[_ Old Earth _] OK, you finally got me - I now believe in evolution.

[Khristeeanos]

I don't understand what you are saying.

If it says that Jesus is the son of Joseph, does that mean that He was actually the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great -great-great-great-great-great - great-great-great-great-great grandson of Joseph? :o

Why not just believe the Bible?

Believe in the Bible (which version of it do you read, by the by?) or believe in your interpretation of the Bible?

Believe the Bible as in read it and just accept what it says without adding a pre-conceived bias to what it says so that one doesn't try to force the Bible to fit what they want it to say.

Oh, okay. Which Bible?

The Holy Bible - the one written by God either by His own finger, or by inspriation through His prophets/apostles.

 

[moniker]

The Holy Bible - the one written by God either by His own finger, or by inspriation through His prophets/apostles.

The Vetus Latina, the Vulgate (and if so, Jerome, Clementine, or Nova), the older Greek manuscripts, Gutenberg's, the more current King James version, Gideon's Bible? Which one is the one written by God so I know I am not reading a scribe's interpretation of an older text, let alone something he completely fabricated which was then copied in over time?

 

[Bilal]

"The Bible is the word of God"

Is that what all Christians believe? Can a take your absolute word fo it?

What is YEC?

When you say believe in the Bible, which one? There isnt exactly one. I mean when you say Bible- which one are you talking about? Why so many?

 

[Khristeeanos]

The Holy Bible - the one written by God either by His own finger, or by inspriation through His prophets/apostles.

The Vetus Latina, the Vulgate (and if so, Jerome, Clementine, or Nova), the older Greek manuscripts, Gutenberg's, the more current King James version, Gideon's Bible? Which one is the one written by God so I know I am not reading a scribe's interpretation of an older text, let alone something he completely fabricated which was then copied in over time?

*Yawn*

Trying to sidetrack the topic with debates over versions of manuscripts or translated versions isn't going to work.

• John 10:35
  the Scripture cannot be broken
  
  Luke 16:17
  It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law. (Scripture)
  
  Mark 12:36
  David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:
  
  Mark 12:
  Jesus replied, "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures...
  
  Mark 7:13
  Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."
  
  Matthew 4:1-11
  ... Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"
  
  "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
  
  Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"

I am not suggesting that you personally are doing these things, I am merely showing how Jesus spoke of Scripture and how He personally used it.

I find that most Christians are ignorant of the Bible and don't care to read it very much to find out what it says and then do it.

Here is a quote:

John R. W. Stott said in his booklet “The Authority of the Bibleâ€Â

Jesus endorsed the Old Testament as the Word of God. Both in His view of Scripture and in His use of Scripture, He was entirely and reverently submissive to its authority as to the authority of God’s own Word. Now the disciple is not above his teacher, nor is the servant above his lord. How can we, the disciples of Jesus, possibly have a lower view of Scripture than our Teacher Himself had?

Now one of the foundational and most integrating of all Christian beliefs is the truth that Jesus is Lord. A Christian is somebody who not only confesses with his lips that Jesus is Lord, but brings every aspect of his life under the sovereign lordship of Jesus – his opinions, his beliefs, his standards, his values, his ambition, everything!

To us, then, submission to Scripture is part and parcel of this submission to the lordship of Jesus. We cannot accommodate ourselves to the idea of a selective submission – for example, agreeing with Jesus in His doctrine of God but disagreeing with Him in His doctrine of Scripture, or obeying His command to love our neighbor but disobeying His command to make disciples. Selective submission is not true submission at all; there is in it a reprehensible element of pride and self-will.

 

[moniker]

The Holy Bible - the one written by God either by His own finger, or by inspriation through His prophets/apostles.

The Vetus Latina, the Vulgate (and if so, Jerome, Clementine, or Nova), the older Greek manuscripts, Gutenberg's, the more current King James version, Gideon's Bible? Which one is the one written by God so I know I am not reading a scribe's interpretation of an older text, let alone something he completely fabricated which was then copied in over time?

*Yawn*

Trying to sidetrack the topic with debates over versions of manuscripts or translated versions isn't going to work.

You said that the Bible is the word of God. Well I'd like to read what He said and not some scribe. Did Jesus ever say 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' or was that a monk's fantasy, for instance. I would consider that to be a rather important consideration when it comes to what I am reading. Is this meant to be literal or allegory, etc.?

 

[Khristeeanos]

You said that the Bible is the word of God. Well I'd like to read what He said and not some scribe. Did Jesus ever say 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' or was that a monk's fantasy, for instance. I would consider that to be a rather important consideration when it comes to what I am reading. Is this meant to be literal or allegory, etc.?

I apologize, but I have no idea what you are talking about. There is no way to "prove" what you are saying.

Either the Bible is the Word of God or a word of man.

I trust it is the Word of God.

 

[ArtGuy]

Whee, we get to play Evade the Question! That's my very favoritist game. But as rousing as it is, I would like you, Mr. Khrist, to please address this one question:

There are many, many translations of the Bible. They do not always agree. Do you concede this much, at least? That being the case, which one is the Word of God? Which ones are the posers? And how do you, a falliable man, determine which is which?

 

[Imagican]

And might I add that this same mentality of the churches teaching the 'truth' and only the 'truth' is no different than those that locked up Galileo for 'PROVING' that the earth is NOT the center of the universe. And I ask, how did he PROVE this? Through the Word? NO, through science. We now know MUCH about the universe that we live in. Much of it is now FACT, some mere speculation. But if not for the evidence that can be PROVEN, many would still believe the earth to be flat.

We have absolutely NO idea of the timeline of creation. Yes, days are used to describe it, but there is absolutely NO reason for us to believe that a day to God is limited to the 24 hour rotational period of our tiny tiny little planet. If, as any Christian MUST, you believe that God created the universe, do you REALLY believe that He is limited to the physics of this one tiny planet?

It is utterly ridiculous to believe that the dinosaurs lived ONLY ONE DAY. We have much proof of their evolution before their extinction. And some live today in their evolved state. One day does not evolution take place.

So, the timeline that the traditionalists accept is JUST as outdated as much of their theology. God DID create EVERYTHING, but it didn't happen in six of OUR days. That's just some of that same UNINFORMED guesswork of the churches of the past carried over into the ones of the present. Science has proven that this timeline is off by BILLIONS Of YEARS. Most likely there have been MEN on this planet for OVER 500 thousand years. NO, not Adam and Eve. The other people created in the FIRST chapter of Genesis. Those that were given EVERY tree to eat from on the ENTIRE PLANET. Those that hadn't learned to be farmers and shepards YET. Those that made their tools out of sticks and stones. The ones whose children DIDN'T build cities. You know, the ones from which Cain found a wife. Yeah, those people.

 

[ownedbyhim]

There are many, many translations of the Bible. They do not always agree. Do you concede this much, at least? That being the case, which one is the Word of God? Which ones are the posers? And how do you, a falliable man, determine which is which?

It depends on what point you're talking about. None of these so-called "disagreements" affect biblical Christian doctrine.

Well I'd like to read what He said and not some scribe.

The Autographs are dust. But we have reliable manuscripts that match each other, numbering about 3500. Besides, God chose to use scribes to do it.
I'd like you to read what he said, too.

Frank

 

[ownedbyhim]

Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.


2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

The problem with using these scriptures as proof texts for an old earth is that the Genisis account uses specific language to describe literal days. Days one through six are descibed as having evening, and morning (Ge. 1:5, 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23, and 1:31). See also Ex. 16:8, 27:21, and Lev. 24:3 for more info about the literal day.

Frank

 

[ownedbyhim]

It dead-ends at Adam, right? And Adam is called "Son of God", yes? Aren't we all the children of God?

Go back and read the genisis account. It says tha God created man in His image, and that Adam made a man in his image. If we are born again, we are children of God, yes. If not, we are children of the devil.

Frank

 

[reznwerks]

geneology

Literal.

How about these guys:

Luke 3
23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
the son of David, 32the son of Jesse,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon,
33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,
the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob,
the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.

Which of these people are literal and which of these people are figuartive?

And how do you determine which are which?

Well first I assume you want to trace Jesus's geneology and thats fine. However if you do that then he can't be the son of God. You can't have it both ways. It was a patriarchal society through the male lineage. To claim Jesus through Marys side doesn't fly no matter how much you heard, and it would have been laughed at during this time. I see you used the lineage of Luke. Did you forget about the contradictions of Mathew or didn't you know about them? Don't take my word for it, check it out yourself.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/gen_jesus.htm

 

[ownedbyhim]

Well first I assume you want to trace Jesus's geneology and thats fine. However if you do that then he can't be the son of God. You can't have it both ways. It was a patriarchal society through the male lineage. To claim Jesus through Marys side doesn't fly no matter how much you heard, and it would have been laughed at during this time. I see you used the lineage of Luke. Did you forget about the contradictions of Mathew or didn't you know about them? Don't take my word for it, check it out yourself.

Jesus shared exactly ZERO DNA with Joseph, remember? He shared half His DNA with the God the Father and half with Mary. That fact alone makes him the son of god, and the fact that Joseph raised him makes him Joseph's son.

As to being a patriarchal society, you are entirely correct. Nevertheless, Jesus instituted a new covenant which INCLUDED sons AND daughters. Check 2 Corinthians 6:18 for yourself.

Frank

 

[jwu]

God has DNA?

 

[ownedbyhim]

DNA

God has DNA?

Nope, I misspoke. But he created the DNA necessary to make Jesus.

Interesting that's all you responded to.

Frank

 

[jwu]

Interesting that's all you responded to.

I didn't read the entire thread, that's just what struck me.

Is there anything specific that you would like to know my opinion about?

 

[reznwerks]

dna

Well first I assume you want to trace Jesus's geneology and thats fine. However if you do that then he can't be the son of God. You can't have it both ways. It was a patriarchal society through the male lineage. To claim Jesus through Marys side doesn't fly no matter how much you heard, and it would have been laughed at during this time. I see you used the lineage of Luke. Did you forget about the contradictions of Mathew or didn't you know about them? Don't take my word for it, check it out yourself.

Jesus shared exactly ZERO DNA with Joseph, remember? He shared half His DNA with the God the Father and half with Mary. That fact alone makes him the son of god, and the fact that Joseph raised him makes him Joseph's son.

As to being a patriarchal society, you are entirely correct. Nevertheless, Jesus instituted a new covenant which INCLUDED sons AND daughters. Check 2 Corinthians 6:18 for yourself.

Frank

This does not satisfy the biblical prophecy of from the blood line of David. If Joseph wants to be the adoptive father fine. Corinthians was written after the death of Jesus so no one knew about any such change in he laws if in fact there are any.I read 2 Corr 6:18 and as usual are painting the verse with a broad brush. There is no way you can use that verse to correct the facts as they are.I think you are grasping knowing you have a serious dillema on your hands.

 

[moniker]

There are many, many translations of the Bible. They do not always agree. Do you concede this much, at least? That being the case, which one is the Word of God? Which ones are the posers? And how do you, a falliable man, determine which is which?

It depends on what point you're talking about. None of these so-called "disagreements" affect biblical Christian doctrine.

[quote:2c0ad]Well I'd like to read what He said and not some scribe.

The Autographs are dust. But we have reliable manuscripts that match each other, numbering about 3500. Besides, God chose to use scribes to do it.
I'd like you to read what he said, too.

Frank[/quote:2c0ad]

Interesting, I had heard the exact opposite actually. That all the hundreds of manuscripts that exist have differences between them. No two are alike. Mind linking to the article or what-not where you got that from? If you take the bible literally I think that would make a big difference to your doctrines. It won't change the themes of love and forgiveness and all that other stuff Jesus preached but some of the details might change.

 

[ownedbyhim]

Interesting, I had heard the exact opposite actually.

Okay, you've heard it. Where? Have you seen the "original" manuscripts? Probably not.

That all the hundreds of manuscripts that exist have differences between them. No two are alike.

Correct. But most differences are spelling differences, or differences of verse order, and the like.

Mind linking to the article or what-not where you got that from?

Try google.com.

If you take the bible literally I think that would make a big difference to your doctrines.

Where did I say I took the WHOLE bible literally? I didn't. Some of the bible is literal, and some is allegorical. If you'll take time to actually read the bible, I'll bet you figure it out. And no, I won't do the work for you.

Frank

 

[ownedbyhim]

This does not satisfy the biblical prophecy of from the blood line of David. If Joseph wants to be the adoptive father fine.

For you, maybe. But it satisfies me and it satisfied God. Nuff said.

Corinthians was written after the death of Jesus so no one knew about any such change in he laws if in fact there are any.

I'm not understanding what the chronology of 2 Cor. has to do with this, but feel free to clarify.

I read 2 Corr 6:18 and as usual are painting the verse with a broad brush. There is no way you can use that verse to correct the facts as they are.I think you are grasping knowing you have a serious dillema on your hands.

You think, I think. How bout you read the scriptures regularly, rez? It might make you lots smarter in the things of God, rather than making you sound like a troll. I'm not SAYING you're a troll, just that you sound like one. As for the "serious" dilemma on my hands, I disagree. But I'm happy to let you think I have one.

Frank