End of times?

[BluePhantom]

I know what the bible says about the end times; very few do. Non-Believers cannot know.

Uh uh. Way to completely ignore the previous post about the contradictions I pointed out. Not surprising though because the only explanation is that in each instance one of them is wrong. For example Jesus could not have been born both during the reign of Herod and the governorship if Syria by Quirinius. Which one is right (if either)? They can't both be right. Which means one of them is wrong and hence the Bible is not 100% truth as you asserted.

chapter and verses pls.

Scroll up. Post #176. Amusing. Non-believers cannot know and apparently believers cannot read.

 

[RandomVariable]

the Bible was written by God via the Holy Spirit. The Bible is 100% truth.

Ok Luke 2:2 identifies the birth of Jesus as being during the governorship of Syria by Quirinius.(1) Matthew 2:1 identifies the birth of Jesus as happening during the reign of Herod.(2) However, Herod died in 4 BC (3) and the governorship of Quirinius didn't start until 6 AD (4). So if the Bible is 100% truth please explain how Jesus was both born before 4 BC and at the same time after 6 AD. This ought to be good.

1) Luke 2 NIV - The Birth of Jesus - In those days - Bible Gateway
2) Matthew 2 NIV - The Magi Visit the Messiah - After - Bible Gateway
3) King Herod the Great
4) Quirinius the Governor of Syria

Also in Genesis 2:4-25 God creates Adam, then creates plants, then creates the animals, and then finally creates woman (Eve). But in Genesis 1:9-25 God created plants on the third day, then animals on the fifth day, and then He created man and woman at the same time on the sixth day. So which came first? Man or plants? Was man created first and woman later as in Genesis 2 or at the same time as in Genesis 1? I mean we are not even through two chapters and already there are disagreements and contradictions.

Genesis 1 NIV - The Beginning - In the beginning God - Bible Gateway
Genesis 2 NIV - Thus the heavens and the earth were - Bible Gateway

In Genesis God created the seventh day and made it holy "...because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done." This is the Sabbath. But in Deuteronomy 5:12-15 it says the Sabbath should be observed and kept holy because "...you were slaves in Egypt and God and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day." So which is it? Are we supposed to keep the Sabbath because it represents God's day of rest from creation or because it is a reminder of freedom from slavery?

Genesis 2 NIV - Thus the heavens and the earth were - Bible Gateway
Deuteronomy 5 12-15 - Observe the Sabbath day by keeping - Bible Gateway

I speak only for the OT. If one wants to find impossibilities and contradictions in the Bible it is not hard to do. If one reads the Bible and seeks wisdom and understanding one will find it. It might be said however, "Well but you need this 'faith' stuff before you start." Not so. At least no more than any scientist has when following an initial hypothesis. Any scientist who seeks to disprove a hypothesis and will take the first excuse they get is sure to succeed and will remain convinced they have succeed even after all the evidence in the world comes in behind them.

For example: Is it possible that all plants were created on the third day and that these plants would populate the earth but they were not actually planted until after it rained and there was a man to till the ground? I do not know but perhaps there is not a contradiction after all.

 

[BluePhantom]

the Bible was written by God via the Holy Spirit. The Bible is 100% truth.

Ok Luke 2:2 identifies the birth of Jesus as being during the governorship of Syria by Quirinius.(1) Matthew 2:1 identifies the birth of Jesus as happening during the reign of Herod.(2) However, Herod died in 4 BC (3) and the governorship of Quirinius didn't start until 6 AD (4). So if the Bible is 100% truth please explain how Jesus was both born before 4 BC and at the same time after 6 AD. This ought to be good.

1) Luke 2 NIV - The Birth of Jesus - In those days - Bible Gateway
2) Matthew 2 NIV - The Magi Visit the Messiah - After - Bible Gateway
3) King Herod the Great
4) Quirinius the Governor of Syria

Also in Genesis 2:4-25 God creates Adam, then creates plants, then creates the animals, and then finally creates woman (Eve). But in Genesis 1:9-25 God created plants on the third day, then animals on the fifth day, and then He created man and woman at the same time on the sixth day. So which came first? Man or plants? Was man created first and woman later as in Genesis 2 or at the same time as in Genesis 1? I mean we are not even through two chapters and already there are disagreements and contradictions.

Genesis 1 NIV - The Beginning - In the beginning God - Bible Gateway
Genesis 2 NIV - Thus the heavens and the earth were - Bible Gateway

In Genesis God created the seventh day and made it holy "...because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done." This is the Sabbath. But in Deuteronomy 5:12-15 it says the Sabbath should be observed and kept holy because "...you were slaves in Egypt and God and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day." So which is it? Are we supposed to keep the Sabbath because it represents God's day of rest from creation or because it is a reminder of freedom from slavery?

Genesis 2 NIV - Thus the heavens and the earth were - Bible Gateway
Deuteronomy 5 12-15 - Observe the Sabbath day by keeping - Bible Gateway

I speak only for the OT. If one wants to find impossibilities and contradictions in the Bible it is not hard to do. If one reads the Bible and seeks wisdom and understanding one will find it. It might be said however, "Well but you need this 'faith' stuff before you start." Not so. At least no more than any scientist has when following an initial hypothesis. Any scientist who seeks to disprove a hypothesis and will take the first excuse they get is sure to succeed and will remain convinced they have succeed even after all the evidence in the world comes in behind them.

For example: Is it possible that all plants were created on the third day and that these plants would populate the earth but they were not actually planted until after it rained and there was a man to till the ground? I do not know but perhaps there is not a contradiction after all.

I get your point. Is it possible that plants were created on the third day and onward as you suggest? Sure anything is possible. But I think there is a danger there and I see most Christians try to reconcile differences between accounts and contradictions within the Bible by kind of "writing their own Bible". What you just described is possible, I suppose, but that's not what it says in either account. This is really common with the dramatically different birth accounts in Matthew and Luke where in one version there is a census and Joseph and Mary originally lived in Nazareth and went to Bethlehem for the census, and in the other version Joseph and Mary originally (at least presumably) lived in Bethlehem, fled to Egypt, and settled in Nazareth because it still wasn't safe in Bethlehem.

So there are two dramatically different accounts and because some Christians are really touchy about the Bible not being 100% accurate they try to cram the two together and argue that Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, went to Bethlehem for the census, then fled to Egypt, then RE-settled in Nazareth. Well...LOL...it's a clever way to weasel one's way through it, the problem is that it's not what either account says. So in essence in order to explain it they create their own gospel instead of simply saying "well Matthew says this and Luke says something else and we don't really know what happened." and just let it be that.

From my personal opinion it's best to say "well according to Matthew this happened" and "according to Luke that happened" and when someone asks what really happened we just shrug our shoulders and say "beats me". That's ok for me because I don't care where He was born. It's what He represents that is important and for all I care he could have been born in Tallahassee. I understand that it is important for Him to have been born in Bethlehem in order to fulfill prophecy. For me I just say "well the prophecy was wrong as most of them are" and I am good with that. But for a literal interpreter of the Bible who believes that the Bible is 100% historically accurate that's a tough pill to swallow.

 

[RandomVariable]

the Bible was written by God via the Holy Spirit. The Bible is 100% truth.

Ok Luke 2:2 identifies the birth of Jesus as being during the governorship of Syria by Quirinius.(1) Matthew 2:1 identifies the birth of Jesus as happening during the reign of Herod.(2) However, Herod died in 4 BC (3) and the governorship of Quirinius didn't start until 6 AD (4). So if the Bible is 100% truth please explain how Jesus was both born before 4 BC and at the same time after 6 AD. This ought to be good.

1) Luke 2 NIV - The Birth of Jesus - In those days - Bible Gateway
2) Matthew 2 NIV - The Magi Visit the Messiah - After - Bible Gateway
3) King Herod the Great
4) Quirinius the Governor of Syria

Also in Genesis 2:4-25 God creates Adam, then creates plants, then creates the animals, and then finally creates woman (Eve). But in Genesis 1:9-25 God created plants on the third day, then animals on the fifth day, and then He created man and woman at the same time on the sixth day. So which came first? Man or plants? Was man created first and woman later as in Genesis 2 or at the same time as in Genesis 1? I mean we are not even through two chapters and already there are disagreements and contradictions.

Genesis 1 NIV - The Beginning - In the beginning God - Bible Gateway
Genesis 2 NIV - Thus the heavens and the earth were - Bible Gateway

In Genesis God created the seventh day and made it holy "...because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done." This is the Sabbath. But in Deuteronomy 5:12-15 it says the Sabbath should be observed and kept holy because "...you were slaves in Egypt and God and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day." So which is it? Are we supposed to keep the Sabbath because it represents God's day of rest from creation or because it is a reminder of freedom from slavery?

Genesis 2 NIV - Thus the heavens and the earth were - Bible Gateway
Deuteronomy 5 12-15 - Observe the Sabbath day by keeping - Bible Gateway

I speak only for the OT. If one wants to find impossibilities and contradictions in the Bible it is not hard to do. If one reads the Bible and seeks wisdom and understanding one will find it. It might be said however, "Well but you need this 'faith' stuff before you start." Not so. At least no more than any scientist has when following an initial hypothesis. Any scientist who seeks to disprove a hypothesis and will take the first excuse they get is sure to succeed and will remain convinced they have succeed even after all the evidence in the world comes in behind them.

For example: Is it possible that all plants were created on the third day and that these plants would populate the earth but they were not actually planted until after it rained and there was a man to till the ground? I do not know but perhaps there is not a contradiction after all.

I get your point. Is it possible that plants were created on the third day and onward as you suggest? Sure anything is possible. But I think there is a danger there and I see most Christians try to reconcile differences between accounts and contradictions within the Bible by kind of "writing their own Bible". What you just described is possible, I suppose, but that's not what it says in either account. This is really common with the dramatically different birth accounts in Matthew and Luke where in one version there is a census and Joseph and Mary originally lived in Nazareth and went to Bethlehem for the census, and in the other version Joseph and Mary originally (at least presumably) lived in Bethlehem, fled to Egypt, and settled in Nazareth because it still wasn't safe in Bethlehem.

So there are two dramatically different accounts and because some Christians are really touchy about the Bible not being 100% accurate they try to cram the two together and argue that Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, went to Bethlehem for the census, then fled to Egypt, then RE-settled in Nazareth. Well...LOL...it's a clever way to weasel one's way through it, the problem is that it's not what either account says. So in essence in order to explain it they create their own gospel instead of simply saying "well Matthew says this and Luke says something else and we don't really know what happened." and just let it be that.

From my personal opinion it's best to say "well according to Matthew this happened" and "according to Luke that happened" and when someone asks what really happened we just shrug our shoulders and say "beats me". That's ok for me because I don't care where He was born. It's what He represents that is important and for all I care he could have been born in Tallahassee. I understand that it is important for Him to have been born in Bethlehem in order to fulfill prophecy. For me I just say "well the prophecy was wrong as most of them are" and I am good with that. But for a literal interpreter of the Bible who believes that the Bible is 100% historically accurate that's a tough pill to swallow.

I believe that it is a perfectly logical conclusion that that is what it says. Especially given how far the text has travelled. While I agree there is a risk that one writes their own bible when trying to figure out what it says but at the same time the text of the bible exists in something like a six dimensional space. One can not look at a page of the bible and see the word of God. I can not even think of a good way to explain it without writing a book and even that would fail. Let's just say the word of God is larger than the human mind can expand. So in a way one does have to create their own bible but for each topic of the bible. Thousands of new bibles could be written out of the single bible just by creating a new bible on each concept without corrupting the word of God at all. I realize this make not be making much sense but if it did it would not be religion, right? Some people say, "Well why does God just not talk to us?" The Bible, OT, is his word. A single written paragraph can have a hundred meanings whereas a spoken paragraph probably has one, maybe two. Anything God could possibly say we would probably misunderstand, that is why he wrote it down. I think I will stop here and you can ask questions if you have any.

 

[BluePhantom]

the Bible was written by God via the Holy Spirit. The Bible is 100% truth.

Ok Luke 2:2 identifies the birth of Jesus as being during the governorship of Syria by Quirinius.(1) Matthew 2:1 identifies the birth of Jesus as happening during the reign of Herod.(2) However, Herod died in 4 BC (3) and the governorship of Quirinius didn't start until 6 AD (4). So if the Bible is 100% truth please explain how Jesus was both born before 4 BC and at the same time after 6 AD. This ought to be good.

1) Luke 2 NIV - The Birth of Jesus - In those days - Bible Gateway
2) Matthew 2 NIV - The Magi Visit the Messiah - After - Bible Gateway
3) King Herod the Great
4) Quirinius the Governor of Syria

Also in Genesis 2:4-25 God creates Adam, then creates plants, then creates the animals, and then finally creates woman (Eve). But in Genesis 1:9-25 God created plants on the third day, then animals on the fifth day, and then He created man and woman at the same time on the sixth day. So which came first? Man or plants? Was man created first and woman later as in Genesis 2 or at the same time as in Genesis 1? I mean we are not even through two chapters and already there are disagreements and contradictions.

Genesis 1 NIV - The Beginning - In the beginning God - Bible Gateway
Genesis 2 NIV - Thus the heavens and the earth were - Bible Gateway

In Genesis God created the seventh day and made it holy "...because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done." This is the Sabbath. But in Deuteronomy 5:12-15 it says the Sabbath should be observed and kept holy because "...you were slaves in Egypt and God and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day." So which is it? Are we supposed to keep the Sabbath because it represents God's day of rest from creation or because it is a reminder of freedom from slavery?

Genesis 2 NIV - Thus the heavens and the earth were - Bible Gateway
Deuteronomy 5 12-15 - Observe the Sabbath day by keeping - Bible Gateway

I speak only for the OT. If one wants to find impossibilities and contradictions in the Bible it is not hard to do. If one reads the Bible and seeks wisdom and understanding one will find it. It might be said however, "Well but you need this 'faith' stuff before you start." Not so. At least no more than any scientist has when following an initial hypothesis. Any scientist who seeks to disprove a hypothesis and will take the first excuse they get is sure to succeed and will remain convinced they have succeed even after all the evidence in the world comes in behind them.

For example: Is it possible that all plants were created on the third day and that these plants would populate the earth but they were not actually planted until after it rained and there was a man to till the ground? I do not know but perhaps there is not a contradiction after all.

I get your point. Is it possible that plants were created on the third day and onward as you suggest? Sure anything is possible. But I think there is a danger there and I see most Christians try to reconcile differences between accounts and contradictions within the Bible by kind of "writing their own Bible". What you just described is possible, I suppose, but that's not what it says in either account. This is really common with the dramatically different birth accounts in Matthew and Luke where in one version there is a census and Joseph and Mary originally lived in Nazareth and went to Bethlehem for the census, and in the other version Joseph and Mary originally (at least presumably) lived in Bethlehem, fled to Egypt, and settled in Nazareth because it still wasn't safe in Bethlehem.

So there are two dramatically different accounts and because some Christians are really touchy about the Bible not being 100% accurate they try to cram the two together and argue that Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, went to Bethlehem for the census, then fled to Egypt, then RE-settled in Nazareth. Well...LOL...it's a clever way to weasel one's way through it, the problem is that it's not what either account says. So in essence in order to explain it they create their own gospel instead of simply saying "well Matthew says this and Luke says something else and we don't really know what happened." and just let it be that.

From my personal opinion it's best to say "well according to Matthew this happened" and "according to Luke that happened" and when someone asks what really happened we just shrug our shoulders and say "beats me". That's ok for me because I don't care where He was born. It's what He represents that is important and for all I care he could have been born in Tallahassee. I understand that it is important for Him to have been born in Bethlehem in order to fulfill prophecy. For me I just say "well the prophecy was wrong as most of them are" and I am good with that. But for a literal interpreter of the Bible who believes that the Bible is 100% historically accurate that's a tough pill to swallow.

I believe that it is a perfectly logical conclusion that that is what it says. Especially given how far the text has travelled. While I agree there is a risk that one writes their own bible when trying to figure out what it says but at the same time the text of the bible exists in something like a six dimensional space. One can not look at a page of the bible and see the word of God. I can not even think of a good way to explain it without writing a book and even that would fail. Let's just say the word of God is larger than the human mind can expand. So in a way one does have to create their own bible but for each topic of the bible. Thousands of new bibles could be written out of the single bible just by creating a new bible on each concept without corrupting the word of God at all. I realize this make not be making much sense but if it did it would not be religion, right? Some people say, "Well why does God just not talk to us?" The Bible, OT, is his word. A single written paragraph can have a hundred meanings whereas a spoken paragraph probably has one, maybe two. Anything God could possibly say we would probably misunderstand, that is why he wrote it down. I think I will stop here and you can ask questions if you have any.

I think we are in a sort of agreement. I tend to view the Bible from a very different perspective. I think that the first time it was written down it may have been the word of God, but there is absolutely no denying that it has evolved over countless centuries and thus what was once the word of God has become the word of man. That's how I see it and even that has some nuances attached. I understand completely about the Bible existing in "six dimensional space" and writing a book. I have considered many times writing a book and the main question I ask myself is "where on earth do I start?" LOL. On the other thread (the myths of the Bible) we discussed YHWH and again it's something that cannot be explained...that's what I was really trying to get across. YHWH reminds me of the Tao Te Ching chapter 1 where it says "The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao." Just like Lao-Tzu was trying to explain to the Eastern mind...."the way", "God", "YHWH"...whatever name you choose to describe it will not do it justice. It's just too big for mortal comprehension. That's also why the Hebrews did not use YHWH in the spoken word...that name was at the same time too powerful and yet did not do justice to the concept.

I giggle a bit when Ninja for example tells me that "non-believers cannot understand". He assumes I am not a believer because I do not accept what I am told by others to believe. I actually go research it myself instead of just accepting what a priest, or pastor, or scholar, or professor tells me on blind faith. I try to do deep research in order to draw my own conclusions and be able to base those conclusions on something solid. Indeed, I am a firm believer...I have just drawn different conclusions based on a lifetime of study on languages, history, ancient cultures, ancient politics and civilizations, archaeology, science, rhetoric, and how all that relates to scripture.

I personally don't think we should write our own Bible, but I do believe we should try our best to seek the truth of scripture and commune with God and base a personal relationship with Him upon what we can agree on. To some that seems blasphemous, but when you really think about it...how many people treat God as well as they treat themselves? Or their wife? Or their friend? Or their neighbor? So I think it's fair to say to God "we can agree on this" and it will be ok with God because God knows that's all you can give. So writing our own Bible? No I can't buy into that. But creating your own relationship with God...even creating you own personal religion based on that relationship with God. That I can agree with because the concept is far too vast and awesome for us to comprehend on God's level of understanding.

So my only question would be....what do you think about that? LOL

 

[RandomVariable]

the Bible was written by God via the Holy Spirit. The Bible is 100% truth.

Ok Luke 2:2 identifies the birth of Jesus as being during the governorship of Syria by Quirinius.(1) Matthew 2:1 identifies the birth of Jesus as happening during the reign of Herod.(2) However, Herod died in 4 BC (3) and the governorship of Quirinius didn't start until 6 AD (4). So if the Bible is 100% truth please explain how Jesus was both born before 4 BC and at the same time after 6 AD. This ought to be good.

1) Luke 2 NIV - The Birth of Jesus - In those days - Bible Gateway
2) Matthew 2 NIV - The Magi Visit the Messiah - After - Bible Gateway
3) King Herod the Great
4) Quirinius the Governor of Syria

Also in Genesis 2:4-25 God creates Adam, then creates plants, then creates the animals, and then finally creates woman (Eve). But in Genesis 1:9-25 God created plants on the third day, then animals on the fifth day, and then He created man and woman at the same time on the sixth day. So which came first? Man or plants? Was man created first and woman later as in Genesis 2 or at the same time as in Genesis 1? I mean we are not even through two chapters and already there are disagreements and contradictions.

Genesis 1 NIV - The Beginning - In the beginning God - Bible Gateway
Genesis 2 NIV - Thus the heavens and the earth were - Bible Gateway

In Genesis God created the seventh day and made it holy "...because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done." This is the Sabbath. But in Deuteronomy 5:12-15 it says the Sabbath should be observed and kept holy because "...you were slaves in Egypt and God and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day." So which is it? Are we supposed to keep the Sabbath because it represents God's day of rest from creation or because it is a reminder of freedom from slavery?

Genesis 2 NIV - Thus the heavens and the earth were - Bible Gateway
Deuteronomy 5 12-15 - Observe the Sabbath day by keeping - Bible Gateway

I speak only for the OT. If one wants to find impossibilities and contradictions in the Bible it is not hard to do. If one reads the Bible and seeks wisdom and understanding one will find it. It might be said however, "Well but you need this 'faith' stuff before you start." Not so. At least no more than any scientist has when following an initial hypothesis. Any scientist who seeks to disprove a hypothesis and will take the first excuse they get is sure to succeed and will remain convinced they have succeed even after all the evidence in the world comes in behind them.

For example: Is it possible that all plants were created on the third day and that these plants would populate the earth but they were not actually planted until after it rained and there was a man to till the ground? I do not know but perhaps there is not a contradiction after all.

I get your point. Is it possible that plants were created on the third day and onward as you suggest? Sure anything is possible. But I think there is a danger there and I see most Christians try to reconcile differences between accounts and contradictions within the Bible by kind of "writing their own Bible". What you just described is possible, I suppose, but that's not what it says in either account. This is really common with the dramatically different birth accounts in Matthew and Luke where in one version there is a census and Joseph and Mary originally lived in Nazareth and went to Bethlehem for the census, and in the other version Joseph and Mary originally (at least presumably) lived in Bethlehem, fled to Egypt, and settled in Nazareth because it still wasn't safe in Bethlehem.

So there are two dramatically different accounts and because some Christians are really touchy about the Bible not being 100% accurate they try to cram the two together and argue that Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, went to Bethlehem for the census, then fled to Egypt, then RE-settled in Nazareth. Well...LOL...it's a clever way to weasel one's way through it, the problem is that it's not what either account says. So in essence in order to explain it they create their own gospel instead of simply saying "well Matthew says this and Luke says something else and we don't really know what happened." and just let it be that.

From my personal opinion it's best to say "well according to Matthew this happened" and "according to Luke that happened" and when someone asks what really happened we just shrug our shoulders and say "beats me". That's ok for me because I don't care where He was born. It's what He represents that is important and for all I care he could have been born in Tallahassee. I understand that it is important for Him to have been born in Bethlehem in order to fulfill prophecy. For me I just say "well the prophecy was wrong as most of them are" and I am good with that. But for a literal interpreter of the Bible who believes that the Bible is 100% historically accurate that's a tough pill to swallow.

I believe that it is a perfectly logical conclusion that that is what it says. Especially given how far the text has travelled. While I agree there is a risk that one writes their own bible when trying to figure out what it says but at the same time the text of the bible exists in something like a six dimensional space. One can not look at a page of the bible and see the word of God. I can not even think of a good way to explain it without writing a book and even that would fail. Let's just say the word of God is larger than the human mind can expand. So in a way one does have to create their own bible but for each topic of the bible. Thousands of new bibles could be written out of the single bible just by creating a new bible on each concept without corrupting the word of God at all. I realize this make not be making much sense but if it did it would not be religion, right? Some people say, "Well why does God just not talk to us?" The Bible, OT, is his word. A single written paragraph can have a hundred meanings whereas a spoken paragraph probably has one, maybe two. Anything God could possibly say we would probably misunderstand, that is why he wrote it down. I think I will stop here and you can ask questions if you have any.

I think we are in a sort of agreement. I tend to view the Bible from a very different perspective. I think that the first time it was written down it may have been the word of God, but there is absolutely no denying that it has evolved over countless centuries and thus what was once the word of God has become the word of man. That's how I see it and even that has some nuances attached. I understand completely about the Bible existing in "six dimensional space" and writing a book. I have considered many times writing a book and the main question I ask myself is "where on earth do I start?" LOL. On the other thread (the myths of the Bible) we discussed YHWH and again it's something that cannot be explained...that's what I was really trying to get across. YHWH reminds me of the Tao Te Ching chapter 1 where it says "The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao." Just like Lao-Tzu was trying to explain to the Eastern mind...."the way", "God", "YHWH"...whatever name you choose to describe it will not do it justice. It's just too big for mortal comprehension. That's also why the Hebrews did not use YHWH in the spoken word...that name was at the same time too powerful and yet did not do justice to the concept.

I giggle a bit when Ninja for example tells me that "non-believers cannot understand". He assumes I am not a believer because I do not accept what I am told by others to believe. I actually go research it myself instead of just accepting what a priest, or pastor, or scholar, or professor tells me on blind faith. I try to do deep research in order to draw my own conclusions and be able to base those conclusions on something solid. Indeed, I am a firm believer...I have just drawn different conclusions based on a lifetime of study on languages, history, ancient cultures, ancient politics and civilizations, archaeology, science, rhetoric, and how all that relates to scripture.

I personally don't think we should write our own Bible, but I do believe we should try our best to seek the truth of scripture and commune with God and base a personal relationship with Him upon what we can agree on. To some that seems blasphemous, but when you really think about it...how many people treat God as well as they treat themselves? Or their wife? Or their friend? Or their neighbor? So I think it's fair to say to God "we can agree on this" and it will be ok with God because God knows that's all you can give. So writing our own Bible? No I can't buy into that. But creating your own relationship with God...even creating you own personal religion based on that relationship with God. That I can agree with because the concept is far too vast and awesome for us to comprehend on God's level of understanding.

So my only question would be....what do you think about that? LOL

I come at from kind of the other side. For years I had this kind of on-going conversation with someone 'on the other side' so to speak. While I found it somewhat amazing I figured millions and millions of religious people around it could not be that uncommon, right? Last spring things kind of changed though. I got this BLAM! - "Go read the OT". So I did. And I say, "Wow, this is the guy who has been speaking to me all these years." So I have been reading the OT, read Job like two dozen times, since then. I have learned a whole bunch about all kinds of stuff religious. This time last year I could not even tell you what a bible was more than it was a religious book. I have no clue as to what this all means. OMG, if someone would have told me this time last year that I would be a radical religious nut I would have laughed mao, it still makes me laugh actually. Probably the one thing that gets me the absolutely most about this is that apparently even with all these really religious people talking with God is not that common. It's OK though, because no one takes me serious, just as well. So if anyone asks me why I believe in God I say, "Because he told me to." and I definitely fear God, and not in some abstract way either.

 

[Votto]

Internal strife, wars, wild weather, ebola and now weird ticks spreading new diseases.

New Tick-Borne Bourbon Virus Is Deadly And Unlike Anything Previously Seen In U.S.

Are we at the end of times, according to the bible in Revelations?

Discuss.

Internal strife? Check.
Wars? Check.
Wild weather? Check.
Ebola? Check.
Weird diseased ticks? Double Check.

Yep, that ought about do it, we are there.

 

[BluePhantom]

Ok Luke 2:2 identifies the birth of Jesus as being during the governorship of Syria by Quirinius.(1) Matthew 2:1 identifies the birth of Jesus as happening during the reign of Herod.(2) However, Herod died in 4 BC (3) and the governorship of Quirinius didn't start until 6 AD (4). So if the Bible is 100% truth please explain how Jesus was both born before 4 BC and at the same time after 6 AD. This ought to be good.

1) Luke 2 NIV - The Birth of Jesus - In those days - Bible Gateway
2) Matthew 2 NIV - The Magi Visit the Messiah - After - Bible Gateway
3) King Herod the Great
4) Quirinius the Governor of Syria

Also in Genesis 2:4-25 God creates Adam, then creates plants, then creates the animals, and then finally creates woman (Eve). But in Genesis 1:9-25 God created plants on the third day, then animals on the fifth day, and then He created man and woman at the same time on the sixth day. So which came first? Man or plants? Was man created first and woman later as in Genesis 2 or at the same time as in Genesis 1? I mean we are not even through two chapters and already there are disagreements and contradictions.

Genesis 1 NIV - The Beginning - In the beginning God - Bible Gateway
Genesis 2 NIV - Thus the heavens and the earth were - Bible Gateway

In Genesis God created the seventh day and made it holy "...because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done." This is the Sabbath. But in Deuteronomy 5:12-15 it says the Sabbath should be observed and kept holy because "...you were slaves in Egypt and God and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day." So which is it? Are we supposed to keep the Sabbath because it represents God's day of rest from creation or because it is a reminder of freedom from slavery?

Genesis 2 NIV - Thus the heavens and the earth were - Bible Gateway
Deuteronomy 5 12-15 - Observe the Sabbath day by keeping - Bible Gateway

I speak only for the OT. If one wants to find impossibilities and contradictions in the Bible it is not hard to do. If one reads the Bible and seeks wisdom and understanding one will find it. It might be said however, "Well but you need this 'faith' stuff before you start." Not so. At least no more than any scientist has when following an initial hypothesis. Any scientist who seeks to disprove a hypothesis and will take the first excuse they get is sure to succeed and will remain convinced they have succeed even after all the evidence in the world comes in behind them.

For example: Is it possible that all plants were created on the third day and that these plants would populate the earth but they were not actually planted until after it rained and there was a man to till the ground? I do not know but perhaps there is not a contradiction after all.

I get your point. Is it possible that plants were created on the third day and onward as you suggest? Sure anything is possible. But I think there is a danger there and I see most Christians try to reconcile differences between accounts and contradictions within the Bible by kind of "writing their own Bible". What you just described is possible, I suppose, but that's not what it says in either account. This is really common with the dramatically different birth accounts in Matthew and Luke where in one version there is a census and Joseph and Mary originally lived in Nazareth and went to Bethlehem for the census, and in the other version Joseph and Mary originally (at least presumably) lived in Bethlehem, fled to Egypt, and settled in Nazareth because it still wasn't safe in Bethlehem.

So there are two dramatically different accounts and because some Christians are really touchy about the Bible not being 100% accurate they try to cram the two together and argue that Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, went to Bethlehem for the census, then fled to Egypt, then RE-settled in Nazareth. Well...LOL...it's a clever way to weasel one's way through it, the problem is that it's not what either account says. So in essence in order to explain it they create their own gospel instead of simply saying "well Matthew says this and Luke says something else and we don't really know what happened." and just let it be that.

From my personal opinion it's best to say "well according to Matthew this happened" and "according to Luke that happened" and when someone asks what really happened we just shrug our shoulders and say "beats me". That's ok for me because I don't care where He was born. It's what He represents that is important and for all I care he could have been born in Tallahassee. I understand that it is important for Him to have been born in Bethlehem in order to fulfill prophecy. For me I just say "well the prophecy was wrong as most of them are" and I am good with that. But for a literal interpreter of the Bible who believes that the Bible is 100% historically accurate that's a tough pill to swallow.

I believe that it is a perfectly logical conclusion that that is what it says. Especially given how far the text has travelled. While I agree there is a risk that one writes their own bible when trying to figure out what it says but at the same time the text of the bible exists in something like a six dimensional space. One can not look at a page of the bible and see the word of God. I can not even think of a good way to explain it without writing a book and even that would fail. Let's just say the word of God is larger than the human mind can expand. So in a way one does have to create their own bible but for each topic of the bible. Thousands of new bibles could be written out of the single bible just by creating a new bible on each concept without corrupting the word of God at all. I realize this make not be making much sense but if it did it would not be religion, right? Some people say, "Well why does God just not talk to us?" The Bible, OT, is his word. A single written paragraph can have a hundred meanings whereas a spoken paragraph probably has one, maybe two. Anything God could possibly say we would probably misunderstand, that is why he wrote it down. I think I will stop here and you can ask questions if you have any.

I think we are in a sort of agreement. I tend to view the Bible from a very different perspective. I think that the first time it was written down it may have been the word of God, but there is absolutely no denying that it has evolved over countless centuries and thus what was once the word of God has become the word of man. That's how I see it and even that has some nuances attached. I understand completely about the Bible existing in "six dimensional space" and writing a book. I have considered many times writing a book and the main question I ask myself is "where on earth do I start?" LOL. On the other thread (the myths of the Bible) we discussed YHWH and again it's something that cannot be explained...that's what I was really trying to get across. YHWH reminds me of the Tao Te Ching chapter 1 where it says "The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao." Just like Lao-Tzu was trying to explain to the Eastern mind...."the way", "God", "YHWH"...whatever name you choose to describe it will not do it justice. It's just too big for mortal comprehension. That's also why the Hebrews did not use YHWH in the spoken word...that name was at the same time too powerful and yet did not do justice to the concept.

I giggle a bit when Ninja for example tells me that "non-believers cannot understand". He assumes I am not a believer because I do not accept what I am told by others to believe. I actually go research it myself instead of just accepting what a priest, or pastor, or scholar, or professor tells me on blind faith. I try to do deep research in order to draw my own conclusions and be able to base those conclusions on something solid. Indeed, I am a firm believer...I have just drawn different conclusions based on a lifetime of study on languages, history, ancient cultures, ancient politics and civilizations, archaeology, science, rhetoric, and how all that relates to scripture.

I personally don't think we should write our own Bible, but I do believe we should try our best to seek the truth of scripture and commune with God and base a personal relationship with Him upon what we can agree on. To some that seems blasphemous, but when you really think about it...how many people treat God as well as they treat themselves? Or their wife? Or their friend? Or their neighbor? So I think it's fair to say to God "we can agree on this" and it will be ok with God because God knows that's all you can give. So writing our own Bible? No I can't buy into that. But creating your own relationship with God...even creating you own personal religion based on that relationship with God. That I can agree with because the concept is far too vast and awesome for us to comprehend on God's level of understanding.

So my only question would be....what do you think about that? LOL

I come at from kind of the other side. For years I had this kind of on-going conversation with someone 'on the other side' so to speak. While I found it somewhat amazing I figured millions and millions of religious people around it could not be that uncommon, right? Last spring things kind of changed though. I got this BLAM! - "Go read the OT". So I did. And I say, "Wow, this is the guy who has been speaking to me all these years." So I have been reading the OT, read Job like two dozen times, since then. I have learned a whole bunch about all kinds of stuff religious. This time last year I could not even tell you what a bible was more than it was a religious book. I have no clue as to what this all means. OMG, if someone would have told me this time last year that I would be a radical religious nut I would have laughed mao, it still makes me laugh actually. Probably the one thing that gets me the absolutely most about this is that apparently even with all these really religious people talking with God is not that common. It's OK though, because no one takes me serious, just as well. So if anyone asks me why I believe in God I say, "Because he told me to." and I definitely fear God, and not in some abstract way either.

Well calm down. LOL. Seriously though. Fanatical burnout is a very common thing. If I understand you correctly you have a new fire and passion and are perhaps a new Christian and that's great. Go with it. But be careful. I would encourage you to not go overboard. Don't be afraid to draw your own conclusions. Don't be afraid to reject traditional views, or reject scholarship but neither don't be afraid to accept them. Great things are happening with Christianity and scholarship. Technology is allowing us to understand things that haven't been understood for centuries simply because we have the ability to crunch it all down better now than at any time before and science, philosophy, and religion are beginning to merge. My brother is theoretical physicist. As theoretical and philosophical as I am, that's how scientific my brother is. Put it this way...I had a shirt made for him that says "well actually yes...I AM a rocket scientist". He was nominated for a Nobel Prize in physics. He didn't win, but at least he was nominated. The guy is a brilliant scientist. Even he concedes that advances in M-Theory, our understanding of the Big Bang, etc lead us toward a place where science, philosophy, and religion begin to merge. It's an extremely exciting time.

Critical scholarship is something that is often rejected by Christians. Most tend to misunderstand I think and it tends to threaten their faith. For me the study of critical scholarship has enhanced my faith because it seems to me that if the Bible is the word of God we ought to get it right so we are doing what GOD suggests and not what MAN suggests that may be wrong. A great example would be the snake handlers in the Ozarks who demonstrate their faith by handling and kissing poisonous snakes. They do so because in the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark it says that those who have faith can overcome a venomous bite from a snake (paraphrased). The problem is those verses were added centuries later by an unknown scribe. In the original copies of Mark the women go to the tomb of Jesus, Jesus speaks to them, and it says they do nothing for they were afraid and right there it ends. No more. A few centuries later someone said "well wait...that can't be the end. There has to be something more than that." and so the last 12 verses were added to give it a better ending and that's why guys in the Ozarks are always being rushed to the hospital after a snake bite. I really wish someone would tell them in the ambulance that the verses they are relying on were never in the original texts and they should stop kissing rattlesnakes. They might also add in that God gave us common sense for a reason.

So critical scholarship is good and I urge you to read it and take it how you will. I am still waiting for Ninja to respond to my challenges on the Bible's 100% accuracy. Perhaps I should ask him to prove it by French kissing a rattlesnake. Nah...that's too cruel. LOL

 

[ninja007]

the Bible was written by God via the Holy Spirit. The Bible is 100% truth.

Ok Luke 2:2 identifies the birth of Jesus as being during the governorship of Syria by Quirinius.(1) Matthew 2:1 identifies the birth of Jesus as happening during the reign of Herod.(2) However, Herod died in 4 BC (3) and the governorship of Quirinius didn't start until 6 AD (4). So if the Bible is 100% truth please explain how Jesus was both born before 4 BC and at the same time after 6 AD. This ought to be good.

1) Luke 2 NIV - The Birth of Jesus - In those days - Bible Gateway
2) Matthew 2 NIV - The Magi Visit the Messiah - After - Bible Gateway
3) King Herod the Great
4) Quirinius the Governor of Syria

Also in Genesis 2:4-25 God creates Adam, then creates plants, then creates the animals, and then finally creates woman (Eve). But in Genesis 1:9-25 God created plants on the third day, then animals on the fifth day, and then He created man and woman at the same time on the sixth day. So which came first? Man or plants? Was man created first and woman later as in Genesis 2 or at the same time as in Genesis 1? I mean we are not even through two chapters and already there are disagreements and contradictions.

Genesis 1 NIV - The Beginning - In the beginning God - Bible Gateway
Genesis 2 NIV - Thus the heavens and the earth were - Bible Gateway

In Genesis God created the seventh day and made it holy "...because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done." This is the Sabbath. But in Deuteronomy 5:12-15 it says the Sabbath should be observed and kept holy because "...you were slaves in Egypt and God and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day." So which is it? Are we supposed to keep the Sabbath because it represents God's day of rest from creation or because it is a reminder of freedom from slavery?

Genesis 2 NIV - Thus the heavens and the earth were - Bible Gateway
Deuteronomy 5 12-15 - Observe the Sabbath day by keeping - Bible Gateway

your interpretation is terrible. Since you do not have the Holy Spirit you cannot understand the Bible. But if you are serious about this, we can go over these one by one. plmk.

 

[ninja007]

the Bible was written by God via the Holy Spirit. The Bible is 100% truth.

Ok Luke 2:2 identifies the birth of Jesus as being during the governorship of Syria by Quirinius.(1) Matthew 2:1 identifies the birth of Jesus as happening during the reign of Herod.(2) However, Herod died in 4 BC (3) and the governorship of Quirinius didn't start until 6 AD (4). So if the Bible is 100% truth please explain how Jesus was both born before 4 BC and at the same time after 6 AD. This ought to be good.

1) Luke 2 NIV - The Birth of Jesus - In those days - Bible Gateway
2) Matthew 2 NIV - The Magi Visit the Messiah - After - Bible Gateway
3) King Herod the Great
4) Quirinius the Governor of Syria

Also in Genesis 2:4-25 God creates Adam, then creates plants, then creates the animals, and then finally creates woman (Eve). But in Genesis 1:9-25 God created plants on the third day, then animals on the fifth day, and then He created man and woman at the same time on the sixth day. So which came first? Man or plants? Was man created first and woman later as in Genesis 2 or at the same time as in Genesis 1? I mean we are not even through two chapters and already there are disagreements and contradictions.

Genesis 1 NIV - The Beginning - In the beginning God - Bible Gateway
Genesis 2 NIV - Thus the heavens and the earth were - Bible Gateway

In Genesis God created the seventh day and made it holy "...because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done." This is the Sabbath. But in Deuteronomy 5:12-15 it says the Sabbath should be observed and kept holy because "...you were slaves in Egypt and God and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day." So which is it? Are we supposed to keep the Sabbath because it represents God's day of rest from creation or because it is a reminder of freedom from slavery?

Genesis 2 NIV - Thus the heavens and the earth were - Bible Gateway
Deuteronomy 5 12-15 - Observe the Sabbath day by keeping - Bible Gateway

I speak only for the OT. If one wants to find impossibilities and contradictions in the Bible it is not hard to do. If one reads the Bible and seeks wisdom and understanding one will find it. It might be said however, "Well but you need this 'faith' stuff before you start." Not so. At least no more than any scientist has when following an initial hypothesis. Any scientist who seeks to disprove a hypothesis and will take the first excuse they get is sure to succeed and will remain convinced they have succeed even after all the evidence in the world comes in behind them.

For example: Is it possible that all plants were created on the third day and that these plants would populate the earth but they were not actually planted until after it rained and there was a man to till the ground? I do not know but perhaps there is not a contradiction after all.

I get your point. Is it possible that plants were created on the third day and onward as you suggest? Sure anything is possible. But I think there is a danger there and I see most Christians try to reconcile differences between accounts and contradictions within the Bible by kind of "writing their own Bible". What you just described is possible, I suppose, but that's not what it says in either account. This is really common with the dramatically different birth accounts in Matthew and Luke where in one version there is a census and Joseph and Mary originally lived in Nazareth and went to Bethlehem for the census, and in the other version Joseph and Mary originally (at least presumably) lived in Bethlehem, fled to Egypt, and settled in Nazareth because it still wasn't safe in Bethlehem.

So there are two dramatically different accounts and because some Christians are really touchy about the Bible not being 100% accurate they try to cram the two together and argue that Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, went to Bethlehem for the census, then fled to Egypt, then RE-settled in Nazareth. Well...LOL...it's a clever way to weasel one's way through it, the problem is that it's not what either account says. So in essence in order to explain it they create their own gospel instead of simply saying "well Matthew says this and Luke says something else and we don't really know what happened." and just let it be that.

From my personal opinion it's best to say "well according to Matthew this happened" and "according to Luke that happened" and when someone asks what really happened we just shrug our shoulders and say "beats me". That's ok for me because I don't care where He was born. It's what He represents that is important and for all I care he could have been born in Tallahassee. I understand that it is important for Him to have been born in Bethlehem in order to fulfill prophecy. For me I just say "well the prophecy was wrong as most of them are" and I am good with that. But for a literal interpreter of the Bible who believes that the Bible is 100% historically accurate that's a tough pill to swallow.

I believe that it is a perfectly logical conclusion that that is what it says. Especially given how far the text has travelled. While I agree there is a risk that one writes their own bible when trying to figure out what it says but at the same time the text of the bible exists in something like a six dimensional space. One can not look at a page of the bible and see the word of God. I can not even think of a good way to explain it without writing a book and even that would fail. Let's just say the word of God is larger than the human mind can expand. So in a way one does have to create their own bible but for each topic of the bible. Thousands of new bibles could be written out of the single bible just by creating a new bible on each concept without corrupting the word of God at all. I realize this make not be making much sense but if it did it would not be religion, right? Some people say, "Well why does God just not talk to us?" The Bible, OT, is his word. A single written paragraph can have a hundred meanings whereas a spoken paragraph probably has one, maybe two. Anything God could possibly say we would probably misunderstand, that is why he wrote it down. I think I will stop here and you can ask questions if you have any.

I think we are in a sort of agreement. I tend to view the Bible from a very different perspective. I think that the first time it was written down it may have been the word of God, but there is absolutely no denying that it has evolved over countless centuries and thus what was once the word of God has become the word of man. That's how I see it and even that has some nuances attached. I understand completely about the Bible existing in "six dimensional space" and writing a book. I have considered many times writing a book and the main question I ask myself is "where on earth do I start?" LOL. On the other thread (the myths of the Bible) we discussed YHWH and again it's something that cannot be explained...that's what I was really trying to get across. YHWH reminds me of the Tao Te Ching chapter 1 where it says "The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao." Just like Lao-Tzu was trying to explain to the Eastern mind...."the way", "God", "YHWH"...whatever name you choose to describe it will not do it justice. It's just too big for mortal comprehension. That's also why the Hebrews did not use YHWH in the spoken word...that name was at the same time too powerful and yet did not do justice to the concept.

I giggle a bit when Ninja for example tells me that "non-believers cannot understand". He assumes I am not a believer because I do not accept what I am told by others to believe. I actually go research it myself instead of just accepting what a priest, or pastor, or scholar, or professor tells me on blind faith. I try to do deep research in order to draw my own conclusions and be able to base those conclusions on something solid. Indeed, I am a firm believer...I have just drawn different conclusions based on a lifetime of study on languages, history, ancient cultures, ancient politics and civilizations, archaeology, science, rhetoric, and how all that relates to scripture.

I personally don't think we should write our own Bible, but I do believe we should try our best to seek the truth of scripture and commune with God and base a personal relationship with Him upon what we can agree on. To some that seems blasphemous, but when you really think about it...how many people treat God as well as they treat themselves? Or their wife? Or their friend? Or their neighbor? So I think it's fair to say to God "we can agree on this" and it will be ok with God because God knows that's all you can give. So writing our own Bible? No I can't buy into that. But creating your own relationship with God...even creating you own personal religion based on that relationship with God. That I can agree with because the concept is far too vast and awesome for us to comprehend on God's level of understanding.

So my only question would be....what do you think about that? LOL

are you saved?

 

[BluePhantom]

the Bible was written by God via the Holy Spirit. The Bible is 100% truth.

Ok Luke 2:2 identifies the birth of Jesus as being during the governorship of Syria by Quirinius.(1) Matthew 2:1 identifies the birth of Jesus as happening during the reign of Herod.(2) However, Herod died in 4 BC (3) and the governorship of Quirinius didn't start until 6 AD (4). So if the Bible is 100% truth please explain how Jesus was both born before 4 BC and at the same time after 6 AD. This ought to be good.

1) Luke 2 NIV - The Birth of Jesus - In those days - Bible Gateway
2) Matthew 2 NIV - The Magi Visit the Messiah - After - Bible Gateway
3) King Herod the Great
4) Quirinius the Governor of Syria

Also in Genesis 2:4-25 God creates Adam, then creates plants, then creates the animals, and then finally creates woman (Eve). But in Genesis 1:9-25 God created plants on the third day, then animals on the fifth day, and then He created man and woman at the same time on the sixth day. So which came first? Man or plants? Was man created first and woman later as in Genesis 2 or at the same time as in Genesis 1? I mean we are not even through two chapters and already there are disagreements and contradictions.

Genesis 1 NIV - The Beginning - In the beginning God - Bible Gateway
Genesis 2 NIV - Thus the heavens and the earth were - Bible Gateway

In Genesis God created the seventh day and made it holy "...because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done." This is the Sabbath. But in Deuteronomy 5:12-15 it says the Sabbath should be observed and kept holy because "...you were slaves in Egypt and God and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day." So which is it? Are we supposed to keep the Sabbath because it represents God's day of rest from creation or because it is a reminder of freedom from slavery?

Genesis 2 NIV - Thus the heavens and the earth were - Bible Gateway
Deuteronomy 5 12-15 - Observe the Sabbath day by keeping - Bible Gateway

your interpretation is terrible. Since you do not have the Holy Spirit you cannot understand the Bible. But if you are serious about this, we can go over these one by one. plmk.

Oh dude stop. My interpretation is clear historical fact cross-referenced by scripture. Don't give me the "non-believers can't understand crap". It's clear as a bell. Each of these three examples are clear contradictions in the Bible and there is no way to reconcile the historical record and the Biblical account. Spare me the "you don't know the Holy Spirit" crap. Trust me....I know the Holy Spirit VERY well.

 

[BluePhantom]

Ok Luke 2:2 identifies the birth of Jesus as being during the governorship of Syria by Quirinius.(1) Matthew 2:1 identifies the birth of Jesus as happening during the reign of Herod.(2) However, Herod died in 4 BC (3) and the governorship of Quirinius didn't start until 6 AD (4). So if the Bible is 100% truth please explain how Jesus was both born before 4 BC and at the same time after 6 AD. This ought to be good.

1) Luke 2 NIV - The Birth of Jesus - In those days - Bible Gateway
2) Matthew 2 NIV - The Magi Visit the Messiah - After - Bible Gateway
3) King Herod the Great
4) Quirinius the Governor of Syria

Also in Genesis 2:4-25 God creates Adam, then creates plants, then creates the animals, and then finally creates woman (Eve). But in Genesis 1:9-25 God created plants on the third day, then animals on the fifth day, and then He created man and woman at the same time on the sixth day. So which came first? Man or plants? Was man created first and woman later as in Genesis 2 or at the same time as in Genesis 1? I mean we are not even through two chapters and already there are disagreements and contradictions.

Genesis 1 NIV - The Beginning - In the beginning God - Bible Gateway
Genesis 2 NIV - Thus the heavens and the earth were - Bible Gateway

In Genesis God created the seventh day and made it holy "...because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done." This is the Sabbath. But in Deuteronomy 5:12-15 it says the Sabbath should be observed and kept holy because "...you were slaves in Egypt and God and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day." So which is it? Are we supposed to keep the Sabbath because it represents God's day of rest from creation or because it is a reminder of freedom from slavery?

Genesis 2 NIV - Thus the heavens and the earth were - Bible Gateway
Deuteronomy 5 12-15 - Observe the Sabbath day by keeping - Bible Gateway

I speak only for the OT. If one wants to find impossibilities and contradictions in the Bible it is not hard to do. If one reads the Bible and seeks wisdom and understanding one will find it. It might be said however, "Well but you need this 'faith' stuff before you start." Not so. At least no more than any scientist has when following an initial hypothesis. Any scientist who seeks to disprove a hypothesis and will take the first excuse they get is sure to succeed and will remain convinced they have succeed even after all the evidence in the world comes in behind them.

For example: Is it possible that all plants were created on the third day and that these plants would populate the earth but they were not actually planted until after it rained and there was a man to till the ground? I do not know but perhaps there is not a contradiction after all.

I get your point. Is it possible that plants were created on the third day and onward as you suggest? Sure anything is possible. But I think there is a danger there and I see most Christians try to reconcile differences between accounts and contradictions within the Bible by kind of "writing their own Bible". What you just described is possible, I suppose, but that's not what it says in either account. This is really common with the dramatically different birth accounts in Matthew and Luke where in one version there is a census and Joseph and Mary originally lived in Nazareth and went to Bethlehem for the census, and in the other version Joseph and Mary originally (at least presumably) lived in Bethlehem, fled to Egypt, and settled in Nazareth because it still wasn't safe in Bethlehem.

So there are two dramatically different accounts and because some Christians are really touchy about the Bible not being 100% accurate they try to cram the two together and argue that Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, went to Bethlehem for the census, then fled to Egypt, then RE-settled in Nazareth. Well...LOL...it's a clever way to weasel one's way through it, the problem is that it's not what either account says. So in essence in order to explain it they create their own gospel instead of simply saying "well Matthew says this and Luke says something else and we don't really know what happened." and just let it be that.

From my personal opinion it's best to say "well according to Matthew this happened" and "according to Luke that happened" and when someone asks what really happened we just shrug our shoulders and say "beats me". That's ok for me because I don't care where He was born. It's what He represents that is important and for all I care he could have been born in Tallahassee. I understand that it is important for Him to have been born in Bethlehem in order to fulfill prophecy. For me I just say "well the prophecy was wrong as most of them are" and I am good with that. But for a literal interpreter of the Bible who believes that the Bible is 100% historically accurate that's a tough pill to swallow.

I believe that it is a perfectly logical conclusion that that is what it says. Especially given how far the text has travelled. While I agree there is a risk that one writes their own bible when trying to figure out what it says but at the same time the text of the bible exists in something like a six dimensional space. One can not look at a page of the bible and see the word of God. I can not even think of a good way to explain it without writing a book and even that would fail. Let's just say the word of God is larger than the human mind can expand. So in a way one does have to create their own bible but for each topic of the bible. Thousands of new bibles could be written out of the single bible just by creating a new bible on each concept without corrupting the word of God at all. I realize this make not be making much sense but if it did it would not be religion, right? Some people say, "Well why does God just not talk to us?" The Bible, OT, is his word. A single written paragraph can have a hundred meanings whereas a spoken paragraph probably has one, maybe two. Anything God could possibly say we would probably misunderstand, that is why he wrote it down. I think I will stop here and you can ask questions if you have any.

I think we are in a sort of agreement. I tend to view the Bible from a very different perspective. I think that the first time it was written down it may have been the word of God, but there is absolutely no denying that it has evolved over countless centuries and thus what was once the word of God has become the word of man. That's how I see it and even that has some nuances attached. I understand completely about the Bible existing in "six dimensional space" and writing a book. I have considered many times writing a book and the main question I ask myself is "where on earth do I start?" LOL. On the other thread (the myths of the Bible) we discussed YHWH and again it's something that cannot be explained...that's what I was really trying to get across. YHWH reminds me of the Tao Te Ching chapter 1 where it says "The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao." Just like Lao-Tzu was trying to explain to the Eastern mind...."the way", "God", "YHWH"...whatever name you choose to describe it will not do it justice. It's just too big for mortal comprehension. That's also why the Hebrews did not use YHWH in the spoken word...that name was at the same time too powerful and yet did not do justice to the concept.

I giggle a bit when Ninja for example tells me that "non-believers cannot understand". He assumes I am not a believer because I do not accept what I am told by others to believe. I actually go research it myself instead of just accepting what a priest, or pastor, or scholar, or professor tells me on blind faith. I try to do deep research in order to draw my own conclusions and be able to base those conclusions on something solid. Indeed, I am a firm believer...I have just drawn different conclusions based on a lifetime of study on languages, history, ancient cultures, ancient politics and civilizations, archaeology, science, rhetoric, and how all that relates to scripture.

I personally don't think we should write our own Bible, but I do believe we should try our best to seek the truth of scripture and commune with God and base a personal relationship with Him upon what we can agree on. To some that seems blasphemous, but when you really think about it...how many people treat God as well as they treat themselves? Or their wife? Or their friend? Or their neighbor? So I think it's fair to say to God "we can agree on this" and it will be ok with God because God knows that's all you can give. So writing our own Bible? No I can't buy into that. But creating your own relationship with God...even creating you own personal religion based on that relationship with God. That I can agree with because the concept is far too vast and awesome for us to comprehend on God's level of understanding.

So my only question would be....what do you think about that? LOL

are you saved?

I am who I am

 

[BluePhantom]

Regardless Ninja....don't try to weasel out of it with all the "you don't know the Holy Spirit", "you haven't been touched by Jesus", "you haven't heard the word of Joseph Smith" crap. Explain to me how someone can both be born before 4 BC and after 6 AD and I will concede the whole point...and good f'ng luck with that

 

[ninja007]

I speak only for the OT. If one wants to find impossibilities and contradictions in the Bible it is not hard to do. If one reads the Bible and seeks wisdom and understanding one will find it. It might be said however, "Well but you need this 'faith' stuff before you start." Not so. At least no more than any scientist has when following an initial hypothesis. Any scientist who seeks to disprove a hypothesis and will take the first excuse they get is sure to succeed and will remain convinced they have succeed even after all the evidence in the world comes in behind them.

For example: Is it possible that all plants were created on the third day and that these plants would populate the earth but they were not actually planted until after it rained and there was a man to till the ground? I do not know but perhaps there is not a contradiction after all.

I get your point. Is it possible that plants were created on the third day and onward as you suggest? Sure anything is possible. But I think there is a danger there and I see most Christians try to reconcile differences between accounts and contradictions within the Bible by kind of "writing their own Bible". What you just described is possible, I suppose, but that's not what it says in either account. This is really common with the dramatically different birth accounts in Matthew and Luke where in one version there is a census and Joseph and Mary originally lived in Nazareth and went to Bethlehem for the census, and in the other version Joseph and Mary originally (at least presumably) lived in Bethlehem, fled to Egypt, and settled in Nazareth because it still wasn't safe in Bethlehem.

So there are two dramatically different accounts and because some Christians are really touchy about the Bible not being 100% accurate they try to cram the two together and argue that Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, went to Bethlehem for the census, then fled to Egypt, then RE-settled in Nazareth. Well...LOL...it's a clever way to weasel one's way through it, the problem is that it's not what either account says. So in essence in order to explain it they create their own gospel instead of simply saying "well Matthew says this and Luke says something else and we don't really know what happened." and just let it be that.

From my personal opinion it's best to say "well according to Matthew this happened" and "according to Luke that happened" and when someone asks what really happened we just shrug our shoulders and say "beats me". That's ok for me because I don't care where He was born. It's what He represents that is important and for all I care he could have been born in Tallahassee. I understand that it is important for Him to have been born in Bethlehem in order to fulfill prophecy. For me I just say "well the prophecy was wrong as most of them are" and I am good with that. But for a literal interpreter of the Bible who believes that the Bible is 100% historically accurate that's a tough pill to swallow.

I believe that it is a perfectly logical conclusion that that is what it says. Especially given how far the text has travelled. While I agree there is a risk that one writes their own bible when trying to figure out what it says but at the same time the text of the bible exists in something like a six dimensional space. One can not look at a page of the bible and see the word of God. I can not even think of a good way to explain it without writing a book and even that would fail. Let's just say the word of God is larger than the human mind can expand. So in a way one does have to create their own bible but for each topic of the bible. Thousands of new bibles could be written out of the single bible just by creating a new bible on each concept without corrupting the word of God at all. I realize this make not be making much sense but if it did it would not be religion, right? Some people say, "Well why does God just not talk to us?" The Bible, OT, is his word. A single written paragraph can have a hundred meanings whereas a spoken paragraph probably has one, maybe two. Anything God could possibly say we would probably misunderstand, that is why he wrote it down. I think I will stop here and you can ask questions if you have any.

I think we are in a sort of agreement. I tend to view the Bible from a very different perspective. I think that the first time it was written down it may have been the word of God, but there is absolutely no denying that it has evolved over countless centuries and thus what was once the word of God has become the word of man. That's how I see it and even that has some nuances attached. I understand completely about the Bible existing in "six dimensional space" and writing a book. I have considered many times writing a book and the main question I ask myself is "where on earth do I start?" LOL. On the other thread (the myths of the Bible) we discussed YHWH and again it's something that cannot be explained...that's what I was really trying to get across. YHWH reminds me of the Tao Te Ching chapter 1 where it says "The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao." Just like Lao-Tzu was trying to explain to the Eastern mind...."the way", "God", "YHWH"...whatever name you choose to describe it will not do it justice. It's just too big for mortal comprehension. That's also why the Hebrews did not use YHWH in the spoken word...that name was at the same time too powerful and yet did not do justice to the concept.

I giggle a bit when Ninja for example tells me that "non-believers cannot understand". He assumes I am not a believer because I do not accept what I am told by others to believe. I actually go research it myself instead of just accepting what a priest, or pastor, or scholar, or professor tells me on blind faith. I try to do deep research in order to draw my own conclusions and be able to base those conclusions on something solid. Indeed, I am a firm believer...I have just drawn different conclusions based on a lifetime of study on languages, history, ancient cultures, ancient politics and civilizations, archaeology, science, rhetoric, and how all that relates to scripture.

I personally don't think we should write our own Bible, but I do believe we should try our best to seek the truth of scripture and commune with God and base a personal relationship with Him upon what we can agree on. To some that seems blasphemous, but when you really think about it...how many people treat God as well as they treat themselves? Or their wife? Or their friend? Or their neighbor? So I think it's fair to say to God "we can agree on this" and it will be ok with God because God knows that's all you can give. So writing our own Bible? No I can't buy into that. But creating your own relationship with God...even creating you own personal religion based on that relationship with God. That I can agree with because the concept is far too vast and awesome for us to comprehend on God's level of understanding.

So my only question would be....what do you think about that? LOL

are you saved?

I am who I am

nope. thanks for playing.

 

[BluePhantom]

I get your point. Is it possible that plants were created on the third day and onward as you suggest? Sure anything is possible. But I think there is a danger there and I see most Christians try to reconcile differences between accounts and contradictions within the Bible by kind of "writing their own Bible". What you just described is possible, I suppose, but that's not what it says in either account. This is really common with the dramatically different birth accounts in Matthew and Luke where in one version there is a census and Joseph and Mary originally lived in Nazareth and went to Bethlehem for the census, and in the other version Joseph and Mary originally (at least presumably) lived in Bethlehem, fled to Egypt, and settled in Nazareth because it still wasn't safe in Bethlehem.

So there are two dramatically different accounts and because some Christians are really touchy about the Bible not being 100% accurate they try to cram the two together and argue that Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, went to Bethlehem for the census, then fled to Egypt, then RE-settled in Nazareth. Well...LOL...it's a clever way to weasel one's way through it, the problem is that it's not what either account says. So in essence in order to explain it they create their own gospel instead of simply saying "well Matthew says this and Luke says something else and we don't really know what happened." and just let it be that.

From my personal opinion it's best to say "well according to Matthew this happened" and "according to Luke that happened" and when someone asks what really happened we just shrug our shoulders and say "beats me". That's ok for me because I don't care where He was born. It's what He represents that is important and for all I care he could have been born in Tallahassee. I understand that it is important for Him to have been born in Bethlehem in order to fulfill prophecy. For me I just say "well the prophecy was wrong as most of them are" and I am good with that. But for a literal interpreter of the Bible who believes that the Bible is 100% historically accurate that's a tough pill to swallow.

I believe that it is a perfectly logical conclusion that that is what it says. Especially given how far the text has travelled. While I agree there is a risk that one writes their own bible when trying to figure out what it says but at the same time the text of the bible exists in something like a six dimensional space. One can not look at a page of the bible and see the word of God. I can not even think of a good way to explain it without writing a book and even that would fail. Let's just say the word of God is larger than the human mind can expand. So in a way one does have to create their own bible but for each topic of the bible. Thousands of new bibles could be written out of the single bible just by creating a new bible on each concept without corrupting the word of God at all. I realize this make not be making much sense but if it did it would not be religion, right? Some people say, "Well why does God just not talk to us?" The Bible, OT, is his word. A single written paragraph can have a hundred meanings whereas a spoken paragraph probably has one, maybe two. Anything God could possibly say we would probably misunderstand, that is why he wrote it down. I think I will stop here and you can ask questions if you have any.

I think we are in a sort of agreement. I tend to view the Bible from a very different perspective. I think that the first time it was written down it may have been the word of God, but there is absolutely no denying that it has evolved over countless centuries and thus what was once the word of God has become the word of man. That's how I see it and even that has some nuances attached. I understand completely about the Bible existing in "six dimensional space" and writing a book. I have considered many times writing a book and the main question I ask myself is "where on earth do I start?" LOL. On the other thread (the myths of the Bible) we discussed YHWH and again it's something that cannot be explained...that's what I was really trying to get across. YHWH reminds me of the Tao Te Ching chapter 1 where it says "The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao." Just like Lao-Tzu was trying to explain to the Eastern mind...."the way", "God", "YHWH"...whatever name you choose to describe it will not do it justice. It's just too big for mortal comprehension. That's also why the Hebrews did not use YHWH in the spoken word...that name was at the same time too powerful and yet did not do justice to the concept.

I giggle a bit when Ninja for example tells me that "non-believers cannot understand". He assumes I am not a believer because I do not accept what I am told by others to believe. I actually go research it myself instead of just accepting what a priest, or pastor, or scholar, or professor tells me on blind faith. I try to do deep research in order to draw my own conclusions and be able to base those conclusions on something solid. Indeed, I am a firm believer...I have just drawn different conclusions based on a lifetime of study on languages, history, ancient cultures, ancient politics and civilizations, archaeology, science, rhetoric, and how all that relates to scripture.

I personally don't think we should write our own Bible, but I do believe we should try our best to seek the truth of scripture and commune with God and base a personal relationship with Him upon what we can agree on. To some that seems blasphemous, but when you really think about it...how many people treat God as well as they treat themselves? Or their wife? Or their friend? Or their neighbor? So I think it's fair to say to God "we can agree on this" and it will be ok with God because God knows that's all you can give. So writing our own Bible? No I can't buy into that. But creating your own relationship with God...even creating you own personal religion based on that relationship with God. That I can agree with because the concept is far too vast and awesome for us to comprehend on God's level of understanding.

So my only question would be....what do you think about that? LOL

are you saved?

I am who I am

nope. thanks for playing.

How can someone be born before 4 BC and after 6 AD? No slipping your way out of this one. Answer the question.

 

[BluePhantom]

Psst Ninja....praying to the Holy Spirit to deliver you the answer probably won't help since the question has been out there for almost 2,000 years and no one has been able to answer it yet...well except for those who suggest that Mary was in labor for 10 years but I think we can safely set them aside as "nuts". Yes there IS actually a school of thought out there that says Mary was in labor for 10 years in order to explain how Jesus was born BOTH during the reign of Herod and the governorship of Syria by Quirinius. Unless you are willing to go there, just concede the point

 

[ninja007]

I believe that it is a perfectly logical conclusion that that is what it says. Especially given how far the text has travelled. While I agree there is a risk that one writes their own bible when trying to figure out what it says but at the same time the text of the bible exists in something like a six dimensional space. One can not look at a page of the bible and see the word of God. I can not even think of a good way to explain it without writing a book and even that would fail. Let's just say the word of God is larger than the human mind can expand. So in a way one does have to create their own bible but for each topic of the bible. Thousands of new bibles could be written out of the single bible just by creating a new bible on each concept without corrupting the word of God at all. I realize this make not be making much sense but if it did it would not be religion, right? Some people say, "Well why does God just not talk to us?" The Bible, OT, is his word. A single written paragraph can have a hundred meanings whereas a spoken paragraph probably has one, maybe two. Anything God could possibly say we would probably misunderstand, that is why he wrote it down. I think I will stop here and you can ask questions if you have any.

I think we are in a sort of agreement. I tend to view the Bible from a very different perspective. I think that the first time it was written down it may have been the word of God, but there is absolutely no denying that it has evolved over countless centuries and thus what was once the word of God has become the word of man. That's how I see it and even that has some nuances attached. I understand completely about the Bible existing in "six dimensional space" and writing a book. I have considered many times writing a book and the main question I ask myself is "where on earth do I start?" LOL. On the other thread (the myths of the Bible) we discussed YHWH and again it's something that cannot be explained...that's what I was really trying to get across. YHWH reminds me of the Tao Te Ching chapter 1 where it says "The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao." Just like Lao-Tzu was trying to explain to the Eastern mind...."the way", "God", "YHWH"...whatever name you choose to describe it will not do it justice. It's just too big for mortal comprehension. That's also why the Hebrews did not use YHWH in the spoken word...that name was at the same time too powerful and yet did not do justice to the concept.

I giggle a bit when Ninja for example tells me that "non-believers cannot understand". He assumes I am not a believer because I do not accept what I am told by others to believe. I actually go research it myself instead of just accepting what a priest, or pastor, or scholar, or professor tells me on blind faith. I try to do deep research in order to draw my own conclusions and be able to base those conclusions on something solid. Indeed, I am a firm believer...I have just drawn different conclusions based on a lifetime of study on languages, history, ancient cultures, ancient politics and civilizations, archaeology, science, rhetoric, and how all that relates to scripture.

I personally don't think we should write our own Bible, but I do believe we should try our best to seek the truth of scripture and commune with God and base a personal relationship with Him upon what we can agree on. To some that seems blasphemous, but when you really think about it...how many people treat God as well as they treat themselves? Or their wife? Or their friend? Or their neighbor? So I think it's fair to say to God "we can agree on this" and it will be ok with God because God knows that's all you can give. So writing our own Bible? No I can't buy into that. But creating your own relationship with God...even creating you own personal religion based on that relationship with God. That I can agree with because the concept is far too vast and awesome for us to comprehend on God's level of understanding.

So my only question would be....what do you think about that? LOL

are you saved?

I am who I am

nope. thanks for playing.

How can someone be born before 4 BC and after 6 AD? No slipping your way out of this one. Answer the question.

BOTH accounts are correct because they speak of two different time periods.

 

[BluePhantom]

I think we are in a sort of agreement. I tend to view the Bible from a very different perspective. I think that the first time it was written down it may have been the word of God, but there is absolutely no denying that it has evolved over countless centuries and thus what was once the word of God has become the word of man. That's how I see it and even that has some nuances attached. I understand completely about the Bible existing in "six dimensional space" and writing a book. I have considered many times writing a book and the main question I ask myself is "where on earth do I start?" LOL. On the other thread (the myths of the Bible) we discussed YHWH and again it's something that cannot be explained...that's what I was really trying to get across. YHWH reminds me of the Tao Te Ching chapter 1 where it says "The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao." Just like Lao-Tzu was trying to explain to the Eastern mind...."the way", "God", "YHWH"...whatever name you choose to describe it will not do it justice. It's just too big for mortal comprehension. That's also why the Hebrews did not use YHWH in the spoken word...that name was at the same time too powerful and yet did not do justice to the concept.

I giggle a bit when Ninja for example tells me that "non-believers cannot understand". He assumes I am not a believer because I do not accept what I am told by others to believe. I actually go research it myself instead of just accepting what a priest, or pastor, or scholar, or professor tells me on blind faith. I try to do deep research in order to draw my own conclusions and be able to base those conclusions on something solid. Indeed, I am a firm believer...I have just drawn different conclusions based on a lifetime of study on languages, history, ancient cultures, ancient politics and civilizations, archaeology, science, rhetoric, and how all that relates to scripture.

I personally don't think we should write our own Bible, but I do believe we should try our best to seek the truth of scripture and commune with God and base a personal relationship with Him upon what we can agree on. To some that seems blasphemous, but when you really think about it...how many people treat God as well as they treat themselves? Or their wife? Or their friend? Or their neighbor? So I think it's fair to say to God "we can agree on this" and it will be ok with God because God knows that's all you can give. So writing our own Bible? No I can't buy into that. But creating your own relationship with God...even creating you own personal religion based on that relationship with God. That I can agree with because the concept is far too vast and awesome for us to comprehend on God's level of understanding.

So my only question would be....what do you think about that? LOL

are you saved?

I am who I am

nope. thanks for playing.

How can someone be born before 4 BC and after 6 AD? No slipping your way out of this one. Answer the question.

BOTH accounts are correct because they speak of two different time periods.

LMFAO....yes they DO speak of two different time periods and both are specific in that Jesus was born in each of them which is impossible. It's flat out impossible for both of them to be correct unless Mary was in labor for ten years. I guess that would explain why there are no childhood accounts of Jesus in the Bible...apparently He was ten years old when he was born. ROFL!!!

 

[ninja007]

Luke's account is the actual event of Christ's birth in the manger.

btw, been saved since 1997.

 

[ninja007]

What year was Jesus Christ born When was Jesus born