Please Focus on the Bible (page 3)

terrypike

Hi Half Bananna, thanks for the compliment yes I did want to help people better understand the Bible, if you want logical varifiable proof apply the standard test as is used in science to test a theory or as the Bible puts it long ago 'if it shall come to pass' that is what science does isn't it? but before testing a theory you do need to understand the properties of what it is you are testing don't you?

I set the ground work for such a test with my first post but no one has shown any interest in following it up and I respect the right of anyone not to believe the Bible if they so choose so I am not going to continue to try and reason with anyone further here, the evidence is there for anyone who really wants to look for it so I will leave you with just one clue:

I explain simply for clarity:The book of Revelation begins by saying God gave the Revelation of Jesus Christ to be shown to the angel who showed it to the prophet John, and John then wrote the book for us. John wrote using key points in the history of his people as a symbolic message which, only when the whole Bible is read fully can be understood in its prophetic application. the pattern of the symbolism has numeric labels which have been misread by repeated misuse of the day year method, as you probably know William Miller 1844, Charles Russel 1875,1925, and 1975 are some of the most extreme examples of this.

It has taken me many years to grasp this and I now know enough to convince me as I see the events coming to pass, I respect your choice not to believe and as far as Darwin's theory is concerned I fully accept it as it apply's to biological evolution and in that respect the Bibles account of the creation of the living soul will not be of interest to you.

regards Terry

cofty

I respect the right of anyone not to believe the Bible if they so choose

It is foolish to "choose" your beliefs.

Follow the evidence wherever it leads. Your beliefs will take care of themselves.

HowTheBibleWasCreated

This concept is sound in that the bible is part of western civilization and yes every high school should teach it as...literature along with shakespeare, Homer etc.

That being said this is NOT a book with any credability.. the most accurate book in the bible is 2 Kings and even that is only 10% reliable...

Village Idiot

@ terrypike:

"...Othodox Muslims respectfully keep old worn out scripts often laid to rest in the roof space, there were tens of thousands of fragments from about a thousand different Koran, some of those fragment showed distinct differences from the standard text of the Koran.

"These were examined in 1981 and since then it has been found that they were sheets of scripture written in the early hijazi text which made them peaces of the earliest Korans known to exist, the full article is several pages long by Tony Lester called What is the Koran?"

And what is the Bible? It too has mutated with books having extra chapters in older texts like the Septuagint.

HowTheBibleWasCreated

Village Idiot I'm glad you brought the LXX up... yes it is a shocking read in 1 King of the Septuagint to find that Jeroboam the son of Nebat was Egyptian...:p

Or even more that the earliest Septuagints never had any book other then Dueteronomy...*gasp*

Village Idiot

HowTheBibleWasCreated, there is the book of Esther which had several chapters more than the texts we now use. What are we supposed to believe? Were we missing some of God's inspired scriptures for centuries?

Finkelstein

Terry you do realize that the book of Revelation was written 50 to 60 years after the supposed death of Jesus, most likely a continuation of past mythological beliefs and probably plagiarized from out the Hebrew theological beliefs of a coming Messianic age .

terrypike

Hi Village idiot, thank you for making the point I have been trying to make, that said the question still remains what was the original as it was in the beginning before theologians usually with best intentions added there own input? and Frankelstien yes the book of Revelation was written after Jesus death and for beleaver's that would also be after he rose from the dead and the day of Pentecost when his holy spirit baptized all those gathered, it works for me and that is where we must agree to differ. I take into account the full evidence of the Bibles own record and even in its present form that by itself is enough to expose theological errors and everyone has that same option to keep looking for the the gold or to keep looking at the spoil that has no value.

Thanks again to everyone who has commented

Terry

Perry

The Ancient Church Fathers who were the disciples of the apostles, wrote A LOT. From their own writings you can precisely document that the same doctrine was faithfully transmitted to their descendants in the first few centuries. You can also learn where, when, and by whom, that heresies were introduced and how the disciples of the apostles reacted to them. The ancient church fathers make it very easy to know for sure what the complete teachings of Jesus were as well as the consensus on canonical books & letters.

I recommend the following book on the subject:

Viviane

From their own writings you can precisely document that the same doctrine was faithfully transmitted to their descendants in the first few centuries.

Those disciples argued over what was and was not heresy and, much of what they originally believed would later come to be heresy. Pretending that the early Christians were unified under an umbrella of singular beliefs is fantasy of the highest order.

Even today, with original documents, message changing happens, every day all the time.

Please Focus on the Bible

Share this