Posts by RWC

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

RWC

Abaddon and others,

How can you assume that simply because the number of people in India who have converted to Christianity in India is small that it is the fault of the missionaries ( or the God that sent them) or some inability of the people to believe? Just because the message is not believed doesn't mean the message is not correct. There is no doubt that conducting missionary work in India is difficult but why is God being unfair if people go there in his name and only have limited sucess? Is it the fault of God or the unwillingness of the people to believe?

I disagree with the notion that other contemporary historians did not mention Jesus. Josephus did mention Jesus as did Tactius. The fact that they did not mention the details of his miracles is not evidence that they did not occur. Josephus was a Jewish historian and Tactius was a Roman historian. What makes you think they would ever write more than a passing mention of Jesus. In fact when he is mentioned it is in negative contexts which is consistent with their point of view.

The idea that Jesus was a mythical man that did not exist is unfounded. First, the Gospel writers gave specifc facts of when he was born, what he did and where and the people who were involved in his death. They wrote at a time when these facts could have easily been verified or denied. The movement would have never taken off as it did if the writings were considered at the time to be exaggerations or outright lies. This is not the same with other mythical beings such as Hercales and others whose births, deeds and deaths were in some far distant past without any details.

Any comparison to Hercales ( I am assuming you are referring to the Greek Hercales who later became Hercules in Rome) is a distorion of the Hercales story at best. Just as an example, Hercales was not born of a virgin, he was born from an affair between Zeus and a mortal woman. This angered Zeus' wife who than persecuted Hercales to the point that he went insane and killed his wife and children. When Hercales died he went to live on Mt. Olympus. There is no relation to this story and that of Jesus.

The idea that Jim Jones and the others died for what they believed to be true is not the same thing as the apostles dying for what you are contemplating is something they knowingly made up. In other words your argument is that these men intentionally played a hoax on everyone and wrote things that they knew were untrue to support it and than died for what they knew was a lie. Paul was broke, homeless, beaten numerous times, he was shipwrecked four times, stoned almost to the point of death and ultimately died for his faith. This was all after he was living a comfortable living as a tentmaker and a Jewish official. Unless you can prove he was insane than why would he make something up and continue with it if he knew it was really the story of Hercales? Also, unlike all of the people that were mentioned he none of this for his personal gain or benefit. The same is true for Peter and the others. Matthew was a tax collector who was apparently wealthy and had no reason to give that up on a made up lie.

Also, before you tie the attributes of Jesus as described in the Gospels to other myths, you must have evidence that these attributes existed in these mythical beings before the Gospels were written. Otherwise it is more reasonable to assume that these attributes were added to these mythical creatures in response to Jesus and the growth of Christianity, not the other way around.

Finally, the account of the Council of Nicea is incorrect. The council of Nicea was called to debate the question of whether Jesus was God or was he a created being. It was not called to close the canon on the Bible. Additionally, the books of the bible that were ultimately canonnized had to go through a close examination before they were considered inspired and thus part of the canon. The first test was whether the apostles who knew Jesus agreed with them as being accurate. Secondly, these were the books that the early churches had been using for sometime before they were cannonized, thus they were already accepted by the church where others had not been. To say that at the Council of Nicea that a group of bishops sat down and decided what would be in the Bible is simply not historically accurate.

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

RWC

What type of Christanity? Read the conversion of Paul in Acts 8 and 9. He confirms this account in some of his writings (Gal. 1:15, 1 Cor. 15:8, Phil. 3:12). He says that he saw and heard the Lord at the time of his conversion. He than went and stayed with the apostles and started preaching that the Lord was the Son of God. He did this after he had persecuted them under the name of Saul.

As for the Gnostic writings it is well established that they were written after the writings of Paul and the Gospels and that they incorporated the believes of other communities. These writings did not claim that Jesus did not exist.

The canon that we have now was based on a number of factors. One of which was that the writings and teachings in the selected books were used by the early churches, were recognized by the apostles as being accurate, were consistent with each other, appeared to avoid outside influence among others. The books that did not make it did not stand up to this analysis.

The question that says suppose the Gospels were written to make it look as if the prophecies were fulfilled and there " is no proof they were not" is turning the burden of proof around. The gospels are accounts of men who witnessed Jesus' teaching and living. They are accounts of witnesses to his resurrection. They were turning Jewish society and thousands of years of religion on its ear. The Messiah they were promoting was not what the Jewish people were looking for. He did not advocate war against Rome, nor did he deliver them from Roman control. They told the story of women being the first to see the empty tomb when at the time women were not deemed credible and could not even testify in court. They died for what they wrote to be the truth. They did not die for what they knew to be a made up lie. They preached about it days after it happened at a time when it clearly could have been debunked from the start. None of that happened. There is no real evidence that what they wrote was not what they knew to be the truth and alot of reasons and evidence to the contrary.

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

RWC

Joseph,

Your explanation for the Gospels is entirely incorrect. First, the two passages that you cite from Samuel and Mark are entirely different. They relate to each other in no way.

Second, Christanity was being preached by Peter , Paul and the apostles before the Gospels were written. The Gospels are not the bases for the beginning of Christanity, the church was started before.

If Jesus was not a real person Peter and Paul and the others would have never been believed to begin with. They went to their death preaching about him as the Son of God. Would they have done that if they knew it was all made up and was a lie?

Finally, Jewish historian Josephus does mention Jesus in his history.

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

RWC

REM,

My comment about the lucky sperm club was in jest. I fully realize that one out of millions was the one that got me started, but what I was inferring was that life is more than an accident. Conception maybe but life is what we make of it.

As was my comment about answering questions in the hereafter. I am not basing my faith on hedging my bets.

Your questions about eyewtinesses is not based upon a proper premise for ancient historians. You cannot compare modern methods of recording history to the methods used in the ancient world and than say if you don't have it say there is no proof.To answer your question about eyewitnesses, see Acts 2:32. Luke, in A.D. 61 records that days after Jesus was raised Peter stood before a crowd and told them that he and others witnessed it. This was at a time that any one who wanted could have run to the tomb to see for themselves. There is no evidence that anyone questioned it by seeking the proof that the body was still in the tomb. So what evidence do you have that it didn't happen as historians recorded what the eyewitnesses said?

You make the statement that because the resurrection is an extraordinary event you would require extraordinary evidence. This is a false premise. This would prevent you from believing in all sorts of extraordinary events that you accept readily. For example, when you watch the evening news and they tell you the lottery numbers do you believe them or do you say that the odds are too great for those to be the numbers so I won't believe that without more proof?

Regardless, I believe this evidence does exist. First, you have eyewitnesses to the event. Second, you have thousands of people immediately believing in it and converting to Chrisitanity which was overturning thousands of years of culture and religious belief. Third, you have evidence of many men who were eyewitnesses going to their death for this fact. It is one thing to say that people will go to their death for what they believe to be true, but do people go to their death for what they know to be a lie?

If you choose to disbelieve the eyewitness testimony that is ignoring the evidence that is there. That is my view of ignoring the other evidence of God that has been presented. You keep saying that I haven't presented evidence, but I believe that it is more accurate to say that the evidence that is presented is viewed differently. You may what direct evidence of the kind you will choose to believe and that is different from saying that the evidence simply doesn't exist. A classic example is the O.J. trial. The evidence was there but the jury chose to ignore it and kept coming up with excuses for doubt.

As for universal fundamental values, you have disregarded the definition. To be a universal moral value it is a value that is wrong regardless of whether those who engage in it think it is right. Those who fly planes into buildings think it is right, but the world has condemned them. Yet when we go and bomb them the same people say that it is wrong to kill innocent people, them. The difference is not the universal moral truth that killing innocent people is wrong, the diffence is the definition of innocent.

To say that morality developed through the social evolution of man is to put more faith in man than history warrants. We are no more moral today than we were in ancient times. We have killed more people through violence this century than in all in the past. We have developed weapons of mass destruction that can kill all on Earth. To say that we have made moral progress through social evolution is simply not the case.

As for proof of fulfilled prophecy in the Bible, there are hundreds of proven prophecies. Just as an example, Isaiah and others gave multiple prophecies about Jesus from where he would be born to how he would die which came true. These were written hundreds of years before Jesus was born. Psalm 22 gives a very specific account of death by cruxifiction that was even in existence at the time david wrote about it. The fact that Jesus was crucified is without question and proven outside of the bible.

As for the idea that God is a partial God and we know him only by the luck of our birth, that is also a false premise based upon a misunderstanding of the God of the Bible. God as described in the Bible says that all who seek him will find him. It also says that there is evidence of him all around for those who want to seek him to know that he exists. It also says that God is a just God and that children who do not reach the age of accountablity will not be persecuted. For this God as portrayed in the Bible, a child who is born in India and dies before he is old enough to seek God on his own, he will not be persecuted. If he does and chooses to not seek Him, than that is his own doing. this happens in all cultures because people all over the world are converted to Christianity.

As for the Book of Mormon it is fundamentally different from the Bible. It was written by one man who also said that the only evidence he had to support it was destroyed so it could not verified. The history of the devolpment of the cannoized Bible we have today is vastly different.

I understand your belief in the the scientific process. I believe in that as well. But the "scientific facts" that come out of that process are something different. If you were living two hundred years ago the science you believed in back than would be far different than the science of today. True the scientific process has increased our knowledge and has attempted to explain how the universe works, but how do you know that what we think today is scientific facts that are true will still be seen as such. Think of all of the scientific theories that have bit the dust just over the last one hundred years.You may beable to believe in science as a process, but nothing more.

You say that if science can prove to you that God exists you will believe. I like what James Tour, a chemistry professor at Rice University with a doctrate in organic chemistry who builds molecules says about science and how it affects faith. He says that "only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say that science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God."

God Bless

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

RWC

Rem,

I think we are getting to the point where we are going to have to agree to disagree. From my perspective I see evidence of God everywhere, you do not. That is okay.

First your thoughts on the law are not entirely correct. Emotion may pursuade a jury for a time, but ultimately even a jury wants to be persuaded by evidence, not swept up with emotion ( and, if they are you can bet that an appeals court will correct them).

It is a shame that you believe that Life is an accident. I know that my life is more than being in the lucky sperm club. And even though emotion can get in the way of rational thought it is what makes life worth living. When you look at your children do you say, "what a nice bundle of genetic sequencing?" I doubt it. You love them and not for what they can do for you, but for who they are. If we were nothing more than logic, there would be no reason to love children. They may be the continuation of the species, but until they can take care of themselves they are a burden on you. And we continue to do so even after they can survive without us. If you did not do that out of love it could not be done.That ability is what makes us fundamentally different from the animal kingdom and is evidence of the God that is described in the Bible.

I do believe there is evidence of universal moral values that are not dictated by whether you believe in them or not. That is the definition of a universal moral value. It is wrong regardless of whether a particular group believes it is or not. Can you say that the Holocaust was not fundamentally wrong just because the Nazis believed in it. Can you say that torturing children for fun could be accepted in any society on Earth? Can anyone say that killing thousands of innocent people is not fundamentally wrong regardless of whether those who engage in it believe it isn't?

That Roman citizen who lays his daughter in the snow to die may have been considered okay for some in that society, but do you really think that it was not wrong when it was done? Not unlike unwanted children who are killed today. We have not come that far in our thinking, but even though people who engage in that kind of behavior try to justify it, there can be no real argument that it is not fundamentally wrong. As evidence for that thought, name for me one society that approves the killing of young children and than tell me that if there is such a society, the names of other countries that have approved that thought under the idea that if its good for them leave them alone. Such a fundamental wrong is recognized as such.

You have said that at one time you believed in God, but when you looked for evidence of His existence, you found none and concluded that he didn't exist. Is that because YOU couldn't find the evidence or because the evidence doesn't exist? How do you know qauntum physics is correct even as a theory? Have you witnessed experiments in quantum physics yourself, or is it because you have read about it that you think these experiments worked the way the scientists said they did? Have you visited a star to see what it is made of or do you believe what you read in science books when they tell you what a star millions of miles away from here consists of? Unless you have conducted the experiments yourself, you at some point must have faith in what you are being told.

That is not unlike a belief in God. The Bible is where his nature was revealed in writing. If you choose not to believe in what the Bible tells you about God that is your choice. But to say that he doesn't exist because you haven't proven it for yourself outside of the Bible is short sighted and close minded.

In fact, the Bible itself gives what I believe to be the best evidence of God's existence and that is the resurrection of Jesus. Eyewitnesses to his resurrection wrote about it and said it happened. Since it did, than a man who died was raised again, just as he said he would. That cannot be explained naturally. Only God can raise himself from the dead. Now, if you don't believe that the resurrection occurred, than because we have written proof of it, proof that it didn't happen.

The God in the Bible is not a "God in the Gaps". He was not conceived by man in an effort to explain what they could not explain otherwise. As described he controls all aspects of their life, establishes moral codes to live by, passes judgment on them when they do not comply, performs miracles, sends prophets to say what will happen and than these prophecies come true and ultimately describes the path to eternal life. That is far more than a simple explanation for lightning.

I may be wrong but wasn't communism the latest example of a government outlawing all religion in the name of atheism? The Taliban may be the latest example of the failure of basing a government on one version of religious thought but that is just as wrong as saying that God has no place in society so the government should outlaw it. Either extreme is wrong and not Biblical or moral.

You are mistaken when you say that I believe that "God works in mysterious ways". What I do believe is that God's ways are always just and good even if I may not always understand them. The Bible is clear that God only does what is good for us and that he has plans for our good, not our downfall. The fact that we may not understand the whole picture doesn't change God's nature.

As for the killing of children in the Bible I will agree that on the surface it can seem troubling. But the Bible is clear that God is a just God. And there is some thought with support in the Bible that children who die before the age of accountability will go to heaven. Jesus had the children come to him and said the kingdom of God was made for such as these. If that is true than it maybe wrong from our perspective for these children to have been killed along with their wicked parents, but not from God's.

"So you have to believe in him before you will have enough evidence to believe in him" That is a misconception of what I was saying. I was simply saying that the evidence is there, but that if you limit the inquiry to what you can prove through logic and merely rational thinking, you can always decide to come up short. From a rational investigation you can reach the conclusion that an intelligent designer was behind the origin of life and behind the acceptence of universal moral values and in faith believe that this was the God who is revealed in the Bible.

As for your thought that you can be a balanced and happy individual without believing in a fairy tale, I am happy for you. I feel great about myself as well and do not need to believe in a fairy tale to feel that way. But what is wrong with exploring the questions of life that are more than day to day living? Why not seek out answers to how we got here and what happens when we die? Why not seek a moral compass that is unchanging even in the storms of life? Even atheists to that, they just come up with different answers. But I know two things: one, the God that I have put my trust in says that he will always be there and has proven it to me during my life and two, if I am wrong I will simply rot in a grave and will have lost nothing in the meantime, however if an atheist is wrong, he will have alot of explaining to do and it will be too late to change.

Have a great weekend and God Bless

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

RWC

First let me say that I did not intend to demean the morality of the entire scientific community in my last posts. I was talking about science not individuals. But in pure science morality has no place. Scientists yes, but not in science. Science is supposed to prove its theories without the influence of outside morality, purly objective evidence of whether a theory is right or wrong and can it be proven.

Morality equally plays no part in Natural selection. Survival of the fittest and nothing more.

Man is where morality came into play. The ability to determine right from wrong, where we draw the line, what we find repugnant to our continued existence. The idea of a sense of right beyond ourselves and our survial. The question becomes, where did this thought come from? How did we move from a mere animal that was only worried about survival and that of its young to the concept of morality?

Clearly people who do not believe in God can and do live what is considered moral and just lives. That is not the issue and please don't take the argument out of context to say such. The question is, where did the idea that there are certain activities that are not related to our continued survival in an individual sense, but which we have declared as mankind are not going to be tolerated. To me that concept jumps outside the realm of science. A concsience simply cannot be created through physical science or evolution. It must come from abstract thought and animals have been lving on this Earth for millions of years without the ability to reason or have abstract thought.

To me the existence of God is evidenced not only in the creation and origins of life, but in mankind itself. Genetically and physically we may be close to the animal world, but we are far different since we have the ability for rational thinking. I find it hard to believe that in our long distant path one ape woke up with a rational thought, an abstract idea, and that this gentic mutation led to man as we know it.

Trust me, I am not saying that religion must prove science or that it has or can. It would be simplistic to say that everything we cannot explain today must be from God. But, it is equally simplistic to say that given enough time everything will eventually be explained by science.

I look around me and see the blessings that have been given to me, from the world around me to my children and I choose not to wake up and say "Thank you primodial chemical soup for your years of evolution". I chose not to determine what is right and wrong from what I believe or what my neighbor or what others across the globe may think is right or wrong. A sense of individually based morality is a recipe for disaster.

From history we have the best example of what happens when a society attempts to remove God from the equation, communism. A whole political structure based in part upon the atheistic belief that there is no God and man will, left to his own devises under the guiding hand of Government provide equally for everyone and all will prosper. It was an abject failure. Man on his own could not create such a society.

Society as a whole has universal, objective moral values. By that I mean values that are valid and binding regardless of whether you believe tham or not. For example, rape has evolved over the course of human development to be considered wrong. However, if left only to social evolution, it could be conceived that rape would have evolved to be an acceptable way to continue the survival of mankind and thus not be wrong. The fact that it is wrong to our collective consciences points me to a God who has given us that ability. To me, the fact that absolute right and wrong, objective moral truths exist is evidence of God.

As for the Cannanties, I don't think that they lived for four hundred years. But the Bible explains that the nation as a whole was sinful. They were into insest, child sacrifices and other horrible things. Those who repented like Rahab were saved. The Bible is clear that whoever is willing to repent God is willing to save.

Don't hear me to say that everything we cannot explain must have been God. I do not discount the march of science through the years to explain what it has been able to explain. I simply think that there is a God that exists and I thank him for what we know and what we don't as yet know.

Do I have a videotape of God? No, but I have enough evidence for me to say that he exists and that he is good. If you are trying to find God through logic and reason you will never get there without a touch of faith. But from personal experience I can tell you that if you are open for Him to show you he exists, you will be plesantly suprised. I am a lawyer by trade. My profession teaches me to base everything on logic and reason. It was not until I had no answers for some problems in my life that I opened my heart to the possibility of God as an answer. When I did, He changed everything. I didn't lose my ability to be intellectual or use logic or reason, but I had someone I could go to for answers that were beyond my ability. In fact since I have done so I have done more research and study than I ever did in the past. It all points me to the notion that there is more out there than us and what we can fathom through our limited abilities.

As far as religion curing disease or providing more food or explaining the universe, that is not its function. Religion will care for people who are sick and through relious people provide the cures to people who need them even if science developed them in the first place. Religion will give people comfort in their time of need. People in the name of religion and out of caring for their fellowman will provide food to those who are hungry. Not to say that secular organizations cannot do that as well, but there are far more religious organizations than atheist based ones that send out people to the far corners of the globe to feed the hungry and care for their needs.

To say that religion is not self correcting denies its history. The truths are the same, but the practices are different. Look at my church for example. Our history in the middle ages is less than steller and cannot be justified other than to say we got away from the teachings of our faith. If religion does not change its practices over time, we would still have the Spanish Inqusision. Thankfully we do not.

And to be that is the bottom line. The Bible is clear in its teaching that there is one God who is eternal and who provided the route for eternal life through his son. Science just doesn't give me any of that and never will. Why put your faith in something that can't answer how we got here, how we should behave while we are here and what happens to us when we leave?

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

RWC

Rem and Abaddon,

Thank you for your responses. Rem you are correct when you say that science hasn't figured out yet where or how life originated. Even those who believe in abiogenesis must admit that there are as yet undiscovered simple organisms that must have bridged the gap between the complex structures we see today and the unliving chemical soup. Abiogenesis has tried for years since it was first theorized to come up explanations to overcome the statisitcal improbability of life springing from non living matter. The truth is they must explain how hundreds of amino acids can bind together in the right order to form one protein molecule without the guiding force of DNA and RNA to help them line up. Nobel Prize winner Sir Francis Crick said, "the origin of life appearsto be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have to be satisfied to get it going." Life Itself, Simon Schuster, 1981.

Klaus Dose said " More than thirty years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than its solution. At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance." "The Origin of Life:More Questions than Answers," Interdisciplinary Science Review13 348 (1998).

The most reasonable inference from the evidence is that there had to be an intelligent designer to get this started. Since it can't be explained through Natural science, that involves a supernatural act. That means God.

By Lab experiments I assume you mean Miller's experiment. If so, that has been disputed. Miller used a combination of chemicals that did not exist in significant quantites in the early earth at the time (ammonia, methane. Had he used what was present, water, carbon dioxide and nitogen, you don't get the same results.

As for scientists who have turned to God, I may have been too far reaching in saying most. However two prominent examples are Walter Bradley and James Tour frm Rice University. What has been said is that it takes a great deal of faith to be an honest scientist and an atheist.

The point is that science can't explain the origin of life so the explanation must be supernatural. Is the story of creation in the Bible literal as in seven days including the rest, I don't know and I agree it doesn't make any difference. But if you attempt to take God out of the equation you make a huge difference.

As for proving God exists I agree that can't be done through science. However when you reach the end of science's rope you have to have faith that science will eventually give us the answer. I chose to put my faith elsewhere.

I understand your explanation about the Roman Catholic church. I happen to belong there. But you missed the point. Scientist first told us that the world was flat. The fact that other scientists proved them wrong only shows that scientists learn more and more as time goes on and what was thought at first to be true is later proven not to be.

Religion too has changed over the years in how man has interpreted the Bible and sometimes used its teachings in a perverted way to justify their actions. None of that can be condoned. However, if you get to the root of what the Bible teaches without the differences that divide us, the message is beautiful and very simple.

Alot of people say that God is not merciful because innocent children die, or what his judgment did to the Cannanites or others in the bible that did not follow him. God did harden Pharaoh's heart so that his plan could be carried out. But we are only looking at God from our perspective. We are here only for a moment. He is eternal. We have no idea how all of the pieces fit together, but he does. For example, if you have a child that wants to touch the stove and you repeatly warn her that it is hot don't do it but she refuses to listen. She will touch the stove and get burned. As a parent you knew that could happen and you tried to warn her, but she felt pain. Now she learned and should listen to you more and follow what you say because she knows its for her good out of love. Don;t read from that that all instructions parents give are out of love,but the Bible is clear that God's instructions are based in that premise.
Finally, as for the Cannanties, they had four hundered years to repent before the judgment was upon them. I would call that plenty of time.

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

RWC

Rem,

Thank you for your reply. But I think you misunderstood some of what I said. The end point to any scientific argument regarding evolution or any other name you give it is the origion of life. Where did it start. Natural selection is fine for micro-evolution but it doesn't explain how it all began. Ultimately, even scientists must reach the point that something arrived out of nothing to begen the whole process. Even if you accept the Big Bang theory you must go back far enough in time for the beginning of the explosion and then decide how the materials got there to explode in the first place.

Science has never been able to create something from nothing. Even single cell organisms are so complex that if you are to be intellectually honest you could not say that they were formed by random chance.

Your discussion of Natural selection does not solve the problem. Unless you say that life in all its various forms began to emerge at once than the first cell had to form at some time. Did all life come from that first cell and than ultimately evolve or did multiple different types of cells form over time and create all of the different life forms we have today? Either way, the first cell of any type of life form had to exist. The question becomes how did it get there and what caused it to have DNA that was necessary for life?

As for fossil evidence, you are mistaken when you say that fossils prove the validity of evolution. Even Darwin recognized the lack of fossil evidence for his theory and speculated that it would come over time. The truth is it hasn't. Do we have fossils of giraffes with short necks slowly getting longer, no. Do we have hippos suddenly turning into whales? no. There is a sparcity of transitional fossils which are needed to prove evolution. The truth is that giant leaps in faith are made to support the theory of evolution.

As for the idea that the Bible is full of "God's less than merciful moments" I would simply ssay that is a misreading of the Bible. For every incident where you can point to the judgment of God coming into play, you will find messengers being sent telling the people to repent and change their ways. You will also find that when people did repent God's wrath was turned away (Nineveh for example)But you fail to answer the most obvious example of God's mercy and that is in the form of Jesus. If you are going to judge God from the Bible at least use the whole book. How more merciful can you be than to send yourself deon to accept the punishment and provide the way for enternal life? All you have to do is believe.

As for archeological finds, I do stand confident. The more time that passes and the more finds that are made the more the Bible is proven correct. Cities are where the Bible says they are, temple exist where people once believed they couldn't. Name for me one find that contradicts the Bible. I would like to hear about it. What I am referring to is a find that puts a city in a totally different place than the Bible says it would be, not just that somethings haven't been found yet.

I also stand by my thought on the major theme of the Bible. All debating aside and all differences of opinion cannot change the fact thqt Jesus said the greatest commandment of all is to love each other as we love ourselves Matt.19:19

Finally, I would rather put my faith and trust in the bible than in science any day. Don't forget that it was science that once told us that the world was flat and hundereds of other scientific facts that since been disproven.

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

RWC

I have been reading this thread and must respond.

First, Pom's view of sin is basically correct by my beliefs. God created a perfect world. Man disobeyed him and caused sin to come into the world. We are all born into sin and the wages of sin are death. If God left it there it would not seem just, but he didn't. He gave us all a way out through Jesus. By believing in Him we will have enternal life in Heaven. Death on earth because of sin, eternity in paradise due to faith in Jesus Christ. That is the way it works.

And to think that God doesn't understand our pain is to ignore the Biblical account of Jesus and his death. If you believe that Jesus was God as he proclaimed to be, than God came down to earth as a man and voluntarily experienced the pain of torture and death as the complete sacrifice for all of us. That is the truest expression of love that can ever be, to give up your life for another.

By the way, why is it that you think we die in the first place? Is death simply a result of evolution not getting it right up to now and if we wait long enough we will evolve to the point that we don't die? That simply doesn't make any sense.

Second, evolution is not the answer to the creation of the earth. In fact, most scientist who have studied the origions of life have reached the conclusion that there must be a creator. The odds against a sea of chemicals swirling around in such a manner to form amino acids and than proteins and than single cell organisms and than ultimantly all of the different types of animals and plants we have on earth today are astronomical. In fact, no scientist has been able to answer how it would happen, much less how DNA would be created. Evolution as the origions of life has been completely defeated.

The Bible has been proven over and over that it is accurate. There has never been an archeloigial find that has contradicted the Bible. On the contray finds prove it to be accurate.

The main theme of the Bible is Love. Love of God for mankind. Instructions for us to Love God. Instructions for us to Love one another. We just don't always follow those simple rules. That is where the problems come from.

8

Another Bible Oddity

by Yerusalyim in

joseph et al,.

what's the deal with jesus in mark 2:26 saying abiathar was high priest yet in 1 samuel 21:1 it's ahimelech who gives jesus the bread.

was jesus wrong, or is 1 samuel wrong?.

RWC

JanH,

The New International Version states, "In the days of Abithar the High Priest", not in the account of. This would mean that Cyllon's explanation makes sense.

Also, Samuel makes it clear that David was given consecrated bread just as Jesus pointed out. Jesus does not say David received bread from the table.

Where does it say that David ate all of the bread himself? Just because he may have shown up at the temple alone, does not mean he would stay alone or that he did not have others meeting him just as he said. Where do you determine that he lied to the priest about having others meeting him?

Without reading into Samuel things that are not there, Jesus' account is a correct shorthand version of the event.