Zone1 Should The Christian Bible Be Called "The Book of Opinions?"

[Procrustes Stretched]

No I'm not.
And Christ's words are the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, so no matter the age.
But tell me what Paul and John disagree on what Christ said and did. Or John and Peter, or Peter and Matthew. Where is the disconnect you think these men had?

Found this:

For those who believe the Bible is the literal word of god. Apparently brides could be bought for foreskins.
Samuel 18:25-27

Saul replied, “Say to David, ‘The king wants no other price for the bride than a hundred Philistine foreskins, to take revenge on his enemies.’” Saul’s plan was to have David fall by the hands of the Philistines.

When the attendants told David these things, he was pleased to become the king’s son-in-law. So before the allotted time elapsed, David took his men with him and went out and killed two hundred Philistines and brought back their foreskins. They counted out the full number to the king so that David might become the king’s son-in-law. Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage.

Weird

 

[Meriweather]

“And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.” — Romans 13:11-12

“Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.” — James 5:8

“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.” — 1 John 2:18

“But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.” — 1 Peter 4:7

There is little doubt that early Christians, especially with the advent of persecutions, came to the conclusion that the Day of Lord was close at hand. Of course, "The Day of the Lord" had been prophesied by Isaiah about eight centuries before Christ. End times was nothing new in the time of Christ or the early Christians. It had been talked about since the time of Isaiah.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is little doubt that early Christians, especially with the advent of persecutions, came to the conclusion that the Day of Lord was close at hand. Of course, "The Day of the Lord" had been prophesied by Isaiah about eight centuries before Christ. End times was nothing new in the time of Christ or the early Christians. It had been talked about since the time of Isaiah.

And John the Baptists inanities were nothing new during his time. Dime a dozen.

 

[Meriweather]

Nope. A generation is traditionally 40 years.

Only when the word is used by that definition. It rarely was. Remember many words have more than one definition.

 

[Meriweather]

And John the Baptists inanities were nothing new during his time. Dime a dozen.

God's truths are seldom new. John was reminding people of his own time about these truths and expectations.

 

[surada]

There is little doubt that early Christians, especially with the advent of persecutions, came to the conclusion that the Day of Lord was close at hand. Of course, "The Day of the Lord" had been prophesied by Isaiah about eight centuries before Christ. End times was nothing new in the time of Christ or the early Christians. It had been talked about since the time of Isaiah.

The phrase "the day of the Lord" is used in the Bible in Isaiah 2:12 and other passages.

In Isaiah 13:1–22, Isaiah describes the "day of the Lord" as a time when God will come with wrath and anger to destroy the land and its sinners.

The day will be marked by catastrophic natural events and loss of life, and the stars and moon will not shine.

Isaiah also describes how God will punish the world for its evil, bring down the proud, and humble the arrogant. The final outcome of the day of the Lord will be that God alone will be exalted.

The phrase "the day of the Lord" is also used in Isaiah 2:12, where it describes how God will bring down those who are proud and lofty. Isaiah 10:3–4, 24:5–6, and 33:14 also mention the day of the Lord, stating that there will be no help for rebels on that day.

 

[surada]

Only when the word is used by that definition. It rarely was. Remember many words have more than one definition.

Generation doesn't mean "race".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

NOTE: oops. I hit the wrong button. Not finished writing

I am serious in asking "Should The Christian Bible Be Called "The Book of Opinions?""

I do know that the "Books" in the Bible were selected out of a larger group of books. The Synods ruled what was in and what was out.

One quote: "During the fourth century, several church synods, such as the Councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397), accepted all 27 books of the New Testament as canonical."

We have this:

The Deuterocanonical Books

Some of the Books tell different versions of a story, whereas some Books tell a story not in other Books. Is that not "opinion?"

Some self-appointed authorities got to decide. Often by brute force anathematizing or killing off those who challenged them.

The bible was written by men, absent ‘divine inspiration,’ consistent with the fact that there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists.

The bible is therefore nothing but subjective opinion, devoid of secular authority.

 

[Meriweather]

Generation doesn't mean "race".

Check the Aramaic etymology. The English "Generation" does not mean 'race', but the Aramaic word, "sharbatha" also refers to nation, tribe, race, family over and above that forty-year time span. Jesus did not speak the King James English, but in Aramaic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The modern Bible is a miracle performed by God.

Nonsense.

The bible is a collection of ancient myths and legends created by men – nothing ‘miraculous’ about it.

 

[ding]

and pardon the troll-interruption

Isn't that what all your posts on Christianity are intended to be?

"...The combating of religion cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching..." Vladimir Lenin

 

[Clyde 154]

NOTE: oops. I hit the wrong button. Not finished writing

I am serious in asking "Should The Christian Bible Be Called "The Book of Opinions?""

I do know that the "Books" in the Bible were selected out of a larger group of books. The Synods ruled what was in and what was out.

One quote: "During the fourth century, several church synods, such as the Councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397), accepted all 27 books of the New Testament as canonical."

We have this:

The Deuterocanonical Books

Some of the Books tell different versions of a story, whereas some Books tell a story not in other Books. Is that not "opinion?"

Some self-appointed authorities got to decide. Often by brute force anathematizing or killing off those who challenged them.sou

Found this:

For those who believe the Bible is the literal word of god. Apparently brides could be bought for foreskins.
Samuel 18:25-27

Saul replied, “Say to David, ‘The king wants no other price for the bride than a hundred Philistine foreskins, to take revenge on his enemies.’” Saul’s plan was to have David fall by the hands of the Philistines.

When the attendants told David these things, he was pleased to become the king’s son-in-law. So before the allotted time elapsed, David took his men with him and went out and killed two hundred Philistines and brought back their foreskins. They counted out the full number to the king so that David might become the king’s son-in-law. Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage.

Weird

It appears that you have a problem with comprehension. You fail to note exactly why some of the books that existed in the early centuries following Christ's Crucifixion.....it was not because of some early RCC conspiracy. These books were omitted because there was no existing evidence of these books having been authored under the direct supervision or personally by an original Apostle of Christ. As history actual proves, these excluded books were excluded because of evidence they were actually written by a group of heretics called the "Gnostics". The official Canon contains only "Orthodox" teachings. The Gnostic heretics promoted radical teachings ranging from personal spiritualism to outright easily demonstrated lies....that directly conflicted with the orthodox teachings of the Apostles.

Gnostics: https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

 

[The Irish Ram]

Found this:

For those who believe the Bible is the literal word of god. Apparently brides could be bought for foreskins.
Samuel 18:25-27

Saul replied, “Say to David, ‘The king wants no other price for the bride than a hundred Philistine foreskins, to take revenge on his enemies.’” Saul’s plan was to have David fall by the hands of the Philistines.

When the attendants told David these things, he was pleased to become the king’s son-in-law. So before the allotted time elapsed, David took his men with him and went out and killed two hundred Philistines and brought back their foreskins. They counted out the full number to the king so that David might become the king’s son-in-law. Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage.

Weird

We think it's weird, but ancient soldiers did not. Egyptians did it. Some others collected the genitals of the enemy. Some hands. They were rewarded for them. It is no different than the Indians being paid per scalp by the English.

There is little doubt that early Christians, especially with the advent of persecutions, came to the conclusion that the Day of Lord was close at hand. Of course, "The Day of the Lord" had been prophesied by Isaiah about eight centuries before Christ. End times was nothing new in the time of Christ or the early Christians. It had been talked about since the time of Isaiah

Many have tried to place the Day of the Lord in this timeline or that, because of the amount of times it is used in the OT and NT. It means, the day. Some prophets eluded to events happening in their time and in past times. Jesus described events to look for in the End Times day of the Lord, that have not been seen in their entirety yet, including God's wrath. It depends on the context in which the prophets or Peter, or Christ were referring to.
If you believe Christ, He read a portion of Isaiah and proclaimed that He was who Isaiah was referring to.

And John the Baptists inanities were nothing new during his time. Dime a dozen.

Jesus approved of him. Can you explain what inanities that would be? Whatever you think they are didn't seem to deter Christ.

 

[surada]

God's truths are seldom new. John was reminding people of his own time about these truths and expectations.

You aren't stupid. Read sharbatha in context.

 

[surada]

Check the Aramaic etymology. The English "Generation" does not mean 'race', but the Aramaic word, "sharbatha" also refers to nation, tribe, race, family over and above that forty-year time span. Jesus did not speak the King James English, but in Aramaic.

Read the word in context. It also means generation.