Please someone answer me this;

[chair]

2Ti 3:15-17 KJV And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.​

Yes, I was expecting this verse, which says All scripture (i.e. OT, as the NT didn't exists yet) is given by inspiration of God (note: inspiration- not literal inerrant Word of God), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (i.e. useful for education)

 

[Right Divider]

Yes, I was expecting this verse, which says All scripture (i.e. OT, as the NT didn't exists yet) is given by inspiration of God (note: inspiration- not literal inerrant Word of God), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (i.e. useful for education)

2 Timothy was the LAST book that Paul wrote and Paul's writings are scripture.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes, I was expecting this verse, which says All scripture (i.e. OT, as the NT didn't exists yet) is given by inspiration of God (note: inspiration- not literal inerrant Word of God), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (i.e. useful for education)

Sorry, but most of the New Testament was written by the time Paul wrote 2 Timothy. That includes Romans 3:1-2.

 

[Lon]

Whatever it takes to protect your dream of what the Bible is.

:nono: YOU've even said 'missing' so how could I possibly be out of line or reason with you, yourself, already saying that and also distancing from "error" as well??? :idunno:

Lon, there wasn't one author to the Bible. There is no reason to expect the different versions of stories to exactly match. The ones making a huge assumption are you and your teachers. You assume a perfect Bible, for theological reasons, then pretend to be intellectually honest and scientific about the data.

:nono: As I've said, there is no pretend. It is given by the New Testament. Not only that, as you rightly said, your Rabbis all believe it as well. How can a layman (forgive the term) hope to succeed after that? Do you accuse all Rabbis and all Christians of this??? :idunno:

 

[Lon]

It is convenient to label other people's work as "hasty", but it is inaccurate and not a fair form of argument.

I disagree. It simply IS the hastier of the two.

The basic question is: do you treat the Bible differently than other ancient texts?

Yes. It IS different than other ancient texts. By a LONG shot.

If you do, you are doing so because of your religion, which is OK- but don't pretend that it is some kind of honest scientific evaluation of the facts, or "the greater academic pursuit" .

Oh, I had a crisis of faith. Don't think I didn't. It's gone now.

You've also made some claims about how you know the Bible is True:


1-2 are circular arguments, based on the idea that the Bible claims is is True, there fore it is.

Rather, if it cannot be shown to be a lie (and it can't) then it is true REGARDLESS. Circular? Truth is self-authenticating. It is ALWAYS circular because you and I (finite) cannot know everything. Even Hebrew is by faith. You cannot be born God's if your mind is far from your birth.

3 is also circular, as without the Bible you wouldn't know that these people were reputable or died for their beliefs.

Yet, when pressed, all died FOR what they believed true. It indeed was true to them. Again, it is self-authenticating as all truth must be. You cannot measure God, therefore you take Him as true by faith, that is founded and rational.

Dying for beliefs is common enough, and no proof of anything.

Not if you were the ones who started it. Again, they believed it. There is more than simply this. You can't wave it all away before it just becomes willful and not seeking truth.

4, it isn't internally consistent, though you pretend that it is.

To a Jew? Of course. The N.T. says you are blinded. Jesus said you were blinded. It means you don't see the cohesion.

Five, who said God must give out perfect books?

Why wouldn't He? He's perfect. As I said, 'authority' means the perfection question is out the window anyway: It is a book to be followed, not scrutinized. It matters whether it is casual reading or a road map for life.

In the OT, there are sections that are reported to be God's actual words. "And God said to Moses...", or the 10 commandments. Most of the Bible (OT) doesn't make that claim. Did the NT writers actually say that the Bible is God's Word? Please provide a verse for that.

2 Timothy 3:16 2 Peter 1:21 2 Samuel 23:2

 

[chair]

Once you say I am blinded, there really isn't much to talk about.

I follow my people's ancient traditions, because they are my people's ancient traditions. This works for me, and I don't expect it to work for non-Jews.

You are pretending to follow an Absolute Truth, and that you are taking the Less Hasty and More Academic view of things. You apparently managed to convince yourself of this, but it won't convince anybody who isn't already convinced.

Here's a suggestion: go take a few courses in Middle Eastern archaeology at a local university- not a Bible College or Theological Seminary.

 

[Hawkins]

Bodies for one, what did the Israelites do with the dead. also trash, things one would find at a dwelling where over 2 million have camped for years? Nothing had been found any where in the desert. No one seen 2 million people traveling thru the desert in 40 years time?

Sent from my SM-J700P using Tapatalk

Nothing left if humans kept living in the area, everything would have been overridden. Did you dig up every inch of the land along the route then carbon-dating every piece of trunks to conclude that "no trash" actually belong to humans back then?

Egypt and nearby countries are with sandstorms all the times. People need to upkeep the roads by removing everything along and nearby the roads.

AS near as WWII, the Chinese claim that there are 300,000 death tolls in Nanjing massacre. It is denied by the Japanese because almost no evidence are presentable, no bodies no trashes etc.. All left is whether you choose to believe or to reject (as the Japanese do) what have been testified by the self-claimed eye-witnesses. This is what history is. By your token of reasoning then the Japanese must be right in denying the massacre.

 

[George Affleck]

My man, that the whole point, these are not God's words these are Man's words.If the ancient Hebrew scholars did not trust man with God's name, you think they would publish his actual words. As secretive as the Jews are about their God. Do you really believe that these Christian religions are teaching God's word. The Jews do not believe that Jesus is God's son. So all Jews won't go to heaven. But without Jews there would be no Christians. So your thinking is faulty. Who is practicing God's word? Remember, God does not make mistakes. So what religion or group is upholding these commands and laws from God himself?


Sent from my SM-J700P using Tapatalk

Jesus upheld the commands and laws of God and practiced God's Word. God has decided, and told us, that all those who have faith in Him have also His perfection in all these areas. It is this group of people, the church universal, who "practice" God's Word as you put it.

 

[chair]

Sorry, but most of the New Testament was written by the time Paul wrote 2 Timothy. That includes Romans 3:1-2.

This is irrelevant. The question is: what did Paul mean when he said "scriptures"? Was he referring to what were known as "scriptures" in his time, i.e. the Hebrew Bible, or to "the Hebrew Bible AND all the letters that I've written, that will, in a few centuries, be collected, and called "New Testament"?

 

[Lon]

Yes, I was expecting this verse, which says All scripture (i.e. OT, as the NT didn't exists yet) is given by inspiration of God (note: inspiration- not literal inerrant Word of God), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (i.e. useful for education)

2 Peter 3:16

 

[Lon]

Once you say I am blinded, there really isn't much to talk about.

Jesus called the Pharisees blinded. Paul said that the message of God is hidden from Jews. The gospel is FIRST to the Jews. "I" was blinded. There is no shame in not seeing, only refusing to see.

I follow my people's ancient traditions, because they are my people's ancient traditions. This works for me, and I don't expect it to work for non-Jews.

You are pretending to follow an Absolute Truth, and that you are taking the Less Hasty and More Academic view of things. You apparently managed to convince yourself of this, but it won't convince anybody who isn't already convinced.

Paul planted, Apollos watered, God gave the increase. I can but plant/water. This is truly between you and your Maker.

Here's a suggestion: go take a few courses in Middle Eastern archaeology at a local university- not a Bible College or Theological Seminary.

You missed it: My professor, Donald Brake, was president of a Bible college in Israel and had partaken in many archaeology endeavors.
Many prominent noted archaeologists are and have been Christians.

An appeal to 'secular' or "Jewish" sources is simply an appeal to authority by fallacy. You CAN willfully dismiss. I've already said it is the hastier of the two to do so. Doubt is exactly like that. Move by truth, not doubt, wherever it leads. It REQUIRES God be God, and we but creations, servants, followers...

 

[7djengo7]

Once I was sure that the Bible was 100% true, and dictated by God to humans. When I grew up, I realized that it wasn't true, no matter how much you'd like it to be true. The Bible is not 100% consistent. It doesn't match known historic facts quite right. The numbers in some of the stories (i.e. Exodus) have to be taken with a grain of salt. It is holy, ancient- but it cannot possibly be all God's Word. In fact, if you read the OT carefully, you'll notice that at times God's word is quoted. At Times, not always.

If you have some evidence or proof, let's hear it. If not, just be quiet. Your blustering only weakens your position.

"Once" you "were sure" that X is true, but now, all grown up and proud, you say that there is no "evidence or proof" that X is true. Why, then, were you, previously, sure that X is true? If you say there was no "evidence or proof" that X is true, then what would you say it was that impelled you to be sure, back then, that X is true?

In fact, you go so far as to say, of X, that you, later, "realized" that X is not true. What would you say impelled you to "realize" that X is not true? Something you call "evidence or proof"?

According to you, X is not true, and yet, you're nevertheless demanding something you call "evidence or proof" that X is true. What you're saying is "Let's have some evidence or proof that that thing I realize is untrue is true." That's rank incoherence. You're confused. If you had your thinking cap on, you'd think: "Oh, wait a second! Since, because of evidence or proof that X is untrue, I have come to realize that X is untrue, it is therefore irrational of me to say 'Give me evidence or proof that X is true'." Would you seriously say to someone, "Give me evidence or proof that that dog is not a dog", or "Give me evidence or proof that that thing that is not a dog is a dog"? Yet, what you're saying is, "Give me evidence or proof that that untrue thing is true".

Oh, also, having noticed your phrase, "evidence or proof", I's wondering if you could tell me what (if anything) you would say's the difference between whatever it is you call "evidence" and whatever it is you call "proof". Oh, surely you're not just blustering, and meaninglessly parroting such words, when you stand up there and thunder down, "If you have some evidence or proof, let's hear it."

 

[JudgeRightly]

"Once" you "were sure" that X is true, but now, all grown up and proud, you say that there is no "evidence or proof" that X is true. Why, then, were you, previously, sure that X is true? If you say there was no "evidence or proof" that X is true, then what would you say it was that impelled you to be sure, back then, that X is true?

In fact, you go so far as to say, of X, that you, later, "realized" that X is not true. What would you say impelled you to "realize" that X is not true? Something you call "evidence or proof"?

According to you, X is not true, and yet, you're nevertheless demanding something you call "evidence or proof" that X is true. What you're saying is "Let's have some evidence or proof that that thing I realize is untrue is true." That's rank incoherence. You're confused. If you had your thinking cap on, you'd think: "Oh, wait a second! Since, because of evidence or proof that X is untrue, I have come to realize that X is untrue, it is therefore irrational of me to say 'Give me evidence or proof that X is true'." Would you seriously say to someone, "Give me evidence or proof that that dog is not a dog", or "Give me evidence or proof that that thing that is not a dog is a dog"? Yet, what you're saying is, "Give me evidence or proof that that untrue thing is true".

Oh, also, having noticed your phrase, "evidence or proof", I's wondering if you could tell me what (if anything) you would say's the difference between whatever it is you call "evidence" and whatever it is you call "proof". Oh, surely you're not just blustering, and meaninglessly parroting such words, when you stand up there and thunder down, "If you have some evidence or proof, let's hear it."

It honestly sounds like Chair is still trying to convince himself that it's not true, and that he thinks by continuing to argue that it's not true, he'll become more and more convinced.

 

[7djengo7]

Once you say I am blinded, there really isn't much to talk about.

Why? Are you not, just the same, saying that those who oppose what you consider to be truth, are blinded against what you consider to be truth?

Here's a suggestion: go take a few courses in Middle Eastern archaeology at a local university- not a Bible College or Theological Seminary.

You've done, I take it, just what you are recommending, here, then. No? If not, then what's your recommendation worth? Nada. It's pompous noise. If so, why, then, start, right here, in this forum, using the superior intelligence you surely acquired from taking your few courses, and cause those who oppose your way of thinking to come, rather, to agree with you in it. What's holding you back? If it was so easy for the anti-Christian talkers who administered your courses to cause you to switch sides, why can't you just emulate what they did, here, and cause us to switch sides, just the same as they did you? Obviously, you're going to want to not say that it is due to blindness on our part that you can't perform the feat I just proposed. 'Cause, after all, once you say we're blinded, you know....

 

[7djengo7]

It honestly sounds like Chair is still trying to convince himself that it's not true, and that he thinks by continuing to argue that it's not true, he'll become more and more convinced.

What you said made me think of what Francis Bacon said in his essay "Of Atheism":

The Scripture saith, The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God; it is not said, The fool hath thought in his heart; so as he rather saith it by rote to himself, as that he would have, than that he can thoroughly believe it, or be persuaded of it. For none deny there is a God, but those for whom it maketh that there were no God. It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this; that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted in it within themselves, and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others. Nay more, you shall have atheists strive to get disciples, as it fareth with other sects. And, which is most of all, you shall have of them that will suffer for atheism, and not recant; whereas if they did truly think that there were no such thing as God, why should they trouble themselves?

 

[7djengo7]

This is irrelevant. The question is: what did Paul mean when he said "scriptures"? Was he referring to what were known as "scriptures" in his time, i.e. the Hebrew Bible, or to "the Hebrew Bible AND all the letters that I've written, that will, in a few centuries, be collected, and called "New Testament"?

You say that, with you, there's a question. That you're in doubt. And yet, out of the other side of your mouth, you pretend to answer your question, by your own pretended authority, and on behalf of yourself, that Paul did NOT mean the NT writings, but only the OT writings. Christians aren't in doubt, though. So, that's your question, as an anti-Christian, alone.

By your conjunctions, "or" and "AND", you're denying that the NT writings were "known as "scriptures" in [Paul's] time". Now, are you saying that the NT writings were not "known as "scriptures" in [Paul's] time" BY CHRISTIANS? Of course anti-Christians of Paul's day would likely have refused to "know as "scriptures"", the NT writings. Yeah, obviously. So what? Please cite whatever pretended authority prompts you to that denial.

 

[chair]

I've been away for a few days, and I see that many are busy attacking me, but I see very little attempts to actually deal with facts.

Somehow that makes me the blind one.