well- and widely-preserved as the New Testament. It's all downhill from there.
He imputes righteousness to us through the blood of Jesus. But we still sin, obviously, seeing as the Lord's Prayer includes a request for forgiveness.
I think you seem to spend a lot of thought on a hypothesis that you can't prove.
Your point would be a good one...except for the providence of God.You are right. I have a hypothesis that I cannot prove: Satan, if he exists, altered the Bible.
You also have a hypothesis you cannot prove: Satan didn't alter the Bible. You admit such here:
I don't, but I don't worry about it because there's no other ancient document so well- and widely-preserved as the New Testament. It's all downhill from there.
So you admit that if Satan altered early copies and destroyed all copies that were unaltered, you wouldn't know.
Essentially, you have a lever that may send you to hell or heaven and you have no idea which is more likely. Why pull the lever?
Your point would be a good one...except for the providence of God.
Oh, I have a very good idea which is more likely, due to the efforts of a class of scholars called "textual critics". Because of their efforts in studying and classifying manuscripts I have high confidence that the New Testament we have now contains the gospel message that was written back then....Essentially, you have a lever that may send you to hell or heaven and you have no idea which is more likely. Why pull the lever?
Oh, I have a very good idea which is more likely, due to the efforts of a class of scholars called "textual critics". Because of their efforts in studying and classifying manuscripts I have high confidence that the New Testament we have now contains the gospel message that was written back then.
Your hypothesis is that an invisible spirit being changed early New Testament manuscripts while leaving no evidence. How can I take such a hypothesis seriously when there is no supporting data for it? Meanwhile, textual critics have classified thousands of original-language manuscripts and we can see that the message has remained unchanged since the earliest copies. So my choice is easy, because it's based on data.
Here's a relevant book on the subject, touching on textual criticism, ancient oral and written traditions, etc. I can personally recommend it:
http://www.amazon.com/Reinventing-J...=1458611507&sr=1-1&keywords=reinventing+jesus
As an aside, you do realize that early Christianity wasn't spread through the sending of documents, right? It was spread through preaching. The documents came later, after the first Christian communities were already launched. There was an attempt to insert forged documents into Christianity in the 2nd century: the instigators were called Gnostics. One of the church's arguments against Gnosticism was that the church could trace it's teachers all the way back to the apostles, while the Gnostics could not.
Well, I'm basing my position on the data available to me. And I don't think you'll change your position either, so I'll agree to disagree.If Satan did alter the Bible, he'd want to do so in a way so that it looks like it hasn't been altered. Your "analysis" plays right into his hand.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?