Bacteria Amaze

[Guest shiloh357]

As for the Bible being either 100% true or 100% untrue - what basis do any of you have for claiming that?

Available manuscript and archeological evidence. The Bible has more manuscript evidence to demonstrate its accuracy than any other ancient writing contemporary with the Bible such as the writings of Plato or Homer.

Furthermore archeological evidence has uncovered the historical accuracy of the Bible pertaining to its account of specific events and persons in the Bible. We have been able, through the use of science, to vindicate the historical accuracy of the Bible.

Funny, how when the Bible comes into the picture, your scientific approach flies out the window.

If the Bible were 100% true when it was first revealed -- and I believe it was -- but accumulated human error over time, then it would neither be 100% true or 100% untrue. You've all demonstrated what's called the fallacy of the excluded middle. This fallacy is very common because humans have a bias to think in black-or-white terms, often for no good reason.

Well the problem with that assertion is that we have over 25,000 manuscripts currently of the New Testament alone. That is only the number we know about, but the actual numbers of copies that existed in ancient times could very well have been more. Had a some errant scribes tried to tamper with the text, they would have been caught due to the sheer number of tens of thousands of copies already in existence by the middle of the 2nd century, AD.

The same holds true for the OT as well. Jews had been making thousands of copies of the Torah and given Jewish theology and the amount of supervision that takes place when copying the OT, there is no way for errant scribes to change stories or tamper with the text. There were many, many safeguards in place and copies of the Scriptures had to be examined by multiple rabbinical authorities (as they still are today) and compared with other copies as well to ensure accuracy.

The idea that the Bible has been changed over the centuries has been disproven and discredited, and is really an argument I would expect an unbeliever to make, not someone who claims to be a Christian.

This is not what I do - I don't ignore what I dislike.

Actually, what you do is worse. You challenge God's integrity and basically call Him a liar by claiming He did not say what He said. You call Him a liar by claiming that He did not create the world the way He said He did.

QUOTE (RunningGator @ Apr 12 2009, 04:51 PM)

going with your idea that the Bible has been tampered with, how do you know that the part about Jesus is the "real" part and the rest is what was added? With your view, couldnt it be that the part about Jesus was the part that was tampered with?

Didn't see this.

I know because I have experienced Jesus.

Actually, your own testimony in this thread has discredited that claim. If you KNEW Jesus, you would be filled with the Holy Spirit and there is NO way anyone who is filled with the Holy Spirit can deny the authority, inerrancy or infallibility of the Bible. You have basically stated that you really don't know what parts of the Bible are truly from God and what parts are not.

I think you are good at using Christian terminology, and you say what you think are the right things to say, but when your true beliefs are known, your very words condemn you. Your own testimony defies any relationship with Jesus. You simply cannot make convincing case that you have expereienced Jesus while denying His Word and challenging His integrity as the Creator of the Universe.

[Guest shiloh357]

One more thing:

Although I think the Bible has been altered, I think the Lord's message still shines through. After all, it was through the Holy Bible that I found Jesus. If the Bible were flawed beyond measure, this could not have happened. That is why these excluded middle arguments have no weight with me.

Sorry, but your testimony is internally consistent and you have basically discredited yourself. You simply cannot speak a double message and expect to be taken seriously. You cannot challenge Jesus integrity but claim Him as Savior. It doesn't work that way. You cannot challenge the reliability of the Bible on the one hand but hold it up as a reliable testimony of Christ on the other.

[nebula]

...Because I don't believe the Bible is completely inerrant.

The Bible was inspired by God. He revealed Himself to its various authors who subsequently transcribed His message. Thusly did God's message come into the form of a physical book. While the book embodies a divine message, it is still a book and therefore has been subject to error and human distortion over the thousands of years of its existence....

That's what the serpent told Eve, if you think about it.

No, if any part of the Old Testament was flawed, Jesus wouldn't have quoted it so often, nor would He have spoken so highly of it..

These cannot be reconciled with a loving God, period. In my opinion, these atrocities imperfection reflects the barbaric times in which the Bible was written. Either that or God is the barbarian, and that's something I refuse to believe.

So, instead of looking to the Scriptures to learn what God defines goodness as, you are relying on your own wisdom and knowledge to define what goodness is and then apply that to God?

Very, very dangerous water you are treading.

[nebula]

I know because I have experienced Jesus.

So what is your experience with Jesus, Lorax, that leads you to believe this way?

[nebula]

There is only one God, though.

That's what the Muslims say.

Do you believe Allah is Elohim ?

[The Lorax]

very true, but not everyone worships that One God. Many worship gods, but not the One true God. The one True God is capable of passing on his word without change. Your god is not.

How can you sleep at night, thinking that many of your friends and family will probably burn in fire forever?

This is just my opinion, but it seems egocentric and small-minded to so confidently exclude the possibility that others worship the same God.

Yes, it is ignoring the Bible, you say "this part is not true" so you ignore it and pretend that God did want it in the Bible. there is no evidence that contradicts the word of God, there is only you picking and choosing what you like and what you don’t like.

"Ignore"

"Pretend"

"Picking"

"Choosing"

"Like"

"Don't like"

You're throwing a whole slew of labels at me. I could just as easily throw them back, and I've really been trying not too. For instance, I could say you *ignore* the immorality of genocide and you *pretend* there is no evidence for evolution. However, it strikes me as futile to tell someone who you think they are, as if you know them better than they know themselves. That too is small-minded and egocentric.

The possibility is impossible given that God has told us otherwise and God is NEVER WRONG.

I completely agree, God is never wrong. God is infallible. It was man, not God, who altered the Bible over time.

why do you keep quoting this verse? How do you know this verse came from God? maybe it was a mistake put in by man. How do you know the difference?

You really don't get it. I don't reject every passage that can't be scientifically verified. I reject passages that conflict with others, with themselves, and with an overwhelming volume of verifiable evidence.

Theologically maybe, but not in how you live your live. If you get to pick and choose which parts of the bible to follow, life is very easy indeed.

If that picking and choosing was guided solely by personal convenience, life would be easy. But, for the Nth time, it doesn't work that way.

it is based on your personal preference of how you base your logic. In the end you still pick and choose which parts you like and which ones you don’t, no matter which words you use.

Do logic or evidence have any weight with you at all?

Eventually God kills every living thing, since we all die, is that genocide?

Natural death is not genocide. Slaughtering a people is genocide. If you can't tell the difference, that's worrisome.

Hell is not eternal torture, you really should read the bible before you dismiss it.

Oh right. A lake of fire would make an awesome vacation spot. Imagine how tan you'd get!

Now, runninggator, let's see if we can reverse this downward spiral...shall we?

[Guest shiloh357]

How can you sleep at night, thinking that many of your friends and family will probably burn in fire forever?

That is why we share the gospel with them, so they don't have to, but it's like everything else. They have to make a decision. We are not responsible for their decision, only for sharing the gospel with them.

This is just my opinion, but it seems egocentric and small-minded to so confidently exclude the possibility that others worship the same God.

The problem with that assertion is that God has defined for us how He will be approached and the type of worship He will receive and He has given us His Word to do so.

Jesus said something very exclusive. He said: "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life; no man comes to the Father, but by me." (John 14:6) Man must come to God through Christ. All other religions that use any other means are not worshipping God nor is their worshipped received by God.

The Bible is very exclusive in its claims pertaining to Christ being the ONLY means by which man can approach God or obtain God's grace and mercy. God expressed Himself to mankind by Christ on the cross. God's mercy can only be obtained by virtue of that finished work on the cross.

All of the meditation, chanting, incense burning, prayers, good deeds, etc,. simply will not avail anyone no matter how sincere they are. God has nothing to say to mankind apart from Christ and His shed blood.

I completely agree, God is never wrong. God is infallible. It was man, not God, who altered the Bible over time.

A claim you cannot prove and has been disproven over the years time and time again.

[The Lorax]

How can you sleep at night, thinking that many of your friends and family will probably burn in fire forever?

That is why we share the gospel with them, so they don't have to, but it's like everything else. They have to make a decision. We are not responsible for their decision, only for sharing the gospel with them.

I don't know how Heaven can be Heaven for anyone with the knowledge that millions if not billions of people are in Hell. Think about it. How can you ever be at peace when your former companions endure intense, *unending* torment?

Jesus said something very exclusive. He said: "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life; no man comes to the Father, but by me." (John 14:6) Man must come to God through Christ. All other religions that use any other means are not worshipping God nor is their worshipped received by God.

This is true. However, I do not rule out the possibility of postmortem redemption through Christ. Again, I believe the existence of an eternal hell is antithetical to the loving nature of God. You simply cannot have a loving God and eternal torment, just like you cannot have a square circle.

[The Lorax]

They are the words of MY Lord and Savior. You must have ignored this part of the Bible also since you don’t like it. With all the parts of the Bible you ignore, you must be able to read it all in just a couple of weeks.

"MY Lord and Savior." <-- He's much bigger than just you, runninggator.

I completely agree, God is never wrong. God is infallible. It was man, not God, who altered the Bible over time.

Not according to God. So is God right or are you?

Back to the same tautology? "The Bible says its absolutely correct, so it *must* be absolutely correct, nevermind its repeated translation and transcription by fallen humans. I'll just ignore all that, because I can't stand the possibility my beliefs could be wrong."

Natural death is not genocide. Slaughtering a people is genocide. If you can't tell the difference, that's worrisome.

What is the difference in relation to the actions of God? God is the giver of all life, as such he is the one that also ends all life. What you consider natural is not relevant to the discussion. we are not talking about us, we are talking about God.

Natural death is not the same as genocide. One is morally repugnant. Can you tell which?

We can’t. You deny the Word of God, there is nowhere to go as long as you do that and claim to be a Christian. You deny that Jesus is the only way to God, there is nowhere to go as long as you do that and claim to be a Christian.

It must feel great, thinking you are 100% right on matters of faith. Unfortunately, such a mindset is not faith - it's fanaticism.

Faith is not a sense of certainty. Faith engenders doubt. Just like free will requires the recognition of multiple choices, faith requires the recognition of multiple possibilities. If you've convinced yourself you are 100% right, beyond a shadow of a doubt, in any matter of faith, then you've mistaken yourself for God.

[The Lorax]

Last post for the night. Thank you everyone for the wild ride. I have a busy week ahead of me so I may not be able to continue this me-vs.-all discussion. Maybe in my absence the topic will return to bacteria. Probably not, though.