Posts by aChristian

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

23 years ago

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

23 years ago

aChristian 23 years ago

Joseph wrote: Why would anyone care whether the soil of the land of Noah was never again to be flooded? ... Who would care about the land more than the people?

I don't see that Faithful used the word "soil." As I have said here before, local flood advocates believe that the words "the land" in the Genesis flood account refer to "the land" that was then inhabited by Noah and his family. Here and elsewhere in the scriptures the words "the land" refer to more than a plot of ground. When we today refer to "the land of Egypt" are we speaking only of the soil of Egypt, or are we also referring to all the animals and people who live on that soil? We are, of course, referring to the soil, animals and people of the land of Egypt. The same was true when God promised Noah that a flood would never again destroy the land he then lived in. Yes, God was then referring to the soil which the flood had just covered. But He was also referring to Noah's descendants who would live on that soil and become part of that "land" for thousands of years to come.

Joseph, who seems to think the Bible only uses the words "the land" to describe a plot of soil, and who has also shown that he knows how to use a concordance, might try using one to look up the word "land." If he does he will find that Genesis most often uses this word in the way I have just described. For instance, Genesis 12:10 tells us that "There was a famine in the land." Now, there could not be a famine in the soil. Unless this verse is telling us about a bunch of hungy ants, beetles and worms. So in using the words "the land" in this passage of scripture, and many others Joseph can find in his concordance, it is clear that the writer of Genesis often used those words to refer to a specific geographical area, together with the people who inhabited it.

So when God promised that a flood would never again destroy "the land" which a flood had just destroyed, He was referring to far more than a plot of ground. He was referring to a community of people who would in future years inhabit that ground, many of whom would be Noah's descendants.

Link

34

The Bible is a Deck of Cards

by IslandWoman in

23 years ago

there are a variety of playing cards and a variety of games to play with them.. the bible's canon was selected with as much care and selfish intent as the makers of playing cards have when choosing their particular design or theme.. the "hebrew" canon was decided by a nation comdemned by jesus.

they picked the design.. the "christian greek" canon was decided by men who had left the teachings of the christ.

they also picked the design.. the whole thing is a sad joke.

23 years ago

aChristian 23 years ago

LG,

I hope you didn't write all that for me. I hardly read any of it. I doubt anyone else did either, at least not anyone who knows you are totally insane. See a Doctor.

Link

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

23 years ago

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

23 years ago

aChristian 23 years ago

Gweedo,

I will not object to your nonbelief. Besides you made it plain that you would refuse to believe even if you were standing in Thomas' shoes. (Make that sandals.) So there is obviously nothing I am going to be able to say to change your mind. I will however respond to a couple other issues you raised.

You wrote: It was so nice of God to at least leave us his rainbow though...

You are obviously poking fun at the fundy teaching that the flood account teaches that rainbows were first seen in earth's skies at the time of God's covenant with Noah following the flood. Of course the Bible does not say this. It only says that God used a rainbow as a sign of His covenant with Noah. When the writer of Genesis told us that God did so, he in no way implied that God then created rainbows. For a person who is familiar with the scriptures knows that God always used previously existing things to serve as signs of his covenants with men.

One example that comes to mind is circumcision. In Gen. 17:10-14 God told Abraham that from then on circumcision would act as a sign of the covenant He had just made with Abraham. Historians tell us that circumcision is a custom that existed long before Abraham. God also said that the Sabbath was to serve as a "sign" of His "covenant" with the new nation of Israel. (Ex. 31:16,17) And regular days of rest had been observed by many groups of people before the Jews began observing their Sabbath. Jesus used a simple cup of wine as a sign of "the new covenant" he made with his followers. Cups of wine were certainly not new at the time. (Luke 22:20) The Romans used the cross for executions before they put Christ to death on one. This does not in any way diminish the cross as a sign for Christians. Neither did the rainbow's preexistence in any way diminish it as a sign for Noah.

You wrote: [God] made sure he got all those contradictions in there, didn't he. One author says this, another that. An omnipotent being that cant even get his story straight. How believable is that.

For about 15 years after leaving the JWs I was an agnostic. During that time and since becoming a Christian I have examined more alleged Bible contradictions than you can shake a stick at. I have never run across one that turned out to be a real contradiction. However, this is not an invitation to challenge me to explain why some alleged Bible contradiction is not really a contradiction. I have played that game before with Bible critics. It can be never ending. So there is often little point in starting it, especially if the person presenting the alleged contradictions has already decided that he will never believe in God even if the risen Christ stands before him and allows him to put his hand into the holes in His hands and in His side.

Joseph,

Faithful gave you a perfectly good answer to your question. I have nothing to add to it.

Link

34

The Bible is a Deck of Cards

by IslandWoman in

23 years ago

there are a variety of playing cards and a variety of games to play with them.. the bible's canon was selected with as much care and selfish intent as the makers of playing cards have when choosing their particular design or theme.. the "hebrew" canon was decided by a nation comdemned by jesus.

they picked the design.. the "christian greek" canon was decided by men who had left the teachings of the christ.

they also picked the design.. the whole thing is a sad joke.

23 years ago

aChristian 23 years ago

Funky,

You wrote: If an unbeliever proves definitively that something you believe cannot possibly be true, you tell them that it's their "heart condition" that's wrong.

To what things are you referring? Maybe the virgin birth of Christ? His walking on water? His turning water into wine? His restoring sight to the blind and life to the dead? His own resurrection?

How could you ever prove definitively that these things did not take place? The only way you could do that is to prove that God does not exist. For "With God all things are possible." (Matt. 19:26)

You wrote: Unless [God] uses his superpowers to physically subdue me, I would never bow to him. I would rather spend every day of my eternity in hell cursing his existence.

Does that mean I should scratch you off my "Hot Prospects For Conversion" list? : )

Link

34

The Bible is a Deck of Cards

by IslandWoman in

23 years ago

there are a variety of playing cards and a variety of games to play with them.. the bible's canon was selected with as much care and selfish intent as the makers of playing cards have when choosing their particular design or theme.. the "hebrew" canon was decided by a nation comdemned by jesus.

they picked the design.. the "christian greek" canon was decided by men who had left the teachings of the christ.

they also picked the design.. the whole thing is a sad joke.

23 years ago

aChristian 23 years ago

IW,

I think you are wrong about the Bible. I have carefully considered everything its critics have said against it, and continue to believe it is the word of God. I'd be glad to discuss this topic in greater depth by E mail.

By the way, I no longer post on Channel C. The person who runs that board was quite nasty to me a couple of times for, as she saw it, promoting my "personal beliefs." In other words disagreeing with her a couple of times. So I said "goodbye." I doubt you would have lasted very long there. : )

Mike

Link

34

The Bible is a Deck of Cards

by IslandWoman in

23 years ago

there are a variety of playing cards and a variety of games to play with them.. the bible's canon was selected with as much care and selfish intent as the makers of playing cards have when choosing their particular design or theme.. the "hebrew" canon was decided by a nation comdemned by jesus.

they picked the design.. the "christian greek" canon was decided by men who had left the teachings of the christ.

they also picked the design.. the whole thing is a sad joke.

23 years ago

aChristian 23 years ago

LG,

Simply because the writers of the New Testament did not quote from some of the Old Testament's books does not prove they are not inspired and do not belong in the Bible cannon. Do you know of any New Testament writer who quoted from Revelation? Of course not. Does that prove it does not belong in the Bible cannon?

Your statement that "Esther is in historical conflict with EZRA/NEHEMIAH" is only your own nutty opinion. You say this because to believe otherwise would invalidate your wacky understandings of Bible chronology which you say prove that you became Jesus Christ in 1992. You try to invalidate the chronological information contained in Esther which conflicts with your nutty interpretations of Bible history by pointing out that Esther is not quoted in the New Testament. Of course this means you must also throw out Ecclesiastes and The Song of Solomon,which you then do.

You are not Jesus Christ. You are mentally ill. See a Doctor.

Link

34

The Bible is a Deck of Cards

by IslandWoman in

23 years ago

there are a variety of playing cards and a variety of games to play with them.. the bible's canon was selected with as much care and selfish intent as the makers of playing cards have when choosing their particular design or theme.. the "hebrew" canon was decided by a nation comdemned by jesus.

they picked the design.. the "christian greek" canon was decided by men who had left the teachings of the christ.

they also picked the design.. the whole thing is a sad joke.

23 years ago

aChristian 23 years ago

Funky,

You asked: Wouldn't it be fairer if he made his existence and intentions crystal clear so that those who "wish to reject Him" can make an informed choice?

I don't think so. An "informed choice" is a decision a person makes in his or her head. However, the Bible tells us that God will judge what is in our hearts. I believe it is because of this that God now provides us with enough evidence of His existence to create faith in all who truly wish to serve Him, but not with so much evidence that even those who do not wish to serve Him would now be compelled to do so.

The Bible tells us that God will one day present so much evidence of both "His existence and intentions" that they will both then be "crystal clear" to everyone. So "crytal clear" that even those who now wish to reject Him will then bow their knees to Him. The Bible calls that day "Judgment Day."

Link

34

The Bible is a Deck of Cards

by IslandWoman in

23 years ago

there are a variety of playing cards and a variety of games to play with them.. the bible's canon was selected with as much care and selfish intent as the makers of playing cards have when choosing their particular design or theme.. the "hebrew" canon was decided by a nation comdemned by jesus.

they picked the design.. the "christian greek" canon was decided by men who had left the teachings of the christ.

they also picked the design.. the whole thing is a sad joke.

23 years ago

aChristian 23 years ago

Yes, what you have pointed out makes the number of books in the Bible "even more remarkable." For it appears that, even in this small matter pertaining to His word, God has as usual revealed the truth of things to those who are willing to see it and also presented things in a way in which His critics can find fault. By God frequently presenting things in this way He gives all people who are truly searching for Him the oportunity to find Him, while also giving all people who wish to reject Him the opportunity to do so.

Some see the Bible as being a "perfect and righteous" 70 books, since Psalms was originally written as five "books" and remains so divided in all Bibles today. While others, on the other hand, see it as an "imperfect and evil" 66 books, by counting the five books of Psalms as one book.

As you say, "Even more remarkable."

Link

66

Arrested for going kingdumb and dumber hall!

by D wiltshire in

23 years ago

arrested for going kingdumb hall!.

last night (3/21) the mountain view (ca) police arrested me.. this happened as i was attending the sunnyvale congregation service meeting.. i was dfd last july and was told by the elders the conditions for reinstatement were meeting attendance, repentance along with not speaking to anyone or anyone speaking to me (shunning at its finest).

(btw, i was dfd for apostasy).

17 years ago

aChristian 23 years ago

Dave,

You should have told that "very heavy" elder about your new diet. It sounds like he could use it. : ) So, were you actually thrown in the pokey until someone bailed you out, or were you just escorted off the KH property? What apostate literature were you reading at the meeting?

Link

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

23 years ago

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

23 years ago

aChristian 23 years ago

Faithful,

I believe your answer is the correct one to Joseph's question. God promised Noah and his descendants that He would never destroy all life in their land again by means of a flood. Bible chronology and recent tree ring studies both date Noah's flood to 2350 BC. Scientists now say that it is possible that a very large flood may have destroyed all of Mesopotamia at that time. They also tell us that no such flood has destroyed Mesopotamia since that time. God has kept His promise. For since the time of Noah's flood no flood has ever destroyed "all" life in Mesopotamia or even "much" of the life in Mesopotamia.

Gweedo,

No one who believes that the Bible describes a local flood has ever suggested that the Hebrew word for "never" does not mean "never." When I have pointed out that the Hebrew words for "every," for "mountains" and for "earth" sometimes had smaller meanings such as "many," "hills" and "land," I have done so with the support of Hebrew lexicons and by referring to other passages of the Old Testament.

I think you greatly overstate the importance of these things. You say if these things are true, and if the languages which the Bible was written in are not always able to be easily and perfectly translated into English, then God should have inspired all Bible translators to make sure nothing was ever lost in translation. You say that if He did not do so then we cannot trust the Bible.

I think you have missed my point. I maintain that nothing of any importance has been lost in these few possible mistranslations of a minor nature. None of the important lessons God wanted to convey to us, by havings the story of Noah's flood recorded in the Bible, have been lost.

Those lessons are these: God destroyed an ancient world because of its unrighteousness. Before doing so He sent the people of that world a preacher of righteousness to warn them of their coming destruction if they did not repent. God had this preacher of righteousness create a way for all who then chose to live righteous lives to escape destruction. God intends to bring a similar Judgment upon our world in the future. Before doing so He sent us a preacher of righteousness to warn us of our coming destruction if we do not repent. This preacher of righteousness, named Jesus Christ, also created a way for all who now choose to live righteous lives to escape this coming destruction.

I believe you know "the way" I am referring to. The New Testament tells us that Jesus Christ died to pay the penalty for all of our sins. It also tells us that all who believe in their hearts that He did so, and that God raised Him up from the dead, will be saved.

I do not believe God has "inspired" Bible translators. However, I do believe that He has made sure that nothing of importance to our salvation, or to living our everyday lives as Christians, has been lost in the preservation and translation of the Bible.

Link