Frog,


[color:"blue"]I never said parts aren't currently relevant. I said that the bible could be influenced by the time it was written.[/color]

Of course it was influenced by the time that it was written in. So was the U.S. constitution, but why does that negate its truth or validity?

[color:"blue"]He that spareth his rod hateth his son....

I can tell you right now if I picked up a rod/stick to punish my son I would probably have child protection services at my door.

The bible says that means I hate my son. [/color]

The passage says nothing about beating a child senseless. It does not mean to beat him into submission with a stick. It does refer to disciplining a child so that he develops a sense of respect for authority and those in positions of authority. Without discipline, a child quickly learns that there are no consequences for anything that they may do or even attempt to do. It leads to a sense of self-entitlement that causes them to feel that things are owed them simply because they “are.”

If you consider back to your own youth (probably closer than mine and hopefully easier to recall) you will likely see that in your own life those that you felt a strong bond to were those that you knew cared about you in some real way. The opposite of “love” is not hate but apathy. When we fail to discipline our kids we are telling them that we don’t really care what they do and their little brains quickly construe that to mean that we don’t care about them.

In the Greek, the word used here (in the Septuagint, which was the accepted OT of Jesus day) is rhabdos. It refers to a rod, staff or scepter of authority as well as chastisement. In fact the implication is that the authority of the “rod” is what allows its use as an instrument of chastisement.

[color:"blue"]So coveting my neighbor’s house is the same as murdering someone In God's eyes? That is harsh. [/color]

In God’s eyes it is. Remember what I said about the reason that the Law was given to begin with. If you consider that, by your own admission, you find it difficult if not impossible to follow even the Ten Commandments. By giving us these ten and other Laws pertaining to societal, family and even sanitary matters, God shows us how hopeless it would be for us to rely solely on our own ability to follow His Law in order to be accepted by Him. As already said, Christianity isn’t about rules, it is about relationship, and more specifically, it is about a relationship with God Himself in the person of Jesus, the Christ and Savior of Man from the just wrath of God.

This relationship is attainable only by submitting our thinking that we can be good enough of our own accord to be found acceptable by God. It is by admitting that we have not followed the Law in even its letter, forget its spirit and that we do indeed need someone to do it for us.

Jesus was that Man, who didn’t just show us the way, but in fact, did it all for us by becoming one of us, though He was Himself God and the creator of the universe. He followed the Law, in its entirety and fulfilled its every requirement. Then, in the most selfless act ever done on Earth, He accepted punishment for crimes He did not commit, so that the Law would be satisfied. It is by surrendering our will to His and admitting that only He can pay our debt, that His total righteousness is accounted to our accounts. Just restitution is made by Him and our rightful punishment is deferred by our acknowledging Him as Savior and King of our lives.



[color:"blue"]Now another question about the Coveting that is probably different today but if taken literally I am pretty safe.

I can covet married women just not the married person that lives to the right of me and to the left of me. Probably based on the distance between homes back at that time this covered a lot.

So if I run down to the store it is cool to covet all the married women.

Oh by the way My Wife Can Covet the neigbors husband and she is safe.

Nice for her she only has 9 commandments to worry about.

But if I covet the women to the left of me and right of me I am just as bad as a murderer.

I know it sounds like I am joking but really that is what I read into your statement. [/color]

I’ve lumped all of these together because they all show a lack of understanding of the same command of God.

First of all, why would today be any different than in the days of Moses? Most of us, you included, are here because either we or our spouse or both of us have broken the command to refrain from adultery. Recall that Jesus expanded the Commandment about adultery to mean that if we merely think about doing it, that it is the same as committing the act in deed as well. Around here we even give service to the concept by stating that someone had an EMOTIONAL AFFAIR, which is not the same as saying an ALMOST or CLOSE TO an affair, but we mean that it was an ACTUAL affair, though no intercourse, or in some cases even physical meeting or being together in the same place ever occurred.

So the passage you site references the Law about adultery in a very real way that at first reading may not be readily apparent. If the same can be said for theft, then coveting what someone else has could be considered that as well.

As for your interpretation regarding “your neighbor’s wife,” I really do hope you are joking and not serious. To say that the man who lives to the left side and right side of where you live are your only neighbors is ludicrous. Your “neighborhood” consists of a collection of dwellings, all associated by some limit or boundary that contains those dwellings and excludes others. And even that does not let you off the hook for going to another region of the city and coveting the women you meet there. For recall what I said about Jesus and His interpretation of the Law concerning adultery.

In addition, Jesus taught on this very subject. When asked about the most important of all the Laws given in the OT, He replied by telling those who hoped to trick him into giving an answer they could find fault with that the most important was to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and all your mind. Then He said that the second was to love your neighbor as yourself. When later asked the question “Who is my neighbor?” He told the story of the Samaritan who cared for a man who was injured by attackers. This Samaritan was not only not from the local area, but was from a place where the Jews Jesus was addressing considered the inhabitants to be less than human or at best, just barely so. Jesus then asks us who the neighbor in the story was, the local men of prominence who walked by without getting involved or the dreaded Samaritan dog who stopped to help a man he did not know?

By implication our neighbor is anyone who is not us. When told that we should love our neighbor as ourselves, we are really being told that we should care as much for what happens to others as we do to ourselves whether they live across the street or across town or across the world. By extraction, we now have as our neighbor, anyone who is not we ourselves.

As for your wife only having 9 instead of ten; the Law when written was to be applied equally to men and women. The word “wife” could just as easily been translated in this case as “spouse” which refers to a lawful mate of either gender.

[color:"blue"]Now what I see is we are somewhat back to where this always starts and ends for me. You go back to the bible to prove the bible is right.[/color]

Of course I do. There is no greater authority on the Bible than the Bible itself. It must be read in its entirety rather than piece-meal. To fully understand what the Law of Moses is actually saying without understanding what Jesus said about the same Law often leads to a misunderstanding. There is no better way to get at the true meaning of any passage in any book than to find out what the book itself says about that passage. The same applies to the Bible, since it is a book, though a very unique one.

[color:"blue"]In today’s day and age the burden of proof is higher then what it was when the bible was written.[/color]

Where on Earth did you learn that? Why must you assume that people in days past were any less intelligent or more gullible than they are today?

People today are more skeptical because of postmodern thinking being accepted unchallenged for a generation. Just simply because a thing is not known by you does not in itself make it unknowable, or even untrue. The decision to believe something to be untrue based on the evidence is a noble and just judgment. However, to claim that something is untrue based on a lack of evidence presented to us is to commit intellectual suicide. And just because you don’t know the evidence does not mean it doesn’t exist.

The problem you are having is not one of “cannot” believe as much as it is “will not” believe. The evidence for the Bible and God Himself does exist, but you have been told it does not and choose to believe those who told you that. To quote Josh McDowell, “…if Jesus is Lord and God, then this fact does not cease to be true simply because someone chooses not to believe it.” (“The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict”-Introduction-Page xiiv)


[color:"blue"]I go back and say today if a book was written that preported to be fact there is no way that any portion that could not be definitively linked to an Author the credibility would be doubted.

I go back to one of my Original statements that many books of the bible have no known author. In some books like Malachi, it was probably Isaiah that wrote it. Why??

I would say if a book I read was saying x y and z are true and they said the Proffesor B said so I might beleive it because Proffesor B is credible but if I found out that Proffessor B had nothing to do with Y and Z it was the garbage picker that added those, I would question the entire finding.

Going back and saying Proffesor B might have called the garbage picker later or he wrote him a letter later wouldn't cut it today. [/color]

The word Malachi means “messenger.” In Greek it would be the word “angelos” from which we get our word angel. Malachi may actually be a short form of the word Malachiyyah meaning messenger of Yaweh. No where in the text is a name other than Malachi suggested for the author. Some scholars believe, because of textual similarities, that it may have been written by Zechariah or at least by the author who penned parts of Zechariah. Specifically, the term ‘oracle’ is used in Malachi and in Zech 9-11 and 12-14.

Most scholars believe that Malachi was a separate messenger because he introduces his “oracle” in a different manner than those of Zechariah as well as those of Haggai. Nowhere do I find any indication of it being written by Isaiah, though I did find some references to the possibility that it was written by Ezra and one rabbinic scholar believes it was written by Mordecai, though I see no reason to think that to be the case since the only other reference to Mordecai is in Esther, which happens to be the only book in the cannon that does not even mention God, though Esther and Mordecai are both said to fast for favor.

The quote Mark attributes to Isaiah in chapter 1 verses 2 and 3 does in fact apply to Malachi, but also to Isaiah chapter 40 verse 3. Since both were prophets and Isaiah did indeed say exactly the second half of the quote, I see no difficulty with the reference as far as it casting doubt on the authenticity of the book that bears Malachi’s appellation, though whether his name was that is not known.

[color:"blue"]If Moses Wrote Dueteronomy(sp) and it describes his death why isn't that miracle discussed?

If Moses could see and write about his own death that is pretty amazing. If after Moses died he spoke to someone else that would be pretty amazing. I dont' think that is included in that book. Why.

People can guess as to what happened. I dont' have a guess all I know is the fact a person cannot describe their own death unless a miracle occured. The bible is full of miracles this would be one that I would imagine would have been documented but it is not.[/color]

First of all, not every miracle is preceded by an announcement “THIS IS GOING TO BE A MIRACLE!” No one I know ever said Moses spoke to anyone after his death. I do agree that if he wrote of his own death and burial, it is pretty amazing. To me that does not mean it is unbelievable, just that it is not the normal way things happen, but very little of Moses’ life was what I would call “normal.” But if, say Joshua, added a note to the end of the last book written by Moses concerning his death, I see only common practice for an assistant or someone involved in the life of the author in making such an annotation.

The bottom line is that there is evidence for the historicity, uniqueness, consistency and accuracy of transmission of the Bible. Not knowing everything about it is not an excuse to ignore it. The only way to investigate it is by reading it. Evidence for these things pertaining to the Bible does exist. Reading Josh McDowell’s book would answer just about any question you could dream up and some you never thought of.

Consider only the issue of accuracy of transmission of the New Testament. There are only ten original language copies of Caesar’s Gallic Wars. The oldest of these is from 1000 years after it was written. For the New Testament we have 325 complete copies within 125 years, and if you count fragments and single books as well as combinations that total less than all of the NT, then the total number within 150 years is over 5300. All of these texts can and have been used to check the accuracy of the copies we have today.

Homer’s Iliad has only 643 copies total and the oldest is over 400 years removed from its authorship.

There is more manuscript evidence for the New Testament than all other books of antiquity combined, by more than a factor of ten.

The bottom line is this. We each must decide if we are going to obey God or if we are going to repeat Lucifer’s lie when he told Eve, “you can be like God and decide what is right and what is wrong.”

Mark

I can tell you the "board of education" was frequently applied to the "seat of learning" in our house when the kids were young. Surprisingly, they haven't needed it since they turned 10.

BigK,

Tommy Nelson said that the problem kids seem to have is that earwax builds up in their ear canals and they simply don't hear what they are being told. He suggests that the warming of their back-sides by only a few degrees seems to melt that wax pretty quickly and their hearing improves almost at once.

Mark

we used the book "dare to discipline"
it was not always easy to discipline in such a way, but it worked.
mine have not needed a warmed up back side since about the age of 5 or 6 and they are now 10.

mlhb

Mark1952 - an excellent post, imho.

God bless!

FH,

Thanks!<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Mark

The U.S. constitution is a document based on the opinion of man. It is only true and valid if you are a U.S. citizen.

If a person in another country does not abide by the U.S. constitution they will not be damned for eternity.

But I never said that it wasn't valid or true because of the time it was written.

What I am saying is that at the time what would be morally unacceptable might not be if the bible was written today.

Today my wife wears a bikini out to the pool. I doubt that happened back in that time. If she she walked outside then with her bikini on I couldn't imagine what would happen.


It doesn't say beat them senseless but I also didn't say that it did. I said if I hit my child with an object, IE a rod chances are I would have child protection services at our door. They may or may not determine it to be child abuse but I would rather not take my chances.

Again I agree a child needs discipline. At the time the bible was written that was deemed acceptable. Today it is not.

The thing that sticks out to me here is you are not going by the LITERAL TRANSLATION. The literal translation is discipline with a Rod. So when my child steps out of line I should use a Rod. End of story!!!

So if we do not take the Bible LITERALLY and use a Rod to hit them, but instead we discipline them the Bible is currently relevant.




So if I murder twice but repent that sin and truly turn away from that sin. Then never do it again. Most people aren’t serial killers they kill for a reason in a fit of rage. So I did it twice and really that takes care of my list of people and I am done. So I repent don’t do it again and I am no worse then the guy that walks out of his house and Covets his neighbors Home.

So I will not argue it to be a simple list. To be completely honest I don’t know many people who don’t truly want for more then they have. I do that is what drives me to work hard. To be able to get my neighbors house. Lets face it the entire real estate market is based on Coveting.

When I am in the market for a home. I go to my global neigbors as you describe them and I covet their home. Then I make an offer for their home. In the meantime they are probably coveting someone elses home that they are moving into.

Again I am staying in the Literal term. I can’t see an exception in the commandments for this.

See back when the bible was written you got some land and built your own home most people lived and died there unless war of famine drove them from their land.




I just wanted to make sure we were using the same definition of Coveting and it seems we are.

But some of us are here not because our spouses broke a commandment but they broke our Marriage vows. If I am not Christian I still wouldn’t tolerate Adultery. Commandment or not.

So I don’t know if I really understand the point.

It could be I guess. However to me that is interpretation. Your interpretation of what it could be considered.




This is one of the points I keep getting confused on. Take the Bible Litterally except, here here here and here and maybe there.

Bible says rod…….. Well that could mean……….. Bible says neighbor………….well that means. Then I am not taking the bible literally.

When does God give us permission to decide what part is not left open to interpretation depending on Society today.

Implication and extraction mean it could be inferred or implied but not cleary stated.


Then why wasn’t it. Could it be because a Wife when written did not have the same rights as her husband. That a wife could not D her husband for adultery at the time or for any reason including adultery. That the commandments as written made sense because as a man you needed a reason in Gods eyes to get a D but a women at the time had no right to a D? Not until later did the bible give women the same right?




CSI. But really at the same time in history some cultures still worshipped many Gods. They worshipped Gods for what they didn’t understand. The sun, the wind etc. At the same time people believed the world was flat.

I do not see how you can even argue the point that if something that happened in the bible happened today that there wouldn’t be scientists there trying to explain the miracle.

AGAIN I AM NOT ARUGING THAT A MIRACLE HAPPNED. I am saying that today the burden of scientific proof is higher then it was 2000 years ago mostly based on the technology we have at hand.

Thus increasing the burden of proof.

And yes I believe the people at the time were not as well educated as we are. I also believe based on the lack of education they were more Gullible.

I bet today I could go to a third world country that has no public education and trick them with a few tricks and some modern technology.
Not saying that is what happened I am just addressing the point about the burden of proof.


This is untrue I never said I didn’t believe.

Never said this either. I believe the bible exists and I believe God Exists.



This is again an educated guess and not a Fact. When you use the words MAY ACTAULLY that means there is a persons interpretation here. It also MAY BE a guy that had an axe to grind with his Wife who was cheating on him so he slipped it in the bible.

Again not saying that happened but if we are playing the MAY ACTUALLY GAME.



So now we have two players in the MAY ACTUALLY GAME for this part of the bible.

Again I am not saying it isn’t so. But in today’s world do you think people would accept this as truth if we had to play the MAY ACTUALLY GAME?

I don’t know that I would.



Isn’t that what playing the MAY ACTUALLY GAME doing?

In these threads on religion and the bible.

I see very intelligent men and women debating what the bible says?

I think MM and FH have very different views sometimes on the point.

So only God can decide what is right and wrong but on MB today we have people debating that exact point.

So when the first thread started I said does this really belong here.
Now I am almost positive it doesn’t because only GOD can tell us.

I do not have a disbelief in God, nor do I believe the Bible is a fallacy. I think however letting a Man tell me what God said in the bible may be a little dangerous.

Oh and finally. I have never Raised a hand to either of my Children. Not one time. I do not personally agree with doing that. I discipline them but never hit them.

To all accounts I have very well behaved children. As a matter of fact My sister who is the born again Christian does spank and her children are not as well behaved as mine and do not have the same manners as mine.

I choose to use q tips to get the ear wax out.

Lastly Mark I appreciate your time and effort. I applaud you for your convictions and your articulation of your points. I don’t see how you will change my mind at this point in my life as I don’t think I will change yours.

I am happy to see some one of such strong faith and conviction. That can actually articulate it the way that you do.

You have researched not just the bible but history itself. Good for you!!!!

Frog,

I will respond as I have time. Since this is not IM and since I don't have time for that anyway while at work, I will acknowledge your questions and attempt to address them as my time permits.

Mark

[color:"blue"]The U.S. constitution is a document based on the opinion of man. It is only true and valid if you are a U.S. citizen.

If a person in another country does not abide by the U.S. constitution they will not be damned for eternity.[/color]

But only because it does not apply to those living in other nations, the Bible, OTOH, applies to all people, not just a select group living in a single geographic confinement or confined to a specific time in history.

[color:"blue"]What I am saying is that at the time what would be morally unacceptable might not be if the bible was written today.

Today my wife wears a bikini out to the pool. I doubt that happened back in that time. If she she walked outside then with her bikini on I couldn't imagine what would happen.[/color]

There is no doubt that certain things considered normal today were once considered abnormal. But that in itself does not make a thing right. Recall your own childhood; how often did the concept of “everybody else is doing it” hold up with your parents?
Simply put, things being done by even a majority of people does not make it right any more than no one doing it makes it wrong.

[color:"blue"]It doesn't say beat them senseless but I also didn't say that it did. I said if I hit my child with an object, IE a rod chances are I would have child protection services at our door. They may or may not determine it to be child abuse but I would rather not take my chances.

Again I agree a child needs discipline. At the time the bible was written that was deemed acceptable. Today it is not.[/color]

My purpose was to point out that it does refer to discipline and not beating with a stick. The word “rod” refers to a rod, scepter or staff of authority. It is the symbol of the right to disciple, not the instrument thereof. And while true that many have used it as an excuse to beat their children severely about the head and shoulders does not mean that they interpreted it correctly.
To a child, or even an adult, an unkind word can cut much deeper than any instrument, but that does not alleviate the problem of a child needing to receive disciple in order to become a member of society that is as concerned for the well being of others as he is with his own selfish desires. Do not let the excesses of a small group of individuals who have misinterpreted or misrepresented a concept of discipline to negate the fact that discipline is a necessary component of child rearing.

[color:"blue"]The thing that sticks out to me here is you are not going by the LITERAL TRANSLATION. The literal translation is discipline with a Rod. So when my child steps out of line I should use a Rod. End of story!!!

So if we do not take the Bible LITERALLY and use a Rod to hit them, but instead we discipline them the Bible is currently relevant.[/color]

When you use the word literal, be sure you mean it to be literal in light of context. Your point that things have changed with passage of time is what I’m now talking about. To those, at the time it was written, in the original language, the manuscript known as the autograph,the readers would have known that the word rod meant the symbol of authority. It was while being translated into English that the concept began to change its meaning and because English itself no longer means the same thing it once did, back in 1611 when the first English translation was completed, we now have to dig deeper to discover what the passage is talking about.

An example of this is the passage where Jesus states that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. To us, it has come to mean that it requires a miracle of God to accomplish the feat. But to His listeners on that day, what He said made even more sense than explaining it that way. To His audience, the eye of a needle was not only the opening into which thread is inserted in order for a needle to sew garments, but it was also a small door in the gates of a city.

Cities were protected by walls and large heavy gates. These gates were slow to open and close so on Holy days, the Sabbath and at night, they were left closed. But anyone arriving at the city after dark needed to be able to get inside. So in the giant gate of the city was a door, which was big enough for a man to enter without having to wait for the gate itself to open. This door would admit a camel, but not with its load intact. In order for the camel to get through this opening, it had to first be unloaded and then it most cases, it had to be made to kneel on the ground and be led through the door, usually with much coaxing and prodding by its master.

So the meaning of the entire passage now becomes something different than merely a miracle needs to happen. It means that a rich man must be willing to divest himself of all that he has and allow himself to be led through to the other side. Jesus audience would know this, since they lived with it every day.

So when I understand its meaning in the context in which it was first said, the passage takes on a totally different meaning than what I first thought it to mean in today’s vernacular. Fortunately, there are no doctrines of the church that hinge on this passage and therefore, it becomes an exercise that may be done, but is not required for salvation.

And also fortunately, the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things. That is to say that the actual requirements God demands are actually pretty clear when read in any language.


As for your wife wearing a bikini, you are right that it would do more than raise eyebrows in the middle-east of 3500 years ago, but it would also likely get her arrested in many countries of the region today. While this is a cultural difference, it has nothing to do with commands of the Bible and therefore is a poor example at best.

[color:"blue"]So if I murder twice but repent that sin and truly turn away from that sin. Then never do it again. Most people aren’t serial killers they kill for a reason in a fit of rage. So I did it twice and really that takes care of my list of people and I am done. So I repent don’t do it again and I am no worse then the guy that walks out of his house and Covets his neighbors Home.

So I will not argue it to be a simple list. To be completely honest I don’t know many people who don’t truly want for more then they have. I do that is what drives me to work hard. To be able to get my neighbors house. Lets face it the entire real estate market is based on Coveting.

When I am in the market for a home. I go to my global neigbors as you describe them and I covet their home. Then I make an offer for their home. In the meantime they are probably coveting someone elses home that they are moving into.

Again I am staying in the Literal term. I can’t see an exception in the commandments for this.

See back when the bible was written you got some land and built your own home most people lived and died there unless war of famine drove them from their land.[/color]

At the time it was written, the people were living in tents. I will cut and paste a definition of covet from Webster:

Main Entry: cov•et
Pronunciation: 'k&-v&t
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English coveiten, from Old French coveitier, from coveitié desire, modification of Latin cupiditat-, cupiditas, from cupidus desirous, from cupere to desire
Date: 14th century
transitive senses
1 : to wish for enviously
2 : to desire (what belongs to another) inordinately or culpably
intransitive senses : to feel inordinate desire for what belongs to another

Notice that in its original it implied culpability. It does not mean a desire or longing for something that is better than what we have or something we wish to acquire legally. It does imply an immoral or unethical desire, not for one like it, but the exact one that belongs to someone else.
When you desire to upgrade your domicile, you are not coveting, but expressing a legal and lawful desire to acquire by legal means a home, new to you, that currently belongs to someone else. They have placed the home on the market, in an effort to divest themselves of it. Perhaps they too wish to upgrade and it is there hope to make sufficient profit on the current home that it will allow them to get the bigger one they desire.

But it is all on the up and up. Nothing illegal is going on and no culpability is implied. There is no inordinate wish for anyone to take what rightfully belongs to anyone else by any but totally legal and agreed upon means.

It isn’t wishing or hoping for what we don’t have, but the desire to take it covertly or by other less than ethical means that is at stake in this passage. Because the definition of covet implies a culpable desire, that is one for which I am not entitled legally. It also implies a willingness to take that property, wife, home or whatever from my neighbor, not through negotiation of a fair price, but by any means I wish to employ. At the same time, it is not desiring a house “like” my neighbors, but his house exactly.


[color:"blue"]I just wanted to make sure we were using the same definition of Coveting and it seems we are. [/color]

It seems we were not.

[color:"blue"]But some of us are here not because our spouses broke a commandment but they broke our Marriage vows. If I am not Christian I still wouldn’t tolerate Adultery. Commandment or not. [/color]

But the net result was indeed the breaking of the Commandment, even though no reference to it was intended when adultery was committed. The fact that you, a non-Christian would find the very act that is prohibited in the Law detestable, shows that there are Laws which transcend our own human experience and are, in fact, universal in nature. It proves the validity of the very Law you are attempting to refute.

[color:"blue"]It could be I guess. However to me that is interpretation. Your interpretation of what it could be considered. [/color]

But my interpretation is based on evidence that I have found to further enlighten it, whereas yours is a simple refusal to accept it based on lack of evidence that you have found.


[color:"blue"]This is one of the points I keep getting confused on. Take the Bible Litterally except, here here here and here and maybe there.

Bible says rod…….. Well that could mean……….. Bible says neighbor………….well that means. Then I am not taking the bible literally.[/color]

I think I’ve already addressed this issue. It needs to be taken literally, in the context in which it was given, not in our limited understanding. When it doesn’t seem to make sense, it is more likely to be our understanding that is at fault than a deficiency in what the Bible has to say.

Simply because I do not know something does not make it untrue. Or more to the point, my lack of understanding what is meant does not mean it has no meaning., even as applied to me.

[color:"blue"]When does God give us permission to decide what part is not left open to interpretation depending on Society today. [/color]

Never does He say we can pick and choose what it is that we wish to do or even how we wish to do it. He only holds us responsible for what we know. If we do not understand a passage and feel that it is important that we should know its meaning, we may need to research it ourselves to find out. This can be by comparing what we already know to the difficulty we are addressing to see if some other portion of scripture may be more enlightening. Perhaps someone else has already grappled with the subject and what they found in their searching can be of value to us and our situation.
It may also be a case of knowing the Bible more completely so that we can understand the difficulty within context of the Bible as a whole rather than an isolated passage.

God has worked throughout history in a method called progressive revelation. He begins with what we know and builds on that until He has revealed something that was previously unknown. This is not unique to the Bible and is in fact the way we learn anything. We build upon what we know by combining, finding new applications of what we already know and eventually come to a newly constructed realization that was heretofore not known or understood by us.

It has been said that there is nothing new under the sun. I would submit that this applies directly to today. There are no NEW inventions of Man, only new applications of the old ones. Silicon compounds have been around since the beginning of time. While desktop computers are pretty new in the course of history, the driving force behind them is nothing more than an application of something that has always been around. But as Man grew in his understanding of what to do with silicon, new uses for what would otherwise be nothing but sand have become what we are using at this very moment.

Electricity always existed and the laws that govern its properties always were. Ohms Law does not describe a new event; it only describes what always happened though in a way that became transferable from one person to the next.
God uses this ability of man to accept new ideas in terms of old in the same way a teacher attempts to impart knowledge to a child. He begins with what we know and then adds to it in succeeding generations until all is revealed.
Moses said “you shall not commit adultery.” Jesus then said that anyone who even looks lustfully at another woman (or man, and yes, it is because of the times that He spoke this way) is guilty of adultery. Within only a few more years, Paul further tightens the grip by saying we should avoid the “appearance” of immorality.

[color:"blue"]Then why wasn’t it. Could it be because a Wife when written did not have the same rights as her husband. That a wife could not D her husband for adultery at the time or for any reason including adultery. That the commandments as written made sense because as a man you needed a reason in Gods eyes to get a D but a women at the time had no right to a D? Not until later did the bible give women the same right?[/color]

And this makes it invalid how? See my answer above….


[color:"blue"]CSI. But really at the same time in history some cultures still worshipped many Gods. They worshipped Gods for what they didn’t understand. The sun, the wind etc. At the same time people believed the world was flat.

I do not see how you can even argue the point that if something that happened in the bible happened today that there wouldn’t be scientists there trying to explain the miracle.

AGAIN I AM NOT ARUGING THAT A MIRACLE HAPPNED. I am saying that today the burden of scientific proof is higher then it was 2000 years ago mostly based on the technology we have at hand.

Thus increasing the burden of proof. [/color]

When Jesus healed the man born blind, the Elders of Israel, led by the most religious among them, the Pharisees, called the man to task claiming that he was not really born blind, that Jesus had not really healed him and that it all had to be some sort of scam. Not having the technology of today or even the record keeping of today, some said he wasn’t really the same man, but only someone who looked like him.

They called witnesses, specifically the man’s parents and asked, “Is this your son?” When they said it was, they asked “was he born blind?” and they again answered in the affirmative.

They now turned back to the man and asked how it was that he was healed. Having already told them the details of his unknown healer putting mud on his eyes and telling him to go to a certain spring to wash it off, he now answered that as far as he knew, “I was blind, but now I see!”

FWIW, they now turned their attention to a different set of “problems” with the healing, letting the man go but pointing out that the healing was not lawful, since it happened on the Sabbath.

So while they did not have modern forensics or CT scanners or a vast medical library, they still conducted an investigation to determine if a miracle really happened. When they found no evidence to refute the claim, they turned their attention to another issue in an effort to make the miracle less than what it was by claiming that God does not allow healing on the Sabbath, since healing is “work” and no one should be working on the Sabbath.

[color:"blue"]And yes I believe the people at the time were not as well educated as we are. I also believe based on the lack of education they were more Gullible.[/color]

But how would it be that someone could come along and, for example, heal a blind man, if there was no known technology of the time to explain it? What trickery or slight of hand would allow a “magician” to announce ahead of time that the first born of each and every household was to die in the middle of the night and that the mere act of putting the blood of a lamb, the young of the year would cause those inside the house to be saved from death?

[color:"blue"]I bet today I could go to a third world country that has no public education and trick them with a few tricks and some modern technology.
Not saying that is what happened I am just addressing the point about the burden of proof.[/color]

And so could anyone using modern technology. But what modern technology did Jesus have, or Peter and John that would allow them to trick people into believing that the blind could see, the lame could walk and that the dead were now walking around. Remember that at the time of writing the story of Lazarus and his being raised for the dead, there were still alive witnesses who had seen him buried and had seen him alive later. These witnesses were beyond those that saw the miracle. Anyone hearing the story could still go to them and ask what had happened and what they knew.

[color:"blue"]This is untrue I never said I didn’t believe.[/color]

My error.

[color:"blue"]Never said this either. I believe the bible exists and I believe God Exists.[/color]

When I say evidence for the Bible, I refer not only to its existence, but also its authenticity, validness and accuracy. AS for believing that God exists, so does Satan.
The real issue then becomes what to do with God and the Bible.

[color:"blue"] This is again an educated guess and not a Fact. When you use the words MAY ACTAULLY that means there is a persons interpretation here. It also MAY BE a guy that had an axe to grind with his Wife who was cheating on him so he slipped it in the bible.

Again not saying that happened but if we are playing the MAY ACTUALLY GAME.[/color]

The “fact” you seek is that the word Malachi means “messenger” and is not a proper name used anywhere else in the Bible except for references the book that bears that name. In addition, like all such Biblical names, there are various versions depending upon the language and variations from one generation to the next. For example, the name “Jesus” in English is from the Latin, same spelling, but pronounced as it is today in Spanish. In Greek, it was Yesu and in Aramaic, Yeshua, which is the same as the Hebrew, that we translate as Joshua. Malachi has also been called Malaki, Malachius and Molachai in various languages at various times.

But all of this is merely an exercise in linguistics. It has no bearing at all on whether or not the oracle proclaimed in the book called Malachi is from God.

God does give a test to determine if a prophet is of God or not, BTW. He says that if everything the prophet says is from God comes to pass in exactly the way it was proclaimed then it is of God.

Once we establish some basics, we can discuss prophecy, if you wish.

[color:"blue"]This is again an educated guess and not a Fact. When you use the words MAY ACTAULLY that means there is a persons interpretation here. It also MAY BE a guy that had an axe to grind with his Wife who was cheating on him so he slipped it in the bible.[/color]

And I have attempted to give information that may or may not have any bearing on the interpretation. My intent was not to say it was exactly thus and so, but to offer a possible explanation to satisfy the reason you gave for not accepting the Bible as the Word of God.

Simply because you or I don’t know, does not mean it is unknowable and we can only work with what we have as evidence. That evidence, when taken in its entirety has led me to accept the Bible as authoritative in matters concerning what God has revealed to us of His will, requirements and edicts.

It also does not mean that it will never be known. Consider the flat Earth thought to exist for centuries. It was thought that the Earth was stationary and the Sun went around the Earth. Today we laugh at that and can’t imagine how anyone could believe it (There are those that DO still believe this to be true, and not just uneducated third-world heathens, BTW), but if it were true, what would our observations tell us? We would see the Sun rise in the East, travel across the sky and set in the West. The Earth does not seem to be moving, and from our experience with sticking a hand out the window while driving we could deduce that if the Earth were hurtling along at thousands of miles per hour, everyone and everything would be blown to bits.

It was long after the round Earth and Sun at the center of the Solar system was accepted as fact that the reason for everything not blowing away was explained.

In the last hundred years, a short time when compare to all of history, numerous, nay thousands, of discoveries have proven the Bible to be accurate in the things it describes, historically, scientifically and medically speaking. It is even more believable today than it was a century ago.
So we arrive back at the point of what else does the Bible say, besides the things we can verify? For one, it claims to be God’s Word, inspired (breathed into) to Man. And its claims can be verified in so many respects and absent evidence to the contrary, why should we not accept the rest of what it says, even though we may not yet fully understand or see its proof?


________________________________________

“you can be like God and decide what is right and what is wrong.”
________________________________________


[color:"blue"]Isn’t that what playing the MAY ACTUALLY GAME doing?[/color]

I have left your quotation of my post for reference.

To question and search for the truth is not a sin. Nowhere in the Bible does it allude to it as such. In fact Paul congratulates the Bereans for doing exactly that. They didn’t take Paul’s word for anything, but searched the scriptures themselves, to arrive at the truth.

[color:"blue"]In these threads on religion and the bible.

I see very intelligent men and women debating what the bible says?

I think MM and FH have very different views sometimes on the point.

So only God can decide what is right and wrong but on MB today we have people debating that exact point.

So when the first thread started I said does this really belong here.
Now I am almost positive it doesn’t because only GOD can tell us.[/color]

The debate is not a matter of picking and choosing what we will follow and what we reject, but in fact, a search for understanding. I may differ in viewpoint from that of my pastor at times, and he and I have had our own debates. I repeat my statement that the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things. FH. Mortarman, and a whole bunch of others may disagree with me on who wrote the book of Malachi, but I would bet that they would agree with me that Jesus said He is the only way to be accepted by God the Father. We would all agree that the court of final arbitration on matters concerning the Bible is the text itself. And we would agree that God will hold us accountable for the light HE has given us.

[color:"blue"]I do not have a disbelief in God, nor do I believe the Bible is a fallacy. I think however letting a Man tell me what God said in the bible may be a little dangerous.[/color]

Your option is to read it for yourself and see what it says. Then, when unclear, you must find the evidence and weigh it carefully.

If the Bible is God’s revealed Word to Mankind, it is too important to simply ignore.

[color:"blue"]Oh and finally. I have never Raised a hand to either of my Children. Not one time. I do not personally agree with doing that. I discipline them but never hit them.

To all accounts I have very well behaved children. As a matter of fact My sister who is the born again Christian does spank and her children are not as well behaved as mine and do not have the same manners as mine.

I choose to use q tips to get the ear wax out.[/color]

Per my answer concerning the “rod” of discipline being a symbol of authority to enforce the discipline that is your choice and does not mean you are not following the Bible’s teaching concerning discipline.

I may simply be of the old school” on this, that children are like mules and sometimes you have to get their attention first. But FWIW, I can count on one hand the times I administered a spanking to my two children. But there were consequences for inappropriate behavior. Today, I may attempt to reason with my son, who is 21 and nearing his degree, but when he was 2, I did not try to convince him of his error by logic, I simply saw to it that he understood that his actions would not be allowed and failure to head warnings would lead to punishment.

[color:"blue"]Lastly Mark I appreciate your time and effort. I applaud you for your convictions and your articulation of your points. I don’t see how you will change my mind at this point in my life as I don’t think I will change yours.

I am happy to see some one of such strong faith and conviction. That can actually articulate it the way that you do.

You have researched not just the bible but history itself. Good for you!!!![/color]

Having grown up in the church and learning all the same questions you now ask and wanting to know for sure what the Bible really said, I was compelled to learn as much about the subject as I could. Not even wishing to take someone else’s word for what a Hebrew or Greek word meant, I began to study koine Greek and dabbled in Hebrew, even making friends with a guy my age studying under a well thought of Rabbi.

As I compared what I had learned to what I was finding as I did my research, I discovered that my Sunday School teacher in the third grade had a pretty good grasp of the ins and outs of the Bible and what it taught. Today, I am more apt to go to an expositor’s dictionary than to attempt to read my Greek New Testament, but I still read other books about the Bible and have even read Isaac Asimov’s commentary on the book of Ruth.

I also read Kant, Hegel, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, as well as Marx, Engels and Kierkegaard during my younger days. While all had something to say in the way of truth, they all had a flaw in logic at some point that even I could find.

For example, Kant claimed that there were things that we simply could not know. Of course the dilemma is that we have no way of knowing what these things are. In fact, taken to it’s logical conclusion, saying that we cannot know anything is to claim that we are in fact, omniscient, since only by knowing everything could we claim that we know of things that are unknowable. Kant’s solution is that we cannot ever really know anything, which I found to be an untenable answer.

I would suggest that, since we both know that I will never convince you of anything, is that you do the work yourself. You don’t have to begin with Origen or Harold O. J. Brown, but do begin. Start by reading the Bible for yourself. Try a modern translation, perhaps two, a literal or word for word translation and a dynamic one (where the meaning of the passage is preserved, since idioms and word order are often confusing when trying to translate a document of any kind.) The NIV is a good dynamic translation and the NASB is more literal.

Unlike other books, it is not a good idea to read from page one to the end. And like any good book, I would suggest staying away from the ending until you have read the overall story of the Bible.
For an overview of the entire Bible try reading Genesis, Exodus and then jump to Joshua. From there read the story of David, remembering that the Bible records all of mankind’s flaws as well as his triumphs. Any Bible has headers at various points that make finding a single event or story much simpler than referring to a list of passages. From there, I would jump to the Gospel of John, then Luke and Acts, followed by Matthew and Mark. Next would come Romans and then the rest of the Pauline Epistles. Save Colossians for a day when you are interested in serious theological discussion.

The rest of the Bible holds a lot of things of great value. The Song of Solomon, aka The Song of Songs is a terrific guide for marriage, BTW. You could study it alone for years and only scratch the surface of what it has to offer.

In the mean time, buy the book, The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel and The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell, (It is called “New” because it was updated to include recent events and discoveries. It even mentions Saddam Hussein.)

If you are really willing to search for the truth, the material is all around you. Knowing that you will not accept my word for any of it, the only option is to do the work yourself. It doesn’t happen in a week or even in years, but at some point, you may come to the decision that the Bible can tell us what God Himself has said and that it is something that we can know for certain, except in a the rare case of not being able to understand. And some day, we will each be able to ask Him for ourselves what He meant, but by then, it may not matter and will certainly be too late to decide if the Bible was really His Word.

Mark

Mark it is the Christian belief that this is true. There are people all over the world that would disagree with that statement. There are enlightened men that follow, Kabalah, Scientology, Islam etc.

However I would like to stay on track with the reason you brought up the constitution. The point you made was because it was written 200 years ago do I doubt the validity of the constitiution. I do not simply because it is a living document.

In 1919 Prohibition became an Amendment and then in 1933 they Repealed Prohibition. In 1919 in the United States the Government thought it was a good idea and in 1933 they thought again and changed it.

But again we are comparing apples to oranges because there is no Constitutional religion.


Are you saying wearing a bikini is wrong?

Again I think you answered a question that wasn’t there. I am not following the because everyone else is doing it train of thought.

During the time of the Bible if you stole you got your hand cut off. You could be stoned to death for other offenses. In todays day and age that would be considered Barbaric. IN our country and not many Christian organizations would consider that acceptable.

Society has progressed immensely since the time of the bible. Right, wrong or indifferent it has.

The norms of society at any given time will reflect what is considered Right and Wrong at that time.

Like Prohibition.


Literally speaking it is the Instrument thereof. At the time, just like you referenced in my childhood, corporal punishment was accepted. Even in this day I believe I read of a church that wants to reinstitute this type of punishment because they find it acceptable.

I have to say I do not find it a stretch to think that at the time the Rod was, if anything, a reference to an instrument. If not a rod then a switch or a belt etc. If the bible meant to discipline I think it would have said discipline without reference to a device such as a Rod.


Actually I think it may be a great example. I agree with what you say about cultural differences. So if Jesus was around to day and he was in a country that would arrested women for wearing Bikini’s do you think the bible would be written differently then if he was in a country like the United States?

Peoples interpretation of things is based on what is normal within their Society.

People perceptions are based on what they know. So if you live in a place where corporal punishment is normal then maybe it is a rod in a country where it isn’t maybe it is a time out.

But again you are interpreting and pointing out how it becomes entirely different, which the Camel story makes sense. So it is a story to illustrate something that today isn’t currently relevant because of the times.

HMMM. Isn’t that some of what I have been saying. We don’t ride camels we have cars. So what was written then references current conditions at the time and may shape the actual writing of the bible.




Why did you change the definition on this???????

1. to wish for earnestly!!!!!

Not Enviously as you stated. This is straight from Merriam Webster.com

So then my argument holds true based on this definition but not the ones that you found. Not much to say other then my definition which was the first definition is the one I based my argument on.


There are many universal laws. Adultery being one of them. That doesn’t prove the entire bible valid. It proves people do not like it when someone fornicates with their spouse. I mean really anyone could figure that out doesn’t take an enlightened genius to figure that one out.

I am sure before that was written it wasn’t looked upon kindly. Just like throughout the course of man I am sure murder was looked at in a negative light.



You are just a man. The evidence of which you speak do you think that if you were to go to the church of scientology they could not refute your evidence?

Do you think you could absolutely sit down and take FAITH completely out of the equation and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what you say to be true??


This is one of the points I keep getting confused on. Take the Bible Literally except, here here here and here and maybe there.

Bible says rod…….. Well that could mean……….. Bible says neighbor………….well that means. Then I am not taking the bible literally.



In the context it was given? So you decided that the context it was given. Ie the Rod and the child. Yours fits in well with Today where as using a rod back then was probably widely accepted.




I really don’t know about that. The bible was written by Man. Men are prone to mistakes.

I have several friends that speak foreign languages. Sometimes they say something and I say what does that mean. The response….It is hard to explain in english. There isn’t a good translation. Literally it means the monkeys tail that has a purple stripe. (just an example) So they tweak it and say it is like an endearing term for a boy.

Some things just don’t translate well. So maybe it was a deficiency of men but not US.

Not to mention the fact that it isn’t like they had spell check back then.

I agree but it also doesn’t’ make it true. It makes it unknown!!!!!!



So when something is unexplainable or is unclear it is then revealed. To whom? Why not reveal the true meaning then.

So are you saying if something is unclear today it will eventually be revealed?



So first lets go with a theme. What if this is like the camel story. What if the miracle as stated is the blind man….(not really blind) seeing Jesus as his savior?

Even if not then lets say this. That is not the same burden of proof we have today. There are many hoaxes that lots of people agree on. In todays world we call them Marks. They agree with the untruth being told.

Just because x amount of people say yes he was blind makes it so. Today the burden of truth would be doctors records from birth to current time. Then a positive ID from DNA or records.

So lets say we went to court today. The information you have presented do you thin a jury would really use that as evidence? I think not. Not without scientific proof.

Again I am not arguing the validity of it happening. I am saying the burden of proof is just higher.

Is it that you are arguing that it isn’t?


Maybe he saw the light of god and jesus and Christianity. I was once blind and now I see. Refers to accepting Jesus isn’t it????





When I was a kid on TV there were Televangelists that did that. They had thousands in attendance that saw it and swore on it.

I think they were Christian Televangelists as well.


So maybe what I doubt isn’t the bible itself but that the men throughout history that wrote the bible were perfect people. That they may have made mistakes or had some societal bias that led to an incorrect or inaccurate version of what was truly meant to be said. The subsequent translations of the bible that may also lead to inaccuracies.


You proclaim it has no bearing and yet it might.


I do not. I will say this though it gets hard to argue a negative after a while. God tests the prophet who does he show the test to? The prophet. What if I am a prophet that fails the test but I say God told me…..

What I keep seeing is maybe a disagreement in semantics. I have and probably always will have doubts about the entire accuracy of the bible.

A book written over 1600 years by an untold amount of men. Translations from now dead languages. No original to verify accuracy.

Things that can get lost in translation.

Christians stating things need to be taken literally except when in a bigger picture context.

The reality for me is simple. I believe the Bible is a book of stories that show man the right way to live. That tells man how to treat others and how to live a good life. Some being somewhat like a fable, which were popular at the time. Like Aesop wrote about.

They tell a story to show what will happen if you don’t follow the path of righteousness.

They embellish or things may get lost in translation. Possibly like the man that was blind from birth, original sin, then he had mud rubbed in his eyes, dirt needs water to be mud, possibly a baptism. The man was no longer blind to the light of God.

Just a possibility.

Frog, I think I'm finally beginning to understand what you have been trying to say.

You interpret "literal" as if it constrains the Bible to ONLY using literal descriptions and phrases. That is NOT how the Bible was written. It uses all forms of literary styles. For example, when the Bible says that God wants gather his people under his wings like a hen gathers its chicks, it does NOT mean that God LITERALLY has wings or looks like a chicken. It is a metaphor using language that people can understand.

Your argument about Prophets is flawed, however. The test for a Prophet is quite simple, if they say "thus saith the Lord..." and what they say does NOT come true, they are a false prophet.


"A book written over 1600 years by an untold amount of men. Translations from now dead languages. No original to verify accuracy."

Okay, I previously directed you to a couple of sources that cover this issue extensively. Have you bothered to read them yet? If not, why not save us all a lot of typing time and read what is already out there, thoroughly documented, and THEN we can talk about the inerrant and inspired Word of God with the perspective of what IS available and how it compares with what's available for other documents readily accepted that don't even come close to documention of the Bible or the nearness of the extant copies to the autographs.

"Things that can get lost in translation."

This is not a new objection. Please state some examples that support this opinion for the purposes of accuracy and specificity. Once you do, we can take a look at some of these "errors" in translation.

"Christians stating things need to be taken literally except when in a bigger picture context. "

Can you provide an example or two. It is very difficult to respond to glaring generalities.

"The reality for me is simple. I believe the Bible is a book of stories that show man the right way to live. That tells man how to treat others and how to live a good life. Some being somewhat like a fable, which were popular at the time. Like Aesop wrote about."

The Bible DOES contain such stories and lessons, but that is NOT the purpose of the Bible.

"They embellish or things may get lost in translation. Possibly like the man that was blind from birth, original sin, then he had mud rubbed in his eyes, dirt needs water to be mud, possibly a baptism. The man was no longer blind to the light of God. "

There is no embellishment of this story nor is it a fable. The man had his SIGHT given to him. There is NOTHING that says anything about this being a mere "spiritual awakening." His blindness of sight was healed, in yet another example of Jesus' power over nature. The "metaphor" in this miracle is for the Pharisees who, though they have normal vision, still can't "see" who Jesus is.




Is this supposed to prove something? If so, I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Jesus explained that the only sign that the Pharisees would receive would be the sign of Jonah. What He was telling them was that if they wouldn't believe all that He had already done, then neither would they believe if someone should rise from the dead.

But the argument you are making applies equally to a world without Jesus. Evolutionists base their entire belief in evolution on faith just as certainly as Christians base their belief in God and Jesus in faith.

What Jesus did was to authenticate His claims by acts that showed His command authority over nature. And these acts were NOT done in secret but in public, and were the basis for the Pharisees plot to kill Him.

"Then the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council and said, "What shall we do? For this Man works many signs. If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation." (John 11:47-48)

This came after Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead and some of the Jews who had been present went to the Pharisees to tell them the "latest news" about what Jesus was "up to."


So with all of your argumentation, what is it that you believe about Jesus? What is it that you base your faith, either for or against Jesus, upon if NOT the inspired, inerrant Word of God?

FH,

I will add them to my summer reading list. To be honest this post is taking way too much of my time as it is.
LOL.

I am completely booked through the next 4-6 weeks after work and most weekends.

Reading time is not abundant for me.

I will drop the thread read the books and get a better understanding.

Frog,

I guess we have a short thread...

FWIW, here is the link to the definition I pasted...

http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwdictsn?va=covet

Thanks FH!

Mark

Frog, believe me when I say I understand busy and limited time to post.

Take all the time you need and when you are ready, feel free to pick up this thread again or start another one.

Happy reading!