- Aug 21, 2003
- 29,100
- 6,133
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I was really impressed by the historical evidence he provided for his theories.
Upvote
0
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.
I was really impressed by the historical evidence he provided for his theories.Speaking of resources...
Here's an interesting presentation I just viewed that helps to explain the fuzziness. It's from a Jewish POV.
James Kugel, director of the Institute for the History of the Jewish Bible at Bar Ilan University, argues that the Hebrew Bible was, from the beginning, the Interpreted Bible. In the third and second centuries B.C.E. – well before the last books of the Bible were written – groups of interpreters were puzzling over the stories of Abraham and Sarah, Jacob and Esau, and other ancient figures. Their interpretations were often fanciful, and sometimes wildly inventive, but their grasp of the very idea of the Bible is still with us and continues to influence today’s readers. [6/2013] [Show ID: 24917]
It is. I look forward to hearing some of the things you've learnt on your quest.
We could discuss some things off forum.I'm not looking forward to the huge backlash from sharing it. People claim to want the truth, but what they want is affirmation of their pet doctrines. You'd be amazed at how much scripture is actually about this.
Similarly, I often ask, "How are such things measured?"
As soon as you add anything to the finished work of Christ, it causes trouble. And as a Baptist, I imagine that you, or the denomination, has some additional requirements.
35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
I have found that to be true for the hell no! group. I don't think there is a single verse in the Bible which they can't twist to make it seem to support UR.I'm not looking forward to the huge backlash from sharing it. People claim to want the truth, but what they want is affirmation of their pet doctrines. You'd be amazed at how much scripture is actually about this.
my fault, I use ebooks instead of regular books, the ebook is 99 cents. and is available immediately.The Amazon book price seems to be $9.99, not 99 cents.
I watched the video presentation.
I made a few observations that should be addressed.
To be clear, I'm not making a statement against these things. I am pointing out big holes and contradictions in the points presented.
The presenter begins by talking about authority, but then goes on (8:05) to say, "Scripture declares its divine authority and integrity" citing 1 Corinthians 4:1-2, 2 Corinthians 5:20, 1 Thessalonians 2:13 and Revelation 1:1-3, 22 9:9-10, 18 Therefore, no proof of authority is given from any outside source. (I think some could be identified)
I imagine that other religions could make the same claim. That their holy book is self-authorizing.
The presenter also claims (9:05) that there are hidden codes in the text that would fall apart if you changed even one letter. Then (9:38) says that error is introduced in the human translation of the texts. Even though he declared at the start that our Bible (the translation) is"God-breathed". This seems contradictory. Does this mean that every word of the original manuscripts was divinely inspired, but God was "hands-off" during the translation process? If so, how come?
More to come.
OK, I am not sure about the video and how different it is from the ebook/book.The Amazon book price seems to be $9.99, not 99 cents.
I watched the video presentation.
I made a few observations that should be addressed.
To be clear, I'm not making a statement against these things. I am pointing out big holes and contradictions in the points presented.
The presenter begins by talking about authority, but then goes on (8:05) to say, "Scripture declares its divine authority and integrity" citing 1 Corinthians 4:1-2, 2 Corinthians 5:20, 1 Thessalonians 2:13 and Revelation 1:1-3, 22 9:9-10, 18 Therefore, no proof of authority is given from any outside source. (I think some could be identified)
I imagine that other religions could make the same claim. That their holy book is self-authorizing.
The presenter also claims (9:05) that there are hidden codes in the text that would fall apart if you changed even one letter. Then (9:38) says that error is introduced in the human translation of the texts. Even though he declared at the start that our Bible (the translation) is"God-breathed". This seems contradictory. Does this mean that every word of the original manuscripts was divinely inspired, but God was "hands-off" during the translation process? If so, how come?
More to come.
@earthmover
He then discusses (24:47) inerrancy and infallibility. In reference to the original autographs (manuscripts) However, translators had to choose (human error?) which manuscripts were most reliable. This footnote illustrates this. Which of these manuscripts was "inerrant and infallible"?
Footnotes
- Mark 16:8 Some manuscripts have the following ending between verses 8 and 9, and one manuscript has it after verse 8 (omitting verses 9-20): Then they quickly reported all these instructions to those around Peter. After this, Jesus himself also sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen.
This is an area that is debatable in an appropriate atmosphere,not here.@earthmover
He claims (35:08) that the Apocrypha in non-canonical. This is not true. The Latin/western Church that gave us the canon included the Apocrypha. Protestants have discarded it, or removed it from the original canon.
This begs the question: If the original manuscripts of the canon were inspired, inerrant and infallible, why did the Protestants remove them from the Bible?
@earthmover
He speaks (38:38) about the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT) being the "Bible" that the early church used. Shouldn't this be the "Scripture" mentioned in 2 Timothy 3:16 ???
What became of the inerrant and infallible original manuscripts? And the Bible code that depended on the original texts. Is that suddenly unimportant?
@earthmover
He discusses (42:17) the differences between the Masoretic and the Aramaic, said that in that translation, Enoch led the teaching against God. Which differs from the KJV, of course. (Hebrews 11:5)
@earthmover
Then (44:42) he tells us that the only complete manuscripts are from the 4th to 10th centuries AD. From which our modern translations come. Are these still inerrant and infallible original manuscripts? Do they contain the Bible code referred to earlier? (nope) Not the original language.
Here is an author/presenter that gives a different view on the subject.
Focus 2017 Keynote 1: The Bible Tells Me So - Peter Enns
Never understood the point of believing in the bible being "hidden" rather than revealed knowledge of God. It would be unfair of God to judge people based on standards that He did not reveal to them, and God is fair.
To those who've never been exposed to the bible there is still general revelation, and the human conscience, to which, everyone will have violated, thus earning condemnation.
Nobody is condemned without doing something they know they should not have done, and they will know that it is wrong before doing it.
That said, for UR, the "hidden knowledge" (AKA Gnosticism) is to arrive at the same conclusion that Atheists have... and that is there is no judgement so live how you want.
It directly contradicts scripture which teaches there is a judgement and punishment.
If there was no judgement and UR was the truth.. why did Jesus scold so many people for not believing in Him?
If they'd all be saved anyway, He should have just .. gotten Himself nailed to the cross without doing anything wrong and atoned for everyone.. rather than ministering for 3 years trying to get people to believe He was who He said He was.
The title of the book is enough for me never to pick it up much less read its pages.@earthmover
Then (44:42) he tells us that the only complete manuscripts are from the 4th to 10th centuries AD. From which our modern translations come. Are these still inerrant and infallible original manuscripts? Do they contain the Bible code referred to earlier? (nope) Not the original language.
Here is an author/presenter that gives a different view on the subject.
Focus 2017 Keynote 1: The Bible Tells Me So - Peter Enns
But isn't that also a debatable doctrine as well? There are differing views on the Atonement.
From my perspective, Jesus died to conquer death. (not to pay for our sins)
We could discuss some things off forum.
I'll send a PM to initiate a conversation between us three. (sent)
IFB tend to add nothing to it, in fact they can get in trouble with some more organized Churches with the idea that even repentance doesn't mean "repent from your sins", but rather the repent is "turn to Jesus".
IFB's are often associated with OSAS (the fancy theological term is "Eternal Security") and "Easy Believism" and it's just.. well. that's what the bible teaches, our obligation is to believe on Jesus.
John 6
Now, IFB often associates good works and obedience of evidence of a life changed by the Gospel.
But the good works and obedience are not what saves you and is not what enters you into a saving relationship. That's faith, and that's grace.
IFB's will accept though, that some Christians, who are truly in Christ, have seasons of backsliding into sin.
We'll look at biblical examples like Noah the Drunk and Lot who offered up his own daughters to get gang raped as examples of backsliding saints who God actually used as pictures of people being saved from the wrath of God, and the rapture in fact.
But you do need that relationship with Christ.
None of the religious junk hanging onto many churches is required.
to me?
I hate religion
but I love Jesus.
So I don't treat Christianity as a religion, but rather a personal relationship with Jesus.
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?