The biggest problem the Bible faces is that most people say it is the ONLY Word of God. However, many groups of MEN have been able to decide what is put in the Bible and what is left out.
Wouldn't it be great if God actually did have a backup plan and left more scripture to support the Bible and clarify some of the often misunderstood doctorines?
In other words, if you hear from one person that your favorite band is coming to town next week, what is your first instinct? You say, "really?". Then you proceed to find someone else, a news article or visit the bands website to confirm what you heard, RIGHT?
God has given other texts of scripture that do not go against the Bible, but instead, help clarify the Bible. If people would just understand this and study both, alot of these arguments would not occur.
r, the problem then is, "which texts are those?" God's Word was not chosen by men, but inspired by God and demonstrated so by various means such as the prophecies, miracles, etc. (So for example we could know Paul was one of the inspired writers by the miracles he worked, but heretical "gospels" have no such qualifications).
We can indeed hear out others' reasoning as to what they believe it means and why, but should always take those with salt and not assume they are "the word of God".
The Bible does allude to extrabiblical writings in places (though most have been lost now), as places to go for further information (like the records of the kings), or apparently as semi-inspired (like Kheanokhe/Enoch, cited in Yehuda/Jude). But they are not infallible (for example, the Book of Enoch contains many details that are very questionable; IMO this is meant only to say that the cited part was correct).
Of course, as with anything the question is always, "is the reasoning sound?"
Well, interestingly enough, there is another text of scripture that does still exist today and in fact can be found in increasing numbers around the world. As the Bible says, there is a stick of Judah and a stick of Joseph (stick meaning book). Well it is well known that the Bible is the stick of Judah and written by those appointed by God in that region of the world. Well, where is the stick of Joseph? There was a colonization in the Americas after the people were scattered at the time of the tower of Babel. Those people did not have communication with the Old World, so God also appointed just men in that region of the world to keep records and write down prophesies. This text of scripture does not contradict anything found in the King James Version of the Bible, in fact if you put the two texts together, you get a better understanding of God's Doctrine or "word". It helps clear up the confusion surrounding some aspects of the gospel.
Oct. 8, 2013 at 1:13pm
Re the flood...
Keep in mind that this tale would make sense to the early Hebrew who apparently believed there was an oceanic reservoir in the sky (Genesis 1:6-7). If a mysterious canopy of water existed above the earth at one time, as some Christians have offered as an explanation for the origin of the water, the mass of liquid would raise the atmospheric pressure enough to cause a dramatic increase of oxygen and nitrogen to toxic levels. Such a canopy would also extend beyond the ozone layer, a problem concluding with the denaturation of water molecules by high levels of ultraviolet light. If you subtract the requisite of covering the world’s highest mountains, of which we have no reason to believe the story’s inventors were aware, most of these problems would conveniently disappear. As it stands, however, the necessary water requirement is too extraordinary for covering the earth’s surface by fifteen cubits. Thus, the goal of covering every mountain with only forty days’ worth of precipitation would require a rainfall of six inches per minute..or put another way, there ain't that much water on the Earth in liquid, solid or gaseous state. However, the author(s) didn't know that and were telling a tale based on a oral story they were told and wrote down.
Well, I hope you would understand my skepticism toward those claims? Especially associating it with Yoseyf... You're talking about "native Americans", right? But Yoseyf came much later after the Babel split.
I certainly believe that there were inspired clues in many early cultures (like the Chinese symbols that match Genesis details) that could point the way to the biblical truth, but these should not be taken as infallible. Yehuda's statement about Kheanokhe does seem to agree that there could be accurate (God-given) prophecies beyond those recorded in the Bible, though.
In any event, I'd just be very cautious about going to such sources. Most supposed confusion in the Bible can be cleared up by reading the entire Bible itself carefully for the wider context; my caution is mainly that you should make sure you exhaust this first before resorting to extrabiblical sources, lest you take an extrabiblical claim as more authoritative than something you might have missed in God's actual Word itself. Make sense? :)
The biggest problem the Bible faces is that most people say it is the ONLY Word of God. However, many groups of MEN have been able to decide what is put in the Bible and what is left out
..truer words were never spoken...the Bible,to some,is a all or nothing proposition. If you question a man living in a whale for 3 days as being not possible and therefore perhaps not quite accurate...you are of the evil one. If you read the New Testament with the understand that the author(s), whoever they were, were sure Jesus was coming back any day...so much is more easily understood. Why value anything earthly, it's all over next Thursday. Rev. and the Roman slaughter of Christians and Nero, 666 in Hebrew, going the rise from the dead and persecute again...it makes a lot of sense. Or your Joseph Smith and you have your own revelations and a few million follow you. Man writing about God is perhaps the greatest futile attempt man has taken. That "some" of it comes across as foolish at best offends some. It doesn't change God. Every human born has a right and wrong knowledge and that there is "something" greater out there...or not.
"early Hebrew who apparently believed there was an oceanic reservoir in the sky (Genesis 1:6-7)."
This is an argument from silence; it does not say that the "waters above" remained as water, and Peter says: " the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God" (2 Peter 3:5b). Russel Humphreys based a theory on the magnetic fields of other planets on the idea that this means that the heavenly bodies were made out of water (thus no longer water) too and it has proven correct many times:
Some early Hebrews might have thought it meant that, but it's just as possible they fully understood that the "windows of the heavens" referred to rainclouds, etc. Some verses seem to say that there are some waters still in water form, but if so, these are high above the most distant stars and would not have anything to do with the Flood. It's possible he told Moses/Noah/sons of Noah/whoever did write that part how it worked and they described it how their readers could understand the key points (that all land dwellers were wiped out, that it was global, etc.).
In any case, God inspired the account of the Flood, so would not have been confused about how it worked! It really is irrelevant what the authors or early readers thought it meant; the question is whether what is described is true, and this is clearly so when you look into it enough.
"canopy of water... some Christians have offered..."
Mainstream creationists today do not hold to this early hypothesis; see:
Find: "canopy" (both pages)
And here more specifically about the currently preferred explanation (runaway tectonic subduction):
"As it stands, however, the necessary water requirement is too extraordinary for covering the earth’s surface by fifteen cubits."
Not at all. If runaway subduction of the oceanic plates did occur, new hot forming plates would "float" higher on the mantle, pushing the seawater up. Later as the new oceanic plates cooled they would lower, allowing the water to flow off.
There is evidence for this subduction in that a large area of cooler mantle rock has been detected that should have entirely melted if this had only occurred slowly over millions of years.
Plus the rapid tectonic activity means the high mountains of today only formed later in the Flood and post-Flood times. (Also evidenced by multi-layer soft folding, fossil-bearing layers atop mountains, etc.)
This text of which I speak began about 600 years BC (around the time that Jerusalem was to be destroyed) and does speak of a family that was inspired by God to leave Jerusalem and set sail in the sea. They eventually ended up in the Americas and speak of the discovery of Native Americans that had been in the Americas from the time of the Tower of Babel (sorry, I did not mean that the texts began at the time of Babel).
I would caution you to not be to complacent on just reading the Bible as it can be interpreted many ways (why else are there so many different religions that share their belief in the same Bible?)
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all wrote about Christ. Why all 4 and not just one? Because, by reading all 4 accounts, you can better understand the whole picture (ie Two speak about something that the other two left out, or all four of them give the same account from a different perspective, that lends to believing more that it really did occur).
Jesus changed everything, the story of the prostitute that was caught in the act of adultery ( it was a set up), then they were gonna stone her and Jesus says " let those without sin cast the first stone" and they all left, well, the law at that time says she should have been stoned, but Jesus came to be the law, the new covenent, of forgiveness, and salvation. so no, stoning is out.
"Bible as it can be interpreted many ways (why else are there so many different religions that share their belief in the same Bible?)"
Actually the rules of language constrain its meaning. Different interpretations that ignore key parts can arise without the Bible itself being problematic (but the faulty interpretations being to blame), and any writing would share those problems. Besides, once you look to extrabiblical sources you're going to find actual contradictions between different such sources. So again, we need to start with the Bible, and where mysteries remain, extrabiblical sources can provide at least possibilities to consider.
Actually most of the problems between different "religions" plus denominations that share the Bible DO come from appealing to extrabiblical sources. If we would all unite on just the Bible, and just the hermeneutically accurate interpretations of that (with appropriate uncertainty when we haven't yet each done enough studies of that to be sure), most of those issues would disappear. :)
Sorry, but I have to disagree. Many different religions use solely the Bible and still disagree with the interpretation. So which interpretation is right? (The Catholics? The Church of Christ? Bob's Bible Church?) Who is using the proper rules of language to accurately interpret the Bible's meaning? It cannot stand alone! It must have something to back it up, not contradict or take away, but to confirm and clarify. I know it is hard to understand, since many have been raised to follow what their parents said is right because their parents said it was right.
"Many different religions use solely the Bible and still disagree with the interpretation. So which interpretation is right? (The Catholics?"
Er, Catholicism is certainly not a good example of using solely the Bible. But disagreeing alone does not prove anything -- we can hear out those disagreements and see which arguments are sound and which are not. That is how we discern which is right.
As for who is using the rules of language right, again it comes down to what understandings are sound; based on demonstrably true premises and valid reasoning. Those that understand the languages the best, and English to translate if that's the subject in question in a particular case for example, and understand the most context etc. will translate the best. For the most part this is not that hard, and when disputes arise further research can clarify it generally.
We are agreed that all of this involves something or another beyond the Bible (like knowing the language of Hebrew for example), but this doesn't justify elevating extrabiblical sources to the same level as Scripture itself, nor being cavalier about what you take as certain in other sources. That's all I'm saying. :)
Incidentally, there's been a major push for Bible-only lately, and we ARE seeing growing widespread agreement resulting from this, as church summary-doctrines are being de-emphasized. It works.
My favorite bible story is the one about Jacob somehow changing the dna of spotted sheep by having them watch the plain sheep while mating. I also like the one about convening the Council of Nicea to vote about whether Jesus was the son of god. That last one is more of a making of special feature tho.
I totally agree that you cannot rely on resources created by man to try and understand the Bible. That would be like asking a Republican to explain what that Democrat just said. You'll never get the full truth. So I suggest using another set of books of prophets that have been compiled just like the Bible. It exists, but don't just take my word for it, read it yourself. The Book of Mormon. There is nothing in it that contradicts the Bible and in fact gives another account of Gods gospel just as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote about the same things to show their veracity.
IMPORTANT: you can't make a judgement on the book by what anyone else (even me) has said about the Book of Mormon until after you have read and studied it yourself. Otherwise you are living by the faith of others and show that you lack your own.
October 8, 2013 at 9:22am
If you are going to talk bible, you must focus on the new testament. Jesus trumps the old Jewish laws. But never mind that, just pick and choose without context like the atheist do.
You do not understand the NT without the context of the OT.
[ The Fulfillment of the Law ] “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Jesus did not come to do away with the laws. God knew that we were not capable of fulfilling them on our own. At no point are we told to ignore the laws. We simply cannot comply with them.
the new testament is not new just true from the context of the old testament, if you look carefully you will see much new testament teaching is really old testament
Jesus did not trump the law, he obeyed it perfectly. The law is what taught us what "Good" means. It is not the fault of the law that we could not obey it. When taken in context, the message of Christ is the message of the law. Jesus's perfect life fulfilled the requirements of the law. His sacrifice and resurrection did not remove the law, it simply satisfied the requirements of the law for every one who places their faith in him.
Because Jesus fulfilled our requirements, we are no longer held to account by the law. We are free to follow Jesus. But, it is still the law that teaches us what "Good" is. It's not the punishments for breaking the law (which we tend to pay the most attention to) that are important - it's the blessings we receive for following it.
I'm pretty sure he stopped the stoning thing with the speck and rod from your eye and let the man without sin cast the first stone.
I understand the bible quite well.
I love it when Christians only talk about the new Testament and ignore the old Testament.
I'm sorry, but isn't this the same God? The one who sent a flood to kill everyone(including newborn babies) except Noah and his family?
The only difference between the OT and the NT is instead of requiring animal sacrifices he now requires human sacrifices.
Thanks for the quote. May the te stoning begin
One thing about radical Islam is they read it and mean it.
These Christians have many of the same rules but then get flimsy with the we don't hate you just the sin. What ever. You hate me just be honest i really don't care as long as you co time to be hypocrites and not follow the teaching if your precious scientific journal. Slash sex manual. Slash penal code. Slash relationship guide. Slash food storage manual slash guide on Slave beating book you call the bible
October 7, 2013 at 9:17am
I knew when I first saw this story on another site that it was a white person who was killed. That’s the only way that a story on a “hate crime” wouldn’t mention race. Had it been a black guy killed the headline would have been “EVIL WHITES KILL BLACK HERO”
September 30, 2013 at 11:09am
Maybe if this happened more often, people might think twice about stealing.
Thanks for the chuckle, Dimmu...they are far and few nowadays.
Lol......So True.....There are no MEN on Braodway....and thats a Fact Jack.
Another Gun Free Zone that the bad Guys did not care about......Yet another.
Thanks Obama for the Sitting Ducks you made US........
September 16, 2013 at 4:25pm
I know I would be :)
September 13, 2013 at 3:57pm
voice is just a *** who won’t go away
September 12, 2013 at 12:47pm
yeah you gotta rebuke people who lie about scripture.
September 12, 2013 at 12:31pm
Even the levites had wives and God appointed them
September 12, 2013 at 9:37am
No, not nationality. But you can’t deny that middle-eastern regions are the highest concentration of the *******.
September 11, 2013 at 12:37pm
If you can’t stick to your religion then you need you re-consider what you believe.
Christianity would have been gone long ago if people worried about being bullied about it.
September 10, 2013 at 2:03pm
I just thought if you were going to make fun Ron Paul’s interest in education, you should use the right word.