There are "problems" with the Bible, only if one insists that the Bible is perfect or "The Word of God".
Please someone answer me this;
- Thread starter Bee1
- Start date
There are "problems" with the Bible, only if one insists that the Bible is perfect or "The Word of God".
And yet, such a discrepancy is allowed for in my position.
Rather, only if one insists that the Bible is perfect in it's current form.
To be sure, the Bible is not disqualified from being "The Word of God" simply because the current form has discrepancies in it.
What do you gain by having an imperfect real Bible, and a hypothetical perfect one?
An appropriate expectation of reality.
Even something that is as old as the Bible, authored by a perfect God, can have errors in it, but not because of God, but rather because man is imperfect.
That expectation of reality helps understand not only the history of the Bible, but also the Bible itself.
So what do you think the history of the Bible is?
Aimiel
Well-known member
Eternal life; by coming into a dynamic relationship with The Living God by following His Instructions, kept therein. His Promises are true, even if men have faults and even if His Word had faults (which It doesn't). He knew from before the time He laid the foundation of the earth the exact words that would end up on every Bible on every shelf in every store on the earth and in whose hands every single copy would ever end up in and those who read His Word and obey Him find Him. He promised that every soul who seeks and searches for Him with all of their heart would find Him. We have. You can, too! :thumb:
Whatever.
What do you mean the Bible doesn’t have faults? That’s not true. Some have been posted right in this thread. Have you not read it?
The Bible confuses God and Satan regarding the sin of David. That is a fault. Pretending it’s not doesn’t fix it.
If you can’t even speak truly to that point, how can anyone trust the rest of your words?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
the bible doesn't have faults to those who recognize it for what it is - the Word of God
to those who reject God, like you, it's a curious artifact that is chock-full of error
Right. Well, since I don’t reject God you are incorrect on that point. So, you missed on two out of three and got one right. The Bible is a curious artifact for certain. So, you got one part right.
You reject the God of the Bible. Don't try to deny it.
You reject that He made man with the ability to love, which by definition includes the ability to hate.
Those who love God will be with Him for eternity.
God will not force those who hate Him to live with Him for eternity, but he cannot allow injustice to continue for eternity. Therefore those who reject Him must be separated from Him and from others, so that they cannot harm anyone else.
That's the God of the Bible that you reject.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
you don't reject your own made-up version of God
no different from animists, mooslims, hindoos
and you're all headed for the same destination :wave2:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
[MENTION=20598]Bee1[/MENTION] - still waiting for you to take a crack at these:
Rondonmonson
New member
Watch the Documentary Patterns of Evidence, trailer....https://youtu.be/2assFIyLInE
I liked it so much I bought it....and I have blogs on how God created the universe over 13.7 billion years, so I keep things real, you will appreciate this, one man was just searching for facts and he met an agostic who told him the dates are all wrong, thus the evidence they say isn't there is just in a different era of time than they are looking or, thus if they just look for all the patterns of evidence, they all line up in a proper time frame of reference, but the Egyptian dates {which they dated referencing Ramses via the bible LOL,} is all wrong, because Ramses was built on top of the original city, and when you look 300 or so years before you actually find the Semite city. Likewise Jericho was inhabited at this time period, etc. etc.
Wrong!
This can be done by means of an archaeological survey of the area. Even ancient nomads leave traces- and one should realize that these "nomads" did not move around every day, but stayed in some of the encampments for quite a while.
I am familiar with one survey of this type, done in Israel by Adam Zertal's group. Adam has since died, but as far as I know, the group is continuing with his work. They have identified many sites associated with early Israelite settlements. There are dating methods based on pottery types, and even the occasional Egyptian scarab. Adam, by the way, was convinced of the historicity of the Israelite settlement of Canaan in the 12th century BC, but equally convinced that the numbers reported in Exodus were not realistic. The promised land could not support that many people, and as a result of the survey and excavations, once can estimate how many people lived in the area at the time. About an order of magnitude less than what Exodus claims.
We are used to a world where tens of millions live in single cities, and it is hard for us to imagine a world where an important city might have 5,000 or 10,000 people in it.
Chair
Rondonmonson
New member
That's not the subject here, so I don't want to walk all over his thread.....but that is a fact, the universe is 13.7 billion years old, and I am preacher of over 30 years who has a blog on this subject, so I am referencing that to show I am not prone to just go with the flow, the Documentary is excellent. Thus there is plenty of "evidence" of the Exodus, but one has to look in the right places of course.