Word of God

[streetbob2006]

"Your conclusion and assumption of accuracy of prophecies is based on a conclusion that was biased by your starting belief that there was no attempt on the NT writers part or the persons responsible for its inclusion in the Bible to make it agree. So of course it would seem like a logical conclusion."

What would be the motive? So Peter could be hang on a cross upside down? So Paul could get his head cut off? What is his gain? So some could be stoned and pulled in half be horses? Whipped and hung? Burned at the stake be nero in 70AD. These people knew Christ on a personal level and seen the risen CHrist and died gruesome deaths and not one recanted? What did they gain? nothing...there is no motive.

On top of that some non believers back in the day could of said "hey he was not born in Bethelem, whats the deal? Here is the census! or the romans could of said "here is the body of Jesus" the whole movement would of been stopped. yet history is silent! This is the tip of the Iceberg! There is over 100 prophecies on Christ alone. History is silent on all of them.

Jesus himself said "all scripture must be fulfilled". He either is Lord, liar, or lunatic.

[JosephM]

Originally Posted by streetbob2006

"Your conclusion and assumption of accuracy of prophecies is based on a conclusion that was biased by your starting belief that there was no attempt on the NT writers part or the persons responsible for its inclusion in the Bible to make it agree. So of course it would seem like a logical conclusion."

What would be the motive? So Peter could be hang on a cross upside down? So Paul could get his head cut off? What is his gain? So some could be stoned and pulled in half be horses? Whipped and hung? Burned at the stake be nero in 70AD. These people knew Christ on a personal level and seen the risen CHrist and died gruesome deaths and not one recanted? What did they gain? nothing...there is no motive.

On top of that some non believers back in the day could of said "hey he was not born in Bethelem, whats the deal? Here is the census! or the romans could of said "here is the body of Jesus" the whole movement would of been stopped. yet history is silent! This is the tip of the Iceberg! There is over 100 prophecies on Christ alone. History is silent on all of them.

Jesus himself said "all scripture must be fulfilled". He either is Lord, liar, or lunatic.

The gain was not to Paul or Peter. They never submitted his letters to be formed into a Bible. They showed up hundreds of years later to be formed into a NT by organized religion and if you study history, the churches fought numerous battles to arrive at what they did. They were still split on the final version and there are over 40 versions in existance today that went through more than one translation and app 14 different books removed that were included in versions as late as the 1600's.

One thing you forget streetbob, Your quote "When Jesus himself said" , when he is recorded having said that it did not apply to what we have today in the Bible. There was no New Testament except written on mens hearts. Also you use false logic in your last statement. You again assume what they had then was exactly what we have now and that the record you are reading is totally accurate in translation and content. He is neither liar nor lunatic but that doesn't make the record of what he is recorded saying that is in existance today in your language 100% accurate. That is my only point.

Also, I previously mentioned that the first prophecy you mentioned fulfuilled from the other site was in error. Would be happy to supply you with the why's if you wish.

Love in Christ,
JM

[JosephM]

[quote=streetbob2006;80160]

Originally Posted by JosephM

Steetbob,

The link's odds specified on the first page is based on the assumption that the NT was accurately recorded and not made to purposely agree with the OT by those in control.

Hey Joesph,

Most scholars believe that the bible is the most accurate book from antiquity. There are over 25000 manuscripts of the New Testament in our hands dating within 200 years of the orginal documents so going back as close to the first century. Do you believe in the Trojan wars? There is only 8 documents recording the stories written 1000 years after the fact, yet scholars still take it as fact. THis is just an example.

Streetbob,

I guess a lot depends on which scholars you ask. Christian scholars would of couse agree with your statement. Scholars and historians that have studied the Bible without a Christian bias may not agree with your statement. From what I know of history, I would say that even the history of the trojan wars have errors in them. Modern history teachers themselves will tell you that what we teach in schools is not always an accurate portrayl of what happened. ie; civil war, indian war, civil right etc etc. Even history is slanted.
Men perceive things differently and from different points of view. In my view, As long as men write books, there will be errors.

Peace,
JM

[libertylover76]

Well, Snoopy, China Cat Sunflower and Joseph M are doing a much better job discussing the historical compiling of the physical book than I would have done, so unless juantoo3 is ready to support his/her ad hominem, I'm off to another thread!

[streetbob2006]

"The gain was not to Paul or Peter. They never submitted his letters to be formed into a Bible. They showed up hundreds of years later to be formed into a NT by organized religion and if you study history, the churches fought numerous battles to arrive at what they did. They were still split on the final version and there are over 40 versions in existance today that went through more than one translation and app 14 different books removed that were included in versions as late as the 1600s"

Hey Joesph, I wonder were you are getting this. In the bible itself Peter calls Pauls letters scripture 2 Peter 3:16. They are also read at church col 4:16 and public worship rev 3:1. You probobaly are saying but they were written later. We have the unical manuscripts that date back to 200 AD. Minuscule manuscripts written around 900; 8000 copies of the Latin Vulgate and some written in ECoptic. WE also have Lexionaries which are books used for public readings with corresponding paralell verses for cross reference to other scripture. We also have nontextual scripture written on pottery etc by the poor dating back to the early church which if all the written manuscripts were taken away there would be enough of these nontextual items to reconstruct almost the whole New Testament!

[streetbob2006]

"The gain was not to Paul or Peter. They never submitted his letters to be formed into a Bible. They showed up hundreds of years later to be formed into a NT by organized religion and if you study history, the churches fought numerous battles to arrive at what they did. They were still split on the final version and there are over 40 versions in existance today that went through more than one translation and app 14 different books removed that were included in versions as late as the 1600s"

Hey Joesph, I wonder were you are getting this. In the bible itself Peter calls Pauls letters scripture 2 Peter 3:16. They are also read at church col 4:16 and public worship rev 3:1. You probobaly are saying but they were written later. We have the unical manuscripts that date back to 200 AD. Minuscule manuscripts written around 900; 8000 copies of the Latin Vulgate and some written in ECoptic. WE also have Lexionaries which are books used for public readings with corresponding paralell verses for cross reference to other scripture. We also have nontextual scripture written on pottery etc by the poor dating back to the early church which if all the written manuscripts were taken away there would be enough of these nontextual items to reconstruct almost the whole New Testament!

No we come to the 2nd and the 3 generation chruch fathers. Some of these men are disicples of the disicples. Justin Martyr qouted the New Testament 330 times. Origen quoted 17922 NT verses. Tertullian=7258 times. Clement of ALex 2406. This is just a few. These are men before the council of NIcea. Besides all the Council oF Nicea did was confirm what was already scripture due to the fact that heretical writtings were coming about and there was only a couple of books in question which over the course of 80 some years they were excepted.

[streetbob2006]

"I guess a lot depends on which scholars you ask. Christian scholars would of couse agree with your statement. Scholars and historians that have studied the Bible without a Christian bias may not agree with your statement"

Hey Joesph, Most unbiased scholars (non) Christians agree that the bible is the most accurate. The ones that dont are like Jesus seminar and other fringe scholarship groups with a bias to discredit Jesus and the Bible. They have an agenda.

"Men perceive things differently and from different points of view. In my view, As long as men write books, there will be errors."


I agree with this and that is why I am glad God and not man wrote the Bible.
God Bless DJ

[JosephM]

Originally Posted by streetbob2006

Hey Joesph, I wonder were you are getting this. In the bible itself Peter calls Pauls letters scripture 2 Peter 3:16. They are also read at church col 4:16 and public worship rev 3:1. You probobaly are saying but they were written later. We have the unical manuscripts that date back to 200 AD. Minuscule manuscripts written around 900; 8000 copies of the Latin Vulgate and some written in ECoptic. WE also have Lexionaries which are books used for public readings with corresponding paralell verses for cross reference to other scripture. We also have nontextual scripture written on pottery etc by the poor dating back to the early church which if all the written manuscripts were taken away there would be enough of these nontextual items to reconstruct almost the whole New Testament!

Hi streetbob,
2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Unfortunately the word in Greek translated here as scripture is 'graphe' which in the Greek means document. Peter calls Pauls writings "epistles" from the greek word epistole which means letter. That's what Paul called them also. Sure the word 'graphe' can be used to refer to OT scripture but there was no such thing as NT scripture recognized when Peter is reported saying this so one must assume he is not equating Pauls letters to be formal scripture but only that his epistles or letters have in them things hard to understand as are things in other documents which could include scripture.

Col. 4:16
And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

Paul called it an epistle here also. It was inspired. He was a head over churches and he wrote them a letter to encourage them and instruct them as the head of any group of churches would do. But he never called them scripture for a reason. You guess why?

There is a reason that there are so many different versions and manuscripts but you assume they match. We have over 1000 denominations of Christians today. You won't find agreement there what makes you think you eill find agreement in the manuscripts?

Love in Christ,
JM

[JosephM]

Originally Posted by streetbob2006

Hey Joesph, Most unbiased scholars (non) Christians agree that the bible is the most accurate. The ones that dont are like Jesus seminar and other fringe scholarship groups with a bias to discredit Jesus and the Bible. They have an agenda.

I agree with this and that is why I am glad God and not man wrote the Bible.
God Bless DJ

I'm sorry, I never saw his signature nor did I ever read anything within it other than it contained inspired messages recorded as being from God. There seems to me to be a big difference. Not once will you find the "word of God" referring to the written book except by well meaning but misinformed pastors and teachers. The book itself claims no such author to cover its complete collection of books. Also I see no where at the end of any of the 66 books where it says the end. Perhaps God doesn't need to write a book. His NT was recorded and prophesied to be written on the hearts of men rather than on paper. Just another view to consider.

Love in Christ,
JM

[China Cat Sunflower]

[quote=streetbob2006;80160]

Originally Posted by JosephM

Steetbob,

The link's odds specified on the first page is based on the assumption that the NT was accurately recorded and not made to purposely agree with the OT by those in control.


Hey Joesph,

Most scholars believe that the bible is the most accurate book from antiquity. There are over 25000 manuscripts of the New Testament in our hands dating within 200 years of the orginal documents so going back as close to the first century. Do you believe in the Trojan wars? There is only 8 documents recording the stories written 1000 years after the fact, yet scholars still take it as fact. THis is just an example.

Here's a good place to start educating yourself on what's really going on with mainstream biblical scholarship.

Bible and Archaeology, Bible news, Interpretation and Archaeology, Excavations in the Holy Land

Chris

[streetbob2006]

[quote=China Cat Sunflower;80272]

Originally Posted by streetbob2006

Here's a good place to start educating yourself on what's really going on with mainstream biblical scholarship.

Bible and Archaeology, Bible news, Interpretation and Archaeology, Excavations in the Holy Land

Chris

He CHris, if you do not think that biblical minimilists and the supposed "higher Critics" have an agenda then you have been had.

[China Cat Sunflower]

[quote=streetbob2006;80286]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

He CHris, if you do not think that biblical minimilists and the supposed "higher Critics" have an agenda then you have been had.

Yeah, and Satan put the fossils there to fool us. C'mon dude, get with the knowlege program.

Chris

[streetbob2006]

Originally Posted by JosephM

Hi streetbob,
2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Unfortunately the word in Greek translated here as scripture is 'graphe' which in the Greek means document. Peter calls Pauls writings "epistles" from the greek word epistole which means letter. That's what Paul called them also. Sure the word 'graphe' can be used to refer to OT scripture but there was no such thing as NT scripture recognized when Peter is reported saying this so one must assume he is not equating Pauls letters to be formal scripture but only that his epistles or letters have in them things hard to understand as are things in other documents which could include scripture.

Col. 4:16
And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

Paul called it an epistle here also. It was inspired. He was a head over churches and he wrote them a letter to encourage them and instruct them as the head of any group of churches would do. But he never called them scripture for a reason. You guess why?

There is a reason that there are so many different versions and manuscripts but you assume they match. We have over 1000 denominations of Christians today. You won't find agreement there what makes you think you eill find agreement in the manuscripts?

Love in Christ
JM

Hey Joesph, in 2 Timothy 3:16 does the greek text use the word "graphe" for scripture? Is that word used anywhere else in the NT?


Paul clearly thought his epistles and letters were authorative. I am guessing he never called them scripture due to humilty. What is also interesting is that (2 Peter 3 16) Peter says those who distort Pauls letters (graphe) do so unto their own destruction. This implies authority and signifigance. Do not distort the Inspired scripture.

I never said there were many variations...There our thousands of manuscripts and even nontextual things that say the same thing! ONe can take the NT in Coptic and in Latin and cross refernce to see how accurate they are....and they are accurate.

Denominations are due to small disagreements in scripture and reactions to actions. Say the church becomes to Cold and ORthadox...well it then splits and the reaction is extreme charmaticism. Besides scripture is infallible and the church full of sinners is not.

[streetbob2006]

[quote=China Cat Sunflower;80292]

Originally Posted by streetbob2006

Yeah, and Satan put the fossils there to fool us. C'mon dude, get with the knowlege program.

Chris

Hey Chris, what fossils? Like Java man? Like the link between birds and dinosaurs that was glued together and sold to National Geographic for 80000 dollars which was a hoax? Or the hobbit people who were evidence fror evo until they found out it was a pigmy skull?

[streetbob2006]

Originally Posted by JosephM

I'm sorry, I never saw his signature nor did I ever read anything within it other than it contained inspired messages recorded as being from God. There seems to me to be a big difference. Not once will you find the "word of God" referring to the written book except by well meaning but misinformed pastors and teachers. The book itself claims no such author to cover its complete collection of books. Also I see no where at the end of any of the 66 books where it says the end. Perhaps God doesn't need to write a book. His NT was recorded and prophesied to be written on the hearts of men rather than on paper. Just another view to consider.

Love in Christ,
JM

Hey Joesph, how do you know that Jesus's message was to be written on the hearts of men if you do not trust scripture? What if somebody added it? I was also curious...what do you think Christianity is about?
Thanks for interacting, I enjoy learning others perspectives,challenging mine and others beliefs, God Bless DJ