What Is The Bible And What Does It Contain?

[Mike]

Hi Hornet,

 

I feel that by placing such tight restrictions on what qualifies as inspiration and what inspiration means, you are creating very high expectations indeed for the Bible to live up to. This can also lead to passing up much of the world's wisdom beyond the boundaries of the Christian religion because of an inherent assumption that they have no truth, because the Christian religion has sole, exclusive claim on truth. In my experience it was very freeing for me to see that this need not be the case.

 

Someone once said that silence is God's first language, everything else is poor translation. As Minsocal pointed out so astutely in post #43, perhaps instead of looking for literal predictions and word-for-word inspiration, we should be emphasizing something else. Perhaps the Spirit communicates within us with groaning which cannot be uttered.

 

Biblical scholarship is now a very mature field. If the Bible truly met the standards of infallibility, don't you think most biblical scholars would be arriving at just that conclusion? Or is it some kind of conspiracy or mass self-delusion on the part of that community?

 

As far as failed prophecies go, one could cite Isaiah's predictions about Bablyon's soon defeat, which as a matter of history was never fulfilled (which one can find detailed here). The same with Ezekiel's famous prophecy that Tyre would be defeated by Nebuchadnezzar, which again never happened.

 

But to my mind, Christendom's most serious hurdle is the second coming, which every single New Testament writer said was "coming soon", even within that very generation, as in Matthew 24 with Jesus' prediction of the fall of Jerusalem and subsequent coming of the Kingdom. Even C.S. Lewis of apologist fame had to concede this point regarding Matthew 24:34 when he wrote, "It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible." (The World's Last Night: And Other Essays, p.97)

 

I would go further and say that so pervasive throughout the New testament, and so central to the underlying logic of the apostolic teaching is the then-soon occurrence of the second coming, that I would almost argue that it was more important, and soundly argue that it was just as important, as the teaching of Christ's resurrection. If the apostles couldn't even get their one main prediction right, upon which rested their whole theology, what else might they have been wrong about?

 

Peace to you,

Mike

[Neon Genesis]

 

Rebellion toward God is moral failure.

 

So all atheists are immoral? Seriously? Name me one good moral action a Christian can do that a non-believer can't do.

[JosephM]

The biblical writers received their information from God and wrote it down. God ensured that they would not make any mistakes. Moreover, God is truthful and He cannot be mistaken. God would not pass along false information.

 

(snip)

 

Hornet,

 

If you will suffer me with an explanation of this one last question of a possible mistake in the Bible i would be grateful.

 

It was written by a writer in Acts 9:7 and again in Acts 22:9 and covered again in Acts 26:14. It tells the same story three times of the conversion of Saul (Paul). The question it brings to mind is "Did the men with Saul hear a voice or not? It seems to be clearly yes the first time the story is told and no the second time.

 

The third time the story is told (Acts 26:14) it seems the men with Saul fell to the ground. In the second version the men stood speechless. This opens the question, Did they fall to the ground or stand speechless?

 

In the first and second story at Act 9:6 and Acts 22:10 Saul arises and is told to go to the city where he will be told what he must do. Yet the third telling of the story Acts 26:16-18 Saul is told to rise and is immediately told what he must do raising the question "Did Paul have to go to Damascus to find what he must do or was he told while on the road?"

 

To the best of my knowledge it is believed that Acts was written by a single person, most likely Luke. Irregardless it seems to me that if the biblical writers received their information from God and you seem to propose above, there would not be such discrepancies. It is also beyond me why one writer would tell the same story differently three times if he received his information from God. Perhaps you can clear this up with an explanation. I am sincerely interested in considering one as it seems to me to be a pretty clear cut discrepancy.

 

Thanks in advance,

Joseph

[davidk]

Neon,

All things- under the authority of God.

---

 

Minsocal,

You've already given me one Prof. that agrees with my premise. I'm not sure why you bring another that, according to what you have presented, appears to essentially agree as well.

 

Davidk

[minsocal]

Neon,

All things- under the authority of God.

---

 

Minsocal,

You've already given me one Prof. that agrees with my premise. I'm not sure why you bring another that, according to what you have presented, appears to essentially agree as well.

 

Davidk

 

You have not offered any "proof" whatsover ... and since you appear to have missed the nuances involved, consider the following:

 

Your view is both androcentric and anthropomorphic and, I do not accept either perspective.

[glintofpewter]

David,

 

As usual we have a free-for-all and I'll join concerning one issue, language, because, in thinking about the 200,000-500,000 years that homo sapiens has been on the planet and that development of language is a slow process, I began to question the importance of an historical Jesus and improbability that the Bible is the unique and only spoken or written source of knowledge about God.

 

Q. Would you agree language is the single most distinguishing attribute of human beings today?

A. "I do think that the development of language is the single most distinguishing attribute."- Dr. Terrence Deacon, professor of Biological Anthropology and Linguistics at University of California-Berkeley

 

I didn't see where you responded to the keyword "development".

 

I have one question.

 

When, in the 200,000 to 500,00 years of homo sapiens presence on the earth, did God first speak to us?

 

Take Care

Dutch

[Hornet]

Hornet,

 

If you will suffer me with an explanation of this one last question of a possible mistake in the Bible i would be grateful.

 

It was written by a writer in Acts 9:7 and again in Acts 22:9 and covered again in Acts 26:14. It tells the same story three times of the conversion of Saul (Paul). The question it brings to mind is "Did the men with Saul hear a voice or not? It seems to be clearly yes the first time the story is told and no the second time.

 

The third time the story is told (Acts 26:14) it seems the men with Saul fell to the ground. In the second version the men stood speechless. This opens the question, Did they fall to the ground or stand speechless?

 

In the first and second story at Act 9:6 and Acts 22:10 Saul arises and is told to go to the city where he will be told what he must do. Yet the third telling of the story Acts 26:16-18 Saul is told to rise and is immediately told what he must do raising the question "Did Paul have to go to Damascus to find what he must do or was he told while on the road?"

 

To the best of my knowledge it is believed that Acts was written by a single person, most likely Luke. Irregardless it seems to me that if the biblical writers received their information from God and you seem to propose above, there would not be such discrepancies. It is also beyond me why one writer would tell the same story differently three times if he received his information from God. Perhaps you can clear this up with an explanation. I am sincerely interested in considering one as it seems to me to be a pretty clear cut discrepancy.

 

Thanks in advance,

Joseph

 

The Greek verb translated as "heard" or "hearing" can mean "perceive", "understand", "to attend to", "to hear", and "to come to one's hears." (I looked this up in a Greek lexicon.) Given the range of meanings for that Greek verb, maybe Acts 9:7 is using that Greek verb in the sense of "perceive" and Acts 22:10 is using that Greek verb is used in the sense of "understand." Hence, they perceived the voice, but did not understand it. The English translations of the Bible do not make this clear.

 

 

It appears that those different versions are leaving out different details. One version is leaving out a certain detail that another version is not leaving out. After reading those different versions, the conclusion that I come to is that they stood speechless and then they fell down.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

DavidK, Since the English translations vary, do you see them all as being equally correct at representing God's Word? As to the scientific correctness of the Bible, do you believe there is water above the "sky" (Genesis 1:6)? As to the contradictions, if you read through Genesis 1:1-2:3 the order of creation is different in the second creation story 2:4-2:25. Was man (male and female) created the 6th day after the plants and trees on day 3, or was man created when no plant of the field had yet sprung up? Contradictions are not confined to Genesis or the Old Testament. When Mary went to the empty tomb when Jesus had been resurrected was there one angel, as in Matthew 28:2-3? Was another Mary Salome with the Marys Mark 16:1)or was it Mary Magdalene and two disciples at the tomb (John 20)? Was it an angel, or a seated young man (Mark 16:5? Or were there two men standing (Luke 24:4)?

 

Are some of the commands in the Bible confined to the culture of their time (covering heads in prayer, not wearing buttons, making suspected adultresses drink poison to see if they are guilty)? If so, how do you decide which are relevant today and which ones have expired?

 

If you are wondering how I deal with the above information and still love the Bible, I have been through these questions, struggling, and believe that while the Bible is not "inerrant" nor the only "Word of God" it is a beautiful attempt by man to chronicle a culture's human relationship with God as understood by the men who were inspired by God to write it down. I find that even though it is not "perfect", I read within the Bible deep truths that call me to be more loving than I am and a Way to live life "abundantly". It's okay for us to agree to disagree :-)

 

Janet

[JosephM]

The Greek verb translated as "heard" or "hearing" can mean "perceive", "understand", "to attend to", "to hear", and "to come to one's hears." (I looked this up in a Greek lexicon.) Given the range of meanings for that Greek verb, maybe Acts 9:7 is using that Greek verb in the sense of "perceive" and Acts 22:10 is using that Greek verb is used in the sense of "understand." Hence, they perceived the voice, but did not understand it. The English translations of the Bible do not make this clear.

 

 

It appears that those different versions are leaving out different details. One version is leaving out a certain detail that another version is not leaving out. After reading those different versions, the conclusion that I come to is that they stood speechless and then they fell down.

 

Hornet,

 

Thank you for your time and explanation.

 

It is there for people to make their own call based on your explanation and their study. I have no more questions for you but it seems you missed or overlooked the last part of my question which read..

 

In the first and second story at Act 9:6 and Acts 22:10 Saul arises and is told to go to the city where he will be told what he must do. Yet the third telling of the story Acts 26:16-18 Saul is told to rise and is immediately told what he must do raising the question "Did Paul have to go to Damascus to find what he must do or was he told while on the road?"

 

If it is the same writer who received his information from God and is telling the story, why this perceived discrepancy above that i find in all translated versions i read. It does not seem to fit into 'a details left out explanation' because in one he is told to go into the city to be told and the other he is told right there on the road what he must do. if a man told the story i could more readily understand it but if it were God speaking using men who could not make an error, why leave something that has the appearance of a discrepancy?

 

Joseph

[Neon Genesis]

Did God command Moses to take seven of each animal on the ark(Genesis 7:2-3) or two of every animal(Genesis 6:19)? If God is all-knowing, how can God forget about Noah (Genesis 8:1)? If God is perfect, how can God have regrets (Genesis 6:6)? If God is all-powerful, how can God lose to chariots of iron (Judges 1:19)?

[Hornet]

Hornet,

 

Thank you for your time and explanation.

 

It is there for people to make their own call based on your explanation and their study. I have no more questions for you but it seems you missed or overlooked the last part of my question which read..

 

 

 

If it is the same writer who received his information from God and is telling the story, why this perceived discrepancy above that i find in all translated versions i read. It does not seem to fit into 'a details left out explanation' because in one he is told to go into the city to be told and the other he is told right there on the road what he must do. if a man told the story i could more readily understand it but if it were God speaking using men who could not make an error, why leave something that has the appearance of a discrepancy?

 

Joseph

 

Hi Joseph,

 

Acts 9 and Acts 26 are not mutually exclusive. Both versions are true so Paul was told what to do twice- once on the road to Damascus and again while in Damascus.

[JosephM]

Thanks again Hornet.

 

I agree they are not mutually exclusive. Taking all the versus i questioned to you which was the same story told 3 times by the same person, as a whole, it is just my opinion, but it makes it look like to me, if it were written by God, it is not a very clear and concise way to write without representing him as being inconsistant in language.

 

I do appreciate the manner in which you answered my questions and allowed me to express my personal view. I have no other questions at this time.

 

Joseph

[Hornet]

Hi Hornet,

 

I feel that by placing such tight restrictions on what qualifies as inspiration and what inspiration means, you are creating very high expectations indeed for the Bible to live up to. This can also lead to passing up much of the world's wisdom beyond the boundaries of the Christian religion because of an inherent assumption that they have no truth, because the Christian religion has sole, exclusive claim on truth. In my experience it was very freeing for me to see that this need not be the case.

 

Someone once said that silence is God's first language, everything else is poor translation. As Minsocal pointed out so astutely in post #43, perhaps instead of looking for literal predictions and word-for-word inspiration, we should be emphasizing something else. Perhaps the Spirit communicates within us with groaning which cannot be uttered.

 

Biblical scholarship is now a very mature field. If the Bible truly met the standards of infallibility, don't you think most biblical scholars would be arriving at just that conclusion? Or is it some kind of conspiracy or mass self-delusion on the part of that community?

 

As far as failed prophecies go, one could cite Isaiah's predictions about Bablyon's soon defeat, which as a matter of history was never fulfilled (which one can find detailed here). The same with Ezekiel's famous prophecy that Tyre would be defeated by Nebuchadnezzar, which again never happened.

 

But to my mind, Christendom's most serious hurdle is the second coming, which every single New Testament writer said was "coming soon", even within that very generation, as in Matthew 24 with Jesus' prediction of the fall of Jerusalem and subsequent coming of the Kingdom. Even C.S. Lewis of apologist fame had to concede this point regarding Matthew 24:34 when he wrote, "It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible." (The World's Last Night: And Other Essays, p.97)

 

I would go further and say that so pervasive throughout the New testament, and so central to the underlying logic of the apostolic teaching is the then-soon occurrence of the second coming, that I would almost argue that it was more important, and soundly argue that it was just as important, as the teaching of Christ's resurrection. If the apostles couldn't even get their one main prediction right, upon which rested their whole theology, what else might they have been wrong about?

 

Peace to you,

Mike

 

Hello Mike,

 

My understanding of the inspiration of the Bible comes from 2 Timothy 3:16 which says that all Scripture is inspired by God. The Greek word translated as "inspired" in that verse means "God-breathed." The verse is saying that Scripture originates from God. There needs to be some standard of truth by which one can use to discern what is truth and I believe that the Bible is that standard.

 

I'm not sure why most biblical scholars deny that the Bible is infallible. I don't think there is a conspiracy.

 

You said that Isaiah's prophecy concerning Babylon failed. Isaiah predicted that the Medes would defeat the Babylonians. However, Isaiah was not claiming that the Medes would be the sole conquerors. The exact date of this conquest is unknown. Some people think that Isaiah was referring to the defeat of the Babylonians by the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pilesar III who had Median soldiers in his army. (This happened in 729 B.C.) Other people think that Isaiah was talking Sennacherib's attack on Babylon in 689 B.C. and others think this prophecy refers to Cyrus's defeat of Babylon in 539 B.C. Those who think that Isaiah was talking about Sennacherib's army believe that there were some Medes who joined the Assyrian army in defeating Babylon.

 

I would like to say something about Ezekiel's prophecy about Tyre. According to Ezekiel 26:3, God is going to bring many nations against Tyre. The attack of Nebuchadnezzar and the attacks of other nations that came later is what fulfills this prophecy, not just the attack of Nebuchadnezzar.

 

The New Testament teaches that Jesus is coming soon, but it does not say how soon is soon.

 

I would like to explain what Jesus meant when He said, "Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." (Matthew 24:33-34) When Jesus said, "all these things", He was talking about the things mentioned in Matthew 24:4-28, which does not include the Second Coming of Christ. When Jesus said, "It is near" He was talking about the Second Coming of Christ. The things mentioned in Matthew 24:4-28 must take place before the Second Coming of Christ, but Jesus does not say how much of a time period there will be between those things taking place and the Second Coming. Jesus was not saying that the Second Coming of Christ would occur during the lifetime of the generation that was living at the time of Jesus. Jesus was saying that the current generation would see the things that are mentioned in Matthew 24:4-28.

 

 

 

Hornet

[tariki]

 

My understanding of the inspiration of the Bible comes from 2 Timothy 3:16 which says that all Scripture is inspired by God. The Greek word translated as "inspired" in that verse means "God-breathed." The verse is saying that Scripture originates from God. There needs to be some standard of truth by which one can use to discern what is truth and I believe that the Bible is that standard.

 

 

 

Hornet

 

Just some general comments prior to complete withdrawal from "controversal" debate..............

 

Those of the Hindu persuasion claim that their own holy book, the Vedas, is God Breathed. One can google such and see the various claims and controversies.

 

Those of Islamic Faith claim much the same. Google all you want to see the various controversies...either way......In favour, see here for a prime example....

 

Qu'ran is Word of God

 

The point seems to be that one must make a prior decision of faith (blind) to enter the particular circle of "belief", after which the "standard of truth" becomes foundational.

 

After such leap of faith, it is my experience that many, having made such, imply that those who have not made any such "leap" are in some ways wanting in commitment, ancd may even be designated as "rebellious". (No one is being pointed at here.)

 

It just seems to me that in as much as many of the truths revealed are in fact deemed beyond the unaided human intellect to know, and would never be known apart from the "god breathed" revelation, no facts, no argument, no nothing, can ever argue that any one "holy" book could be the "right" one.

 

It seems to me, there being a "divine", that such would reveal "his" will in ways other than books - or at least as a supplement - and that perhaps we should always leave our own judgements as to who is or is not guided by the Divine to things other than adherance or allegiance to any particular scripture.

 

As the Good Book says..............By their fruits shall ye know them

[JosephM]

My understanding of the inspiration of the Bible comes from 2 Timothy 3:16 which says that all Scripture is inspired by God. The Greek word translated as "inspired" in that verse means "God-breathed." The verse is saying that Scripture originates from God. There needs to be some standard of truth by which one can use to discern what is truth and I believe that the Bible is that standard.

 

(snip)

 

 

Hornet,

 

I also would like to comment on your words here.

 

I personally have great difficulty seeing how that one particular writing refers to the Bible as it exists today since it was written as an epistle or "letter" from Paul admittedly in his own words and was not part of The Bible at the time. I would be interested where in them he refers to all his letters as "God breathed" since his letters comprise such a large amount of the NT text which is part of what is being considered here.

 

Surely, i would think he couldn't have been referring to his own letters as God breathed. Only once can i even find in his letters where he says "and this I say to you by the Word of God" We .......... And in my mind, that does not even refer to the Scriptures but to something he indicates God had revealed to him.

 

Just my thoughts concerning your comment to Mike here.

 

I appreciate the time you spend offering your understanding in mutual respect even though our view may be different..

Joseph

 

P.S. You have offered an explanation for the second coming in Mathew 28:4-28 and made the word "near" in my view of little account but it seems you may have not taken into account Mat 16:28. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Perhaps one must also consider that verse as it seem to agree with the word "near" reasonably meaning near. Otherwise, IMO, i would question why would God want to use that word "near" to confuse us to mean more than 2000 years?

 

edited PS JosephM

[Neon Genesis]

Hello Mike,

 

My understanding of the inspiration of the Bible comes from 2 Timothy 3:16 which says that all Scripture is inspired by God. The Greek word translated as "inspired" in that verse means "God-breathed." The verse is saying that Scripture originates from God. There needs to be some standard of truth by which one can use to discern what is truth and I believe that the Bible is that standard.

Ironically, 2 Timothy claims to be written by Paul but is not actually written by Paul. It was written long after Paul's death by one of his followers who was pretending to be God. If 2 Timothy 3:16 is proof the bible is divinely inspired, surely God would have done a better job of making sure that he keeps a forgery out of his book?

------------------------------------------------

Comment from Moderator inserted here. ... This is an assertion or understanding on the writers part from his studies. Claims or assertions of Bible forgery are an assertion only without evidence presented and therefore inappropropriate to the conversation of this thread. Please ignore and do not respond. JosephM (as Moderator)

------------------------------------------------

The New Testament teaches that Jesus is coming soon, but it does not say how soon is soon.

 

I would like to explain what Jesus meant when He said, "Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." (Matthew 24:33-34) When Jesus said, "all these things", He was talking about the things mentioned in Matthew 24:4-28, which does not include the Second Coming of Christ. When Jesus said, "It is near" He was talking about the Second Coming of Christ. The things mentioned in Matthew 24:4-28 must take place before the Second Coming of Christ, but Jesus does not say how much of a time period there will be between those things taking place and the Second Coming. Jesus was not saying that the Second Coming of Christ would occur during the lifetime of the generation that was living at the time of Jesus. Jesus was saying that the current generation would see the things that are mentioned in Matthew 24:4-28.

 

 

 

Hornet

 

But there is worse to come. `Say what you like' we shall be told, `the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, this generation shall not pass till all these things be done. And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.' It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible. …The one exhibition of error and the one confession of ignorance grow side by side. …The facts, then, are these: that Jesus professed himself (in some sense) ignorant, and within a moment showed that he really was so."

-CS Lewis "The World's Last Night"

[davidk]

"You have not offered any "proof" whatsover ... and since you appear to have missed the nuances involved, consider the following:

Your view is both androcentric and anthropomorphic and, I do not accept either perspective.:- minsocal

 

Dear minsocal,

I do know of my perspectives being unacceptable to you. However, the nuances of these terms (androcentric and anthropomorphic ) as you've applied to ones thinking that knowledge and language should be so intimate, have been missed by me.

 

My perspective is simple and agrees with (even secular) anthropologists: what is man in contrast to non-man is in the area of the verbalizer. If it is a verbalizer, it is man. We communicate propositional communications to each other in spoken or written form in language. Other things can be in our head, but it always must be linked to language.

If it is a non-verbalizer, it is non-man.

 

The proof is in what man has observed of himself for the last 200-500,000 years (in Dutch's latest estimation).

-------

 

"... I began to question the importance of an historical Jesus and improbability that the Bible is the unique and only spoken or written source of knowledge about God.

I didn't see where you responded to the keyword "development".

 

Dutch,

The historical Jesus is necessary as God's solution to man's sin, which is man's willful effort toward autonomy.

Once it is understood that only an infinite and personal God can meet the real needs of man, then the probability of knowing the Bible as God's communication to man, improves immensely.

 

In regard to the development of language- it would be foolish of me to say it didn't develop; and I think I can safely assume it contiues to develop.

As our languages develop, so can the intricacies of our knowledge. But what has the tendancy to happen is that Man, having the need for God's universal spoken truths to properly understand the innumerable nuances in life, exercises his gift of free will, waves off God's universal truths, and inevitably gets hung up arguing because of the lack of meaning to any of the minutia.

 

"I have one question.

When, in the 200,000 to 500,00 years of homo sapiens presence on the earth, did God first speak to us?"

 

God spoke man into existence.

 

 

Davidk

[glintofpewter]

David

 

God spoke man into existence.

 

Touche Biblically. But I am an ex-Sunday School teacher. I want to know what it looks like in the real world. 100,000 years ago was there one or more groups that prophetically had been led to the universal truths? Did this spiritual maturing begin and end in many places and times. Does the Bible describe the first culture to be led to the universal truths? I like Janet's statement that the Bible

 

is a beautiful attempt by man to chronicle a culture's human relationship with God as understood by the men who were inspired by God to write it down.

which speaks to the particularity of our culture. Probably many cultures concluded that loving God and loving neighbor (Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18)were one way to create group cohesiveness and peaceable personal interaction. Did any arrive at the idea of sacrificial love? Or was 33 C.E the first time?

 

inevitably gets hung up arguing because of the lack of meaning to any of the minutia.

Nah. I am working out my subconscious emotional life and procrastinating serving others. Really. And wondering about stuff that I find interesting.

 

 

Take care

Dutch

[Hornet]

Hornet,

 

I also would like to comment on your words here.

 

I personally have great difficulty seeing how that one particular writing refers to the Bible as it exists today since it was written as an epistle or "letter" from Paul admittedly in his own words and was not part of The Bible at the time. I would be interested where in them he refers to all his letters as "God breathed" since his letters comprise such a large amount of the NT text which is part of what is being considered here.

 

Surely, i would think he couldn't have been referring to his own letters as God breathed. Only once can i even find in his letters where he says "and this I say to you by the Word of God" We .......... And in my mind, that does not even refer to the Scriptures but to something he indicates God had revealed to him.

 

Just my thoughts concerning your comment to Mike here.

 

I appreciate the time you spend offering your understanding in mutual respect even though our view may be different..

Joseph

 

P.S. You have offered an explanation for the second coming in Mathew 28:4-28 and made the word "near" in my view of little account but it seems you may have not taken into account Mat 16:28. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Perhaps one must also consider that verse as it seem to agree with the word "near" reasonably meaning near. Otherwise, IMO, i would question why would God want to use that word "near" to confuse us to mean more than 2000 years?

 

edited PS JosephM

 

Hello Joseph,

 

2 Peter 3:14-16 implies that the writings of Paul are called Scripture. This passage states, "Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."

 

There are many instances where the New Testament writers quote the Old Testament and say that this is Scripture.

 

I will list the different things that could have fulfilled the prophecy of Matthew 16:28. These are the things that different people have suggested.

 

1. The Transfiguration fulfills this prophecy.

 

2. The Resurrection of Christ.

 

3. Spiritual coming at the Fall of Jerusalem.

 

4. The entire process by which Jesus receives dominion, especially His resurrection, ascension, and sending of the Spirit. These things happened during the lifetime of the disciples. The Transfiguration could be the initial event in this process witnessed by the disciples.

 

5. The manifestation of His kingly reign after His resurrection.

 

Hornet

[Hornet]

This post was deleted by Moderator.

 

 

It quoted a post #66 that the Moderator specifically asked members not to respond to above.

 

Perhaps it was an oversight but ignoring Moderators direct instructions will not be tolerated here... Inappropriate posts especially when tagged such should be ignored.

 

JosephM (as Admin)

[Mike]

I would just like to post the passage in question so everyone can see it for themselves and draw their own conclusions about it.

 

Matthew 24 NIV

15"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. 18Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. 19How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. 22If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. 25See, I have told you ahead of time.

 

26"So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. 27For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.

 

29"Immediately after the distress of those days

" 'the sun will be darkened,

and the moon will not give its light;

the stars will fall from the sky,

and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'

 

30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

 

32"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

[Hornet]

Hello Neon Genesis,

 

Did God command Moses to take seven of each animal on the ark(Genesis 7:2-3) or two of every animal(Genesis 6:19)?

 

The meaning of those verses is the following: Take reproductive pairs. Take seven pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean animals.

 

If God is all-knowing, how can God forget about Noah (Genesis 8:1)?

 

The expression that "God remembered" does not necessarily mean that He had forgotten. This is a figure of speech meaning that God acted on the basis

of His promise to save Noah.

 

If God is perfect, how can God have regrets (Genesis 6:6)?

 

The Hebrew word translated as "regrets" is "nakham." It can also mean "be grieved." This verse is saying that God was saddened. This verse does not mean that God thought that He made a mistake and wished to do something all over again.

 

If God is all-powerful, how can God lose to chariots of iron (Judges 1:19)?

 

Maybe God did not attempt to fight.

 

Hornet

[JosephM]

I personally am finished with all my questions for Hornet and have now received answers to all of them. After reading over some of the question challenges and answers posted it seems to me we might perhaps be at least in agreement on these few points.

 

#1 Since some were answered by disputing the actual translation word chosen from Hebrew/Greek versus the one actually used in translated English versions one could reasonably conclude that there are indeed translation errors and the translators were not told what to write in the English language by God which could be responsible for the appearance of errors or inconsistencies.

 

#2 Using mutual-exclusive reasoning to conclude no error or inconsistencies, is one way to offer an explanation for telling the same story by the same writer in 2 different versions.

 

#3 Obviously our use of words such as "near" in the traditional current day sense of the word is not in agreement with God's reported use of the word "near" .

 

#4 One explanation that can be used to answer seemingly inconsistent statements with others about God is that he uses "figures of speech" to communicate" rather than omitting them and speaking more directly.

 

#5 If we are inclined to make certain statements true we must assume that implying them as true without saying it directly is just as valid as true even though the word imply is synonymous with "suggest" in the English language.

 

Those are my observations from my understanding as evidenced by responses to some of the questions posed

 

Thanks again for your time and patience Hornet,

 

Joseph

[tariki]

Joseph,

 

The first point made in your last post......

 

Since some were answered by disputing the actual translation word chosen from Hebrew/Greek versus the one actually used in translated English versions one could reasonably conclude that there are indeed translation errors and the translators were not told what to write in the English language by God which could be responsible for the appearance of errors or inconsistencies.

 

........brought to my mind a point concerning a principle difference between Islam and Christianity. That for Islam the "Word" is indeed the actual words/text of the Quran, while for Christianity the "Word" is Christ. (Personally I have always thought that this gives Christianity the "edge", but no more of that as - as far as I know - there are no Muslims here to argue for themselves.)

 

For Muslims - as I understand it - it is only in the original Arabic that the Qu'ran is the infallible "Word"........

 

Arabic is the most efficient language in the world, especially when it comes to the precise statement of laws. Since the Quran is a Statute Book, it was crucial that such laws must be clearly stated. God chose Arabic for His Final Testament because of the obvious reason that it is the most suitable language for that purpose. Arabic is unique in its efficiency and accuracy. For example, the word "they" in English does not tell you if "they" are males or females. In Arabic there is a "they" for the males, "HUM," and a "they" for the females, "HUNNA." There is even a "they" for two males, "HUMAA," and a "they" for two females, "HAATAAN." This feature does not exist in any other language in the world.

 

.......all translations falling short, yet.........

 

Since the Quran is God's message to all the people, regardless of their language, the Quran is accessible to the believers, regardless of their language (41:44). This explains a profound phenomenon: the believers who do not know Arabic know the Quran better than the Arabic speaking unbelievers. Because of the invisible forces serving the Quran, it is readily and enjoyably accessible to the sincere believers, and utterly inaccessible to the unbelievers (17:45, 18:57, 56:79).

 

Anyway, without entering into debate, I find what has been quoted here is worthy of reflection, whatever our position regarding the thread.

[JosephM]

Joseph,

 

The first point made in your last post......

 

Since some were answered by disputing the actual translation word chosen from Hebrew/Greek versus the one actually used in translated English versions one could reasonably conclude that there are indeed translation errors and the translators were not told what to write in the English language by God which could be responsible for the appearance of errors or inconsistencies.

 

........brought to my mind a point concerning a principle difference between Islam and Christianity. That for Islam the "Word" is indeed the actual words/text of the Quran, while for Christianity the "Word" is Christ. (Personally I have always thought that this gives Christianity the "edge", but no more of that as - as far as I know - there are no Muslims here to argue for themselves.)

 

Derek,

 

Yes i share that understanding with you concerning the "Word". Others may not. Interesting points about the Arabic language you made. I am not at all familiar with it.

 

My only point in my first point is that even those who responded to the questions and think that the Bible is God's Word , which is not my understanding, have agreed, IMO, that there are translation errors by their own response.

 

One tiny step for man, one giant step for mankind.

 

Peace,

Joseph