Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | How can moses say about his burrial? | OT general | EdB | 116010 | ||
What are you picking on me for. I was answering Hanks question. I thought I did a right nice job too. Seriously I have sat where you evidently are sitting and I have heard the same logical and rational sounding arguments your expounding. But there comes a point where we either say I'm taking the Bible at face value or I'm pitching it because quite frankly I'm not ‘god’ enough to sort through what belongs and what doesn't. If I reject one verse as extraneous to God's word then how do I determine the next verse isn't, if I say one verse doesn’t belong then how do I say another does, if I say this writer really didn’t mean what he said how do I say another means exactly what he said, if I reject the authorship of one verse or two why not three or four? All the arguments have been made, and all the testimony is in, either you say the Bible today is exactly as God would have it or you say it isn’t and reject the whole thing. Because in effect if you reject any you also reject God’s power to preserve His word, He wasn’t able to overcome a zeal of a scribe, he wasn’t able to prevent a contaminate from infecting his word. If God can’t preserve His Word on this earth then how can we believe he can preserve us? We can’t really. To doubt one verse is to doubt the whole. I expect many will argue this point but I can stand on no other. Now that's dogmatic! woof! EdB |
||||||
2 | How can moses say about his burrial? | OT general | ischus | 116014 | ||
Wrong- there is not just an 'either or' approach here. You fail to address the middle ground, where one can believe in many inspired authors who have done the will of God over time and have contributed to trasmitting his word, instead of accepting what tradition says or rejecting the bible as a whole. Sorry EdB- I disagree. I believe in the bible just as much as you do, and I use it in the same way that you do. The purpose of the bible is to bring people to God, and it still is doing a pretty good job of it. Just because most of the books of the bible don't have a message about the author's name and dated of writing doesn't mean that we can count them as not from God's men. Can we agree that the bible is God's word, and that more people than are addresed in the bible have been involved in its writing and transmission? This does not make the bible less- it makes God more! ischus |
||||||
3 | How can moses say about his burrial? | OT general | EdB | 116025 | ||
ischus I'm not discussing the authors I'm discussing the finished Bible. In light of our recent discussion on Ezra I think you believe certain sections are God's words and others aren't or at least have been modified away from God's original intent. I'm saying extraneous to who wrote it the Bible is God speaking to us. The Bible does not contain anything that God does not stand fully behind. No part has been contaminated with false doctrine and we should and must take it all as God breathed. To believe anything less would be doubting God’s ability to maintain the purity of the His own Word and would put His sovereignty in tenuous position. By that I mean, as I have said before, if we ever doubt God has failed to insure the purity of the Bible we then by default also bring a doubt into every other aspect of God. EdB |
||||||
4 | How can moses say about his burrial? | OT general | ischus | 116037 | ||
OH- well in that case I disagree. First, I can add anything I want to the bible and give it to someone else. Am I giving them "only" God's word? Even if I am just adding stuff which explains the meaning of the text? NO. It is now God's word combined with my own words. By the way- I think that God does want Ezra 9 in the bible, and I believe that God inspired that writer. "To believe anything less would be doubting God’s ability to maintain the purity of the His own Word and would put His sovereignty in tenuous position. By that I mean, as I have said before, if we ever doubt God has failed to insure the purity of the Bible we then by default also bring a doubt into every other aspect of God." I appreciate your concern in the above paragraph for the sovereignty of God; however, I am sorry that you are unable to challenge your faith and investigate this further. I know that you claim you have read all the arguments, but you did it with a wrong spirit. The only thing that I can say about your view of the bible is that it is "cute." I asked earlier about two texts- Mark.16:9-20 and John 8:1-11. Would you please tell me HOW IN THE WORLD you can say that these texts were written and placed there by Mark and by John????!!!!!! |
||||||
5 | How can moses say about his burrial? | OT general | EdB | 116047 | ||
ischus I know all the arguments about Mark 16:9-20 but the fact remains no new theology is introduced there nor is there any error per say. I know a lot of people have taken liberty with this passage and made all kinds of claims but the fact remains most of what is there was played out by the apostles as seen in the Book of Acts. Now for John 8:1-11 the men in the camp in which I pitch my tent hold to the belief that this passage is authentic. There is a wide-spread conviction among textual critics that this narrative represents a factual episode in the ministry of Jesus. As for wrote them, I see nothing in either text that presents evidence that anyone other than the person charged with writing the entire book is the one that penned them. In any case the thoughts in both of the above two passages I believe were inspired by the God. I also think you have sat too long under the teaching of men that view the Bible more as text book than the living word of God. As I have said I have sat there myself and when I was young and frisky I too held to a way of thinking similar to yours. However once I began to focus on God the significance of the textual criticisms began to fade. And as my relationship went from head knowledge to heart knowledge the more I saw all the so called proofs were nothing more than that "so called". I think your confusing me with Hank since I don’t recall you ever mentioning these two passages to me before. EdB |
||||||