maguschris

wow does anyone see the ridiculousness of this? "The Bible simply could not have been invented by human beings." See there is no way you can say this. Look at it from a different point of view, say someone who has never heard of christianity. they might take it as a story of fiction. You cannot say that because you were not there. Now I am not advocating the idea that the Bible is a work of fiction. But you CANNOT say with any evidenced statement that God wrote the Bible. bear with me here... Also, those who say the PEOPLE who wrote the Bible were not divinely inspired are also stating what they cannot prove. who actually wrote the Bible? Well, man. We physically transcribed it therefore man wrote the Bible. HOWEVER! Where did the ideas come from? Man or God? There is no way to prove either, unless we invent a time machine which is highly unlikely. I think that the Bible is divinely inspired. But I do have a question to go along with this: Why, if the Bible is 100% divinely inspired does the OT reflect the culture of the time when it was written? (like sexism towards women, children suffering for the sins of their parents, etc) Also, why does God kill MILLIONS if not mroe of innocent children for the errs of their parents, which happens more than once in the Bible. This issue GREATLY bothers me. I know the answer is "well they got eternal life"...If you hold this viewpoint, then, logically how can you oppose abortion? If your answer is "God created us, he can kill us anytime, it's his right" then I have to ask why did he bother creating us if we would eventually grieve him so, to the point of violating the commandments he gave down to us to adhere to?

well don't you just feel like a bigshot huh...cept your actually a bit wrong here. "nonbeliever". just what in your mind constitutes a believer? Someone seeing eye to eye with you? you guys throw that around too much and uh are infact wrong about me personally. that is arrogence to assume you know what I believe I said nothing against "the word". You said "Different Bibles have different books because some people decided to stick some extra ones in there and claim they're supposed to be there." and I replied going on this premise as true, which would mean God does not divinely protect the Bible. You are also incorrect, because of the context you used the word "if" in. "Really, you could google this topic and find out all about it...........if you really wanted to know the truth of the matter, that is." Using If in the way you did directly associates me with NOT wanting to know the truth of the matter if I do not do a google search (which I dont plan to as I am leaving for college early tomarrow morning and would like some sleep). watch carefully, this will take a little logic and computer knowledge but I think we can handle it : A=1, IF c=1; THEREFORE: IF c=0, A=0 Variables: A=me really wanting to know c=a google search 1=true (in binary) 0=false (in binary) I do not plan to google this right now, therefore, according to the way you said it that means I do not really want to know the answer, with is a logical fallacy. I called your statement arrogent because you presume I may not want to know the answer and am just trying to cause trouble. Trust me there are things I should and want to be doing. But i am on here, so why woudl I waste my time causing trouble? The way you worded it made it seem as though you doubted the sincerity of my question (which is extremely irritating when I am actually seeking answers) lets check that ego a bit eh?

well first off I can ask you to prove that statement, which you obviously can't, so that was pretty unwise to say no? secondly that wasn't my point. is God NOT CURING someones cancer JUST AS BAD as God giving someone cancer. simple no? this actually want my original point either. my original point is if God doesn't cure or help someone, do you guys, personally, hold God accountable AS IF HE HAD caused the problem in teh first place.

Right but someone above was saying that all the Bibles are equal in content, this obviously proves them wrong. Also, this proves God doesn't divinely protect the Bible keeping it infallible and protecting it from the whims of man. and uhh What is the point of a forum if people dont ask questions? You are presuming to know what I really want, how arrogent of you!. I figured talking with other christians about it would be quicker and more enlightening than a google search.

I dont think you understood my statement... let me explain, for example: If God lets someone die from cancer (he has the power to go *poof all gone*, but he doesn't) is this the same as God intentionally giving someone cancer thoughts?

Well im glad to know you PRESUME to know more than God... I never said it was contradictory I was merely stating the two OPINIONS and INTERPRETATIONS that have been presented in this thread. "christians know or they aren't christians" uh huh well you presume to know a lot of things, in which you are, in fact, in error. So that statement reeeaaaally doesn't go too far. That and christians get no special "divine knowledge" the words are there, and anyone can understand them. Just because your "christian", doesn't mean your correct about every part of mainstream christian beliefs, as many christians do not see eye to eye. "well those who disagree are wrong!"...not exactly those who disagree are "wrong" in your eyes, because they disagree! you are a normal fallible human as they are. your both probably wrong on certain issues! P.S. You should get your senses checked

It is still out of context with this thread, addressing me anyway since I have not quoted Plato or any other ancient texts so you have no idea whether I question them or not. We are talking about the accuracy of the BIBLE not of ANY other ancient text right now. You keep trying to avoid my questions and statements by saying "well people trust other ancient texts why not the Bible" I DONT CARE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE DO!!! If I dont see it I dont believe it, got it? NOWWWW THEN! How do you explain the discrepencies between the American protestant Bibles, the African bibles and the catholic bibles? I was not speaking of the accuracy of the books in the Bible. I hear from many christians that "God keeps the bible pure" meaning only things that should be in it are in it....well different Bibles have different books, how can this be reconciled if you hold the view above? It is not an opinion that not all bibles contain the same content when some Bibles have books that others dont! I think this boulder is the same as that pebble....

The question I always ask myself is God's unwillingness to take aparticular action equal, logically to him taking an action to cause whatever problem exists. I dont know, thoughts?

I WILL get back to you on this one as Jesus PREACHED tolerance... love it. you think you know God and that you know LOVE but you dont have to be tolerant to people. bull

Well i guess to conclude this thread, unless anyone has anything to add is that we don't really know if Jesus is the only way. Some parts of the Bible say God judges our hearts alone, where as other parts say that if we do not accept Christ we go to hell. Then enters the question about those who never get the chance to accept Jesus, for whatever reason. So overall no one really knows...not a big surprise, of course. I am a christian and I dont know either. I'd like to believe in a merciful God. Guess we'll find out huh lol

So does this mean that a true believer should practice Jewish Law? Such as being circumsized? And don't give me Paul's advice on this. I want Jesus' advice on this. Obviously they cant...

well first off I'm not telling anyone they are stupid or implying it. Guilty consience? I do understand scripture, thank you. I have come to Jesus, again not like you would know since you dont know me. And if it wasn't you I know it was someone and then system said his crack about the heart being nothing but a muscle that pumps blood and then I said that my mind converts the phrase "follow your heart" to "do what you think is right" I remember this conversation on here, I'm just not gonna look through all of the threads, and I'm pretty sure it was you that said it, and those where the exact words. dont get mad at me for what you guys say man thats not cool. Yeah, right. "there always seems to be enough religion to incite war, but never enough to instill tolerance."

Actually there are over 25,000 copies of the NT alone, and aside from some spelling errors, when these mansuscripts are compared, there is no variation. That is simple historical fact, that a lot of people who are not personally familiar with the manuscript evidence are not willing accept. In fact, the Bible has more ancient manuscript evidence to support it's accuracy than do the writings of say, Plato or Pliny the Younger. The earliest copies of the NT go back to around 125 A.D. That means that there is only a 25 year time span between the earliest known copy and the original manuscript. Compare that to the Tetralogies of Plato who lived in the 5th centry B.C. The earliest copy of the Tetralogies is 900 A.D. That is a time span of at least 1,200 years between the earliest known copy and the original, AND we only have 20 early manuscripts. Yet people will put more faith in the writings of Plato than the Bible. Aristotle, Euripides, Demosthsenes, Pliny the Younger, Homer, Suetonius, Sophocles etc., none of the writings of these men of the ancient world have anywhere near the manuscript support for accuracy that the Bible has, and the timespan between their originals and the earliest known copies are far greater than the Bible. You can't say that truthfully Proof? Ok. A. The African Bible contains two more books than the American Bible. These include Enoch and Jubilees. B. The catholic Bible contains more books than the protestant Bible C. The original NT manuscripts are nowhere to be found, the last I read. D. The information contained in the manuscripts were passed down orally for generations. conclusion: we have no idea if what we are reading today is exactly the same as it was when they were first created, let alone thought up (being passed down orally) Honestly though it doesn't matter to me. I don't need every single little thing to be 100% accurate in the Bible for me to believe. Personal relationship with Jesus remember guys. Oh and P.S. I really dont give a rats butt what member group you put me in. I AM believer (a believer with questions, but still a believer) And I really dont find it fair that I can't access parts of this forum. The thread to ask for help for example and other features like PM. Well you completely avoided the substance of what I said. There are plenty of ancient authors contemporary with the writers of the Bible, but we have less textual evidence for their accuracy of their writings, but no one challenges the accuracy of what we have from Aristotle, Pliny the Younger, Plato, etc. Only the Bible, which despite having more textual evidence is still doubted as accurate. It seems that that a standard for the Bible is demanded which is not demanded for other ancient documents when it comes to accuracy in transmission. Nothing you have presented in any refutes the accuracy the Scriptures. Well apparently everything has to be spelled out... look we are not discussing the accuracy of other ancient texts so, no wonder no one is questioning it in this thread. I'm SURE there are people out there that do, so the blanket statement that "no one does" is inherently false, because you do not know everyone in the world, therefore you cannot say that. Also, if some books are in one kind of Bible why are they not in another. this is OBVIOUSLY an error somewhere. Since I have just proven that not all of the Bibles in the world are perfect and equal and containt he exact content, your claim that they do is logically false. ERROR SOMEWHERE? No, just that many people who are scholarly about the Wordf and happen to know the "author" are smarter than you! You can't prove your way out of a paper bag. You mean you can't pinpoint the exact error? Awwww! O ok well at least im not runnign around the forum calling people dumb. and uh you have no idea what my IQ is, thank you very much. And uh then what is your explanation of different books in the Bible between the American protestant, catholic, and African Bibles?

well first off I'm not telling anyone they are stupid or implying it. Guilty consience? I do understand scripture, thank you. I have come to Jesus, again not like you would know since you dont know me. And if it wasn't you I know it was someone and then system said his crack about the heart being nothing but a muscle that pumps blood and then I said that my mind converts the phrase "follow your heart" to "do what you think is right" I remember this conversation on here, I'm just not gonna look through all of the threads, and I'm pretty sure it was you that said it, and those where the exact words. dont get mad at me for what you guys say man thats not cool.

Actually there are over 25,000 copies of the NT alone, and aside from some spelling errors, when these mansuscripts are compared, there is no variation. That is simple historical fact, that a lot of people who are not personally familiar with the manuscript evidence are not willing accept. In fact, the Bible has more ancient manuscript evidence to support it's accuracy than do the writings of say, Plato or Pliny the Younger. The earliest copies of the NT go back to around 125 A.D. That means that there is only a 25 year time span between the earliest known copy and the original manuscript. Compare that to the Tetralogies of Plato who lived in the 5th centry B.C. The earliest copy of the Tetralogies is 900 A.D. That is a time span of at least 1,200 years between the earliest known copy and the original, AND we only have 20 early manuscripts. Yet people will put more faith in the writings of Plato than the Bible. Aristotle, Euripides, Demosthsenes, Pliny the Younger, Homer, Suetonius, Sophocles etc., none of the writings of these men of the ancient world have anywhere near the manuscript support for accuracy that the Bible has, and the timespan between their originals and the earliest known copies are far greater than the Bible. You can't say that truthfully Proof? Ok. A. The African Bible contains two more books than the American Bible. These include Enoch and Jubilees. B. The catholic Bible contains more books than the protestant Bible C. The original NT manuscripts are nowhere to be found, the last I read. D. The information contained in the manuscripts were passed down orally for generations. conclusion: we have no idea if what we are reading today is exactly the same as it was when they were first created, let alone thought up (being passed down orally) Honestly though it doesn't matter to me. I don't need every single little thing to be 100% accurate in the Bible for me to believe. Personal relationship with Jesus remember guys. Oh and P.S. I really dont give a rats butt what member group you put me in. I AM believer (a believer with questions, but still a believer) And I really dont find it fair that I can't access parts of this forum. The thread to ask for help for example and other features like PM. Well you completely avoided the substance of what I said. There are plenty of ancient authors contemporary with the writers of the Bible, but we have less textual evidence for their accuracy of their writings, but no one challenges the accuracy of what we have from Aristotle, Pliny the Younger, Plato, etc. Only the Bible, which despite having more textual evidence is still doubted as accurate. It seems that that a standard for the Bible is demanded which is not demanded for other ancient documents when it comes to accuracy in transmission. Nothing you have presented in any refutes the accuracy the Scriptures. Well apparently everything has to be spelled out... look we are not discussing the accuracy of other ancient texts so, no wonder no one is questioning it in this thread. I'm SURE there are people out there that do, so the blanket statement that "no one does" is inherently false, because you do not know everyone in the world, therefore you cannot say that. Also, if some books are in one kind of Bible why are they not in another. this is OBVIOUSLY an error somewhere. Since I have just proven that not all of the Bibles in the world are perfect and equal and containt he exact content, your claim that they do is logically false.