Conference yukon::christian_v7

Re:  46.6

  >Well, this is why it is foolish to take the Bible literally. 

Indeed it is foolish to take that which is allegorical and claim
that it is literal.  However, it is also foolish to take that which
is meant as true and then say it is allegorical.

  >Story of creation is allegorical and not necessarily fact. 

See note 18 for a more complete discussion on that.

  >In fact the  first two books of Genesis were not written until five hundred
  >years after the following books.

This claim is not supported by the Bible or by tradition.  I don't have time
right now to find the places in the Torah where Moses is claimed to be the
author.  I am certain that these places include more than the first two
books.  Perhaps someone else with a handy concordance can find these?

  >As far as the temptation goes, the Dead Sea Scrolls  have teachings
  >in them that are the same as the Sermon on the Mount. 

It's hard to comment on a claim like this without some real data.
Exactly what is said?  What is the dating of that particular scroll?  How 
accurate is the dating of that scroll?

  >Only speculation here, but the more I learn about the human side of Jesus,
  >that being he was more like us than we realize, except he was without
  >sin, the more I'am awed by Him. It took a truly divine person of great
  >love to do what he did, especially being he had all the human limitations 
  >we have.

Agreed.

  >Written inspiration is for teaching concepts of faith or morality and
  >need not be factual.

This is a human claim, not the Biblical claim.  *Nowhere* does the Bible
distinguish between truth of the morals, the truth of the history or
any other truth presented in it.  It was all God-breathed.  It was all
written by the Holy Spirit.  By what logic should we come to the
conclusion that the Holy Spirit breathed truth in faith and breathed error
in recording events?  Note that the accuracy of events recorded is assumed
to be true throughout the Bible whenever they are referred to.  There is
absolutely no Biblical evidence for the position you state and there is
overwhelming Biblical evidence against it.  To me, it appears the choice
is whether you (or me or anyone) choose to believe (submit to) the teachings 
of the prophets of God as they have recorded in what we now call the Bible.

  >If it is historically correct, then someone had to be a witness to it and 
  >I don't believe  the apostles were nor did Jesus convey what happened 
  >to them. 

First off, your logic is wrong.  Something can be historically correct
whether or not *anyone* is a witness to it.  The only question is, how
did it come to be recorded in the Bible?

Well, we're dealing with God here.  Someone who not only knows everything
that happened in the past, but who also knows the *future*.  It seems to
me rather absurd on the face of it to claim that there MUST BE an outside 
human witness to properly record what God already knows when God is the author
of Scripture.

Besides which, there was a witness, Jesus himself.  You "believe" (based
on what external evidence?) that either it didn't happen, that Jesus 
wouldn't have told others of it or that they would have written it up 
differently if He had.  What are the actual facts?

In actuality, we have a written record of the event written by the Holy
Spirit (through a human) which claims (since it is from God) to be
accurate.  All other previous comments from above apply.

Jim, I don't mean to pick on you.  But I do mean to pick apart your
logic since, in my opinion (and according to Scripture as best as I can
tell), it is neither logical nor accurate nor true.

Collis

Just an aside and gentle reminder.  Allegorical or literal, I hope we
all agree that the Scripture is God-breathed and without error, because
that is the banner under which we come to this conference, to wit:

From 2.1 (Conference Guidelines)

WE BELIEVE...   o the Bible is the inspired and only infallible and
                  authoritative Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter
                  1:19-21)


Also From 2.0:
               ______________________________________________________


THE BASIS OF    The basis of the Christian notes conference is that
CHRISTIAN       we hold the Bible to be God-breathed, inerrant,
                and authoritative.

                "All Scripture is inspired by God (lit. God breathed)
                 and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
                 correction, for training in righteousness;
                 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for
                 every good work." - 2 Timothy 3:16,17 (NASV)
                ______________________________________________________

THE BIBLE       THE BIBLE, GOD'S WORD, IS THE STANDARD. As such it
                becomes the standard by which entries will be judged.

                Any entries that are derogatory, attempt to alter it,
                or attack Biblical beliefs will be be set hidden and/or
                deleted.

Re Note 46.6 (Jim)

>    Well, this is why it is foolish to take the Bible literally.

    What's foolish is to interpret the Bible in a way other than what was
    intended. Literal passages should be taken literally, allegorical ones
    should be taken allegorically. There are sound hermeneutical principles
    that will drive consistent interpretations if they are followed.

>    The
>    Story of creation is  allegorical and not necessarily fact.

    Only a pre-conceived notion that it's not literal would bring one to
    this conclusion. There is nothing in the text or context to support
    this belief.
    
>    In fact
>    the  first two books of Genesis were not written until five hundred
>    years after the following books.

    This contradicts what the Scripture itself says:

         Exo. 24:4 -> And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord. And he
         rose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the
         mountain, and twelve pillars according to the twelve tribes of
         Israel.

         Num. 33:2 -> Now Moses wrote down the starting points of their
         journeys at the command of the Lord. And these are their journeys
         according to their starting points:

         Deut. 31:9 -> So Moses wrote this law and delivered it to the
         priests, the sons of Levi, who bore the ark of the covenant of the
         Lord, and to all the elders of Israel.

         Deut. 31:22 -> Therefore Moses wrote this song the same day, and
         taught it to the children of Israel.

    As for your expression "the first two books of Genesis", I presume
    you're alluding to the Documentary Hypothesis, which is *far* from
    being shown as correct.

>    the more I learn about the human side of Jesus,
>    that being he was more like us than we realize, except he was without
>    sin, the more I'am awed by Him. It took a truly divine person of great
>    love to do what he did, especially being he had all the human limitations 
>    we have.

    It's ironic that you hold Jesus in such high esteem since He also
    believed that Moses did his own writing:

         John 5. 46 -> For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for
         he wrote about Me.

>    Written inspiration is for teaching concepts of faith or morality and
>    need not be factual.

    The very fact that the Bible is inspired *requires* that it be factual.
    God is omniscient and cannot lie. Since He breathed out the Scriptures
    they must be without error.

>    So although the lessons in Scripture are without error,
>    as historical fact, many times they are.

    This is flat-out wrong.

>    The story of the temptation is 
>    true as a lesson if it was merely inspired. If it is historically correct,
>    then someone had to be a witness to it ....

    It is historically correct that I ate a pretzel today - and no one was a
    witness to it.
    
    --------------------
    
    It's no wonder that there are so many wild "interpretations" of the
    Bible that go around. When people put their own ideas above what is
    written in the Bible, then assume the things that are written are prone
    to error, then assume that whatever error-free things there are should
    actually be taken symbolically... Well, I guess it explains why there's
    been a problem in Waco lately.

	BD�

RE:1

>  >Well, this is why it is foolish to take the Bible literally. 

>Indeed it is foolish to take that which is allegorical and claim
>that it is literal.  However, it is also foolish to take that which
>is meant as true and then say it is allegorical.

    Agreed, but even Scripture Scholars agree that not everything in the
    Bible is accurate historically. Take Jonah for instance. Scholars agree 
    that the author exaggerated throughout the text. He uses words such as 
    great enormous throughout. He describes the city of Nineveh as taking 
    three days to go through it. Archaeological facts on the ruins of
    Nineveh tell us that the city is only 1.5 miles from the outside gate
    to the center. Scripture scholars today agree that the book of Jonah
    is not factual, but is its purpose is to give the reader an idea about
    the justice and mercy of God.

    If you don't understand what allegorical and which is fact you'll 
    misunderstand the meaning and purpose for the writing.



>  >In fact the  first two books of Genesis were not written until five hundred
>  >years after the following books.

>This claim is not supported by the Bible or by tradition.  I don't have time
>right now to find the places in the Torah where Moses is claimed to be the
>author.  I am certain that these places include more than the first two
>books.  Perhaps someone else with a handy concordance can find these?

    Actually I meant to say the first two chapters of Genesis, but
    I stand on that they were not written until 500 years after the
    rest. I don't have my source with me, but it came from a book written
    by a theologian name Frank Sheed, " Theology for Beginners." The
    stories were taught in four oral traditions long before they
    were ever put down in writing.

>  >As far as the temptation goes, the Dead Sea Scrolls  have teachings
>  >in them that are the same as the Sermon on the Mount. 

>It's hard to comment on a claim like this without some real data.
>Exactly what is said?  What is the dating of that particular scroll?  How 
>accurate is the dating of that scroll?

     Well the Dead Sea Scrolls predate Christ coming, 150 B.C. I believe.
     My information comes from a PBS documentary on them as well as some
     written information.


>  >Written inspiration is for teaching concepts of faith or morality and
>  >need not be factual.

>This is a human claim, not the Biblical claim.  *Nowhere* does the Bible
>distinguish between truth of the morals, the truth of the history or
>any other truth presented in it.  It was all God-breathed.  It was all
>written by the Holy Spirit.  By what logic should we come to the
>conclusion that the Holy Spirit breathed truth in faith and breathed error
>in recording events?  Note that the accuracy of events recorded is assumed
>to be true throughout the Bible whenever they are referred to.  There is
>absolutely no Biblical evidence for the position you state and there is
>overwhelming Biblical evidence against it.  To me, it appears the choice
>is whether you (or me or anyone) choose to believe (submit to) the teachings 
>of the prophets of God as they have recorded in what we now call the Bible.
 
    There is plenty of evidence to show errors of historical fact in the
    Bible. Heck, the story of creation was never meant to be taken
    literally and scientific evidence tells us it shouldn't be. Some
    people have problems with this because they think it lessons the power
    of God. I see God as more powerful from the scientific theories of 
    how the world was created than from what I read in Genesis.

>  >If it is historically correct, then someone had to be a witness to it and 
>  >I don't believe  the apostles were nor did Jesus convey what happened 
>  >to them. 

>First off, your logic is wrong.  Something can be historically correct
>whether or not *anyone* is a witness to it.  The only question is, how
>did it come to be recorded in the Bible?

     Agreed, I stand corrected.

>Well, we're dealing with God here.  Someone who not only knows everything
>that happened in the past, but who also knows the *future*.  It seems to
>me rather absurd on the face of it to claim that there MUST BE an outside 
>human witness to properly record what God already knows when God is the author
>of Scripture.

    What I'm saying doesn't lessen the belief I have in God's power. In
    fact it increases it. 

>Besides which, there was a witness, Jesus himself.  You "believe" (based
>on what external evidence?) that either it didn't happen, that Jesus 
>wouldn't have told others of it or that they would have written it up 
>differently if He had.  What are the actual facts?

    I'm not saying the temptation in the desert didn't happen. I believe it 
    did and I hope I'm not giving the impression otherwise. My questioning
    of it is really looking at how it became known. In that questioning, I
    believe I'am getting  a better look at the human side of Jesus and his
    relationship with John the Baptist, who I really never could never
    really understand the importance of.

>In actuality, we have a written record of the event written by the Holy
>Spirit (through a human) which claims (since it is from God) to be
>accurate.  All other previous comments from above apply.
>
>Jim, I don't mean to pick on you.  But I do mean to pick apart your
>logic since, in my opinion (and according to Scripture as best as I can
>tell), it is neither logical nor accurate nor true.

     Your humble opinion, I'm sure.

     Jim

>    There is plenty of evidence to show errors of historical fact in the
>    Bible. Heck, the story of creation was never meant to be taken
>    literally and scientific evidence tells us it shouldn't be.

Unsubstaniated claim, Jim.  Weren't you the one to argue Creationism
with Garth in the previous conference (too lazy to look)?  If science
is flawed, it will come to a flawed conclusion.

>    I see God as more powerful from the scientific theories of 
>    how the world was created than from what I read in Genesis.

And why do the two have to differ?  What's wrong with scientific fact
support God speaking the universe into being?  Be careful not set science
up as God, nor the arbitor of Truth.  Truth is the arbitor of science.

>>Well, we're dealing with God here.  Someone who not only knows everything
>>that happened in the past, but who also knows the *future*.  It seems to
>>me rather absurd on the face of it to claim that there MUST BE an outside 
>>human witness to properly record what God already knows when God is the author
>>of Scripture.
>
>    What I'm saying doesn't lessen the belief I have in God's power. In
>    fact it increases it. 

I'm having difficulty putting this statement along side your previous
statements, such as: "Scripture scholars today agree that the book of Jonah
    is not factual, but is its purpose is to give the reader an idea about
    the justice and mercy of God."
Perhaps you can tell us more.
 
>    In that questioning, I
>    believe I'am getting  a better look at the human side of Jesus and his
>    relationship with John the Baptist, who I really never could never
>    really understand the importance of.

It sounds like you've made some leaps of understanding here.

Re:  53.4

  >Take Jonah for instance. Scholars agree that the author exaggerated 
  >throughout the text.  He uses words such as great enormous throughout. 
  >He describes the city of Nineveh as taking three days to go through it. 
  >Archaeological facts on the ruins of Nineveh tell us that the city is 
  >only 1.5 miles from the outside gate to the center. Scripture scholars 
  >today agree that the book of Jonah is not factual, but is its purpose 
  >is to give the reader an idea about the justice and mercy of God.

None of what you say gives clear solid proof that the events that were
recorded in Jonah happened exactly as they claimed to have happened.

For example, Ninevah *was* a great city - it was the *capitol* of the
empire that had conquered the Jews. 

Jonah was not simply walking around the city, he was preaching as he 
went.  In addition, Jonah's idea of the city "boundary" may not be the 
same idea as today's archaeologist have may have a more formal 
definition (e.g. where the wall was).  Finally, there is no reason to
believe that Jonah was walking in a straight line.  In fact, there is
every reason to believe the opposite.  Jonah may well have walked "a
day's journey" (I forget exactly how far that is in Biblical terms)
up and down streets and ended up only a mile from where he started.

Do you see all the assumptions that have been included in order to
prove the Biblical account "wrong"?  What's wrong is the assumptions!!!

That people, even well-studied and God-seeking people, choose to discount
Scripture does not by any means prove that it is wrong.  The scholars that
I studied under are convinced of Jonah's (and the whole Bible's) accuracy.

  >Actually I meant to say the first two chapters of Genesis, but
  >I stand on that they were not written until 500 years after the
  >rest. I don't have my source with me, but it came from a book written
  >by a theologian name Frank Sheed, " Theology for Beginners." The
  >stories were taught in four oral traditions long before they
  >were ever put down in writing.

And what is Frank's proof?  Is it better than a claim purported to by 
Moses in Scripture itself?

  >Well the Dead Sea Scrolls predate Christ coming, 150 B.C. I believe.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were written around the time of Christ; most
(but not necessarily all) before Christ's ministry.  In order to glean
the truth, all the facts are needed.

  >There is plenty of evidence to show errors of historical fact in the
  >Bible. Heck, the story of creation was never meant to be taken
  >literally and scientific evidence tells us it shouldn't be. Some
  >people have problems with this because they think it lessons the power
  >of God. I see God as more powerful from the scientific theories of 
  >how the world was created than from what I read in Genesis.

I'd recommend a book by Gleason Archer (or is it Archer Cleason? :-) )
who teaches at Trinity Evangelical in Chicago and is now in his eighties.
Naturally I forget the title of it (but somewhere else here may be able
to help us out), but it covers the vast majority of these areas of
inconsistencies in the Bible (it claims to be comprehensive and is
indeed quite a large book - but it didn't cover everything quite as
much as I would have liked).  If you want the facts and reasoning from
an inerrancy viewpoint, the information is out there.  There is NO
need to doubt the validity of the Bible because of the facts (which is
not to say that everything is perfectly explainable/acceptable to
everyone).

  >Your humble opinion, I'm sure.

An opinion founded on the Word of God (at least, most of what I wrote
in that reply could have been written by most anyone who accepts
the inerrancy claim of Scripture).

Collis

Here we go again.

Do you think we can reach 1000 replies this time?

Paul

    
    RE: .7
    
    No smiley faces Paul???
    
    If not, then can I deduce sarcasm on your part??
    
    Actually, this is good to "..go again". It's like keeping your weapons
    sharpened/oiled. You need to do it in order to fight a good battle...
    (an analogy of course). 
    
      It also helps those who are "read only" and don't know about past
    discussions on the subject. It may strengthen their resolve and spirit
    to know what the bible stands for and is.
    
      Regards,
    
     Andy
    

Jim, 
  Permit me to ask from where you are coming:

  Do you believe (a) that the Bible contains errors but is inerrant in purpose?
  (b) the Bible is not inerrant in any degree?

  As Andy says, this next go around will be read by many others.  We have
  stated our position, but I'm not yet clear on yours.  Can you be clear
  before we continue?

Mark

Re .6 (Collis)
    
> I'd recommend a book by Gleason Archer (or is it Archer Cleason? :-) )
> who teaches at Trinity Evangelical in Chicago and is now in his eighties.
> Naturally I forget the title of it (but somewhere else here may be able
> to help us out)
    
    It is Gleason Archer. I believe the title is "Encyclopedia of Bible
    Difficulties". Among the best $20 books I've ever bought.

> An opinion founded on the Word of God (at least, most of what I wrote
> in that reply could have been written by most anyone who accepts
> the inerrancy claim of Scripture).
    
    This is obviously true, since my reply (.3?) expresses similar
    sentiments. (I'm glad to be in such good company :-)
    
    	BD�

    RE:9
    Mark,
         I believe the Bible is inerrant in matters of Faith. Without 
    clear understanding of the language, traditions and culture of the times 
    it can be misleading if taken literally in every case. 

    Jim
     

Thank you for clarifying that, Jim.  (I appreciate it very much.)

We now resume our regularly scheduled program.

Mark

>    Without clear understanding of the language, traditions and culture of 
>    the times it can be misleading if taken literally in every case. 

I chose to keep this reply separate.  Jim, do you have a clear understanding
of the language, traditions, and culture of the times?  

Also, Collis and Barry certainly do not take the Bible "literally in
every case" for there are clear allegories.  But determining what is
allegory and factual is the point of contention here, isn't it?

Mark

RE:13
>I chose to keep this reply separate.  Jim, do you have a clear understanding
>of the language, traditions, and culture of the times?  

    Not on every part of the Bible, I'm not a Scripture Scholar, but not every 
    part requires us to be Scholars. Whenever I don't understand certain
    parts, I leave it to the Holy Spirit to guide me to the answers which
    usually come through the interpretation my church has.

>Also, Collis and Barry certainly do not take the Bible "literally in
>every case" for there are clear allegories.  But determining what is
>allegory and factual is the point of contention here, isn't it?

    I'm not sure what Collis or Barry believe other than  they don't agree 
    with  what I have written in here.

     Jim

Sorry, forgot the smiley face.  Yes, I was mostly joking.  And I do understand 
the need to keep sharp.  But there is a part of me that notes the tremendous
expenditure of energy that has gone into this topic every incarnation of 
CHRISTIAN (fueled by me, sometimes!) and wonders how the Kingdom is being 
advanced by it.

Paul

    .15
    
    Hi Paul!!! :-)
    
    I hear your question, about the fruit of such a discussion.  It's
    interesting that you should bring that up.
    
    For me, this conference is based on the inerrancy of scripture, so this
    topic is somewhat askew (sp) to what is being discussed.  What is
    actually being discussed as I now understand it, is can every word in
    the Bible be taken literal.  If the discussion here was whether or not
    the Bible was inerrant, then I'd have a problem with this topic, as it
    would be contradictory to its premise [IMHO].
    
    Another thing to keep in mind, is that there are a *vast* amount of new
    faces [eyes] reading this conference, just take a look at the
    introductions [are you in there?].   So, on that basis, I could also
    ask, "Is it necessary to *keep* telling the salvation message each
    time?"  Maybe, that's not a *fair* comparison, but the discussion of
    the interpretation of God's Word seems rather connected to salvation.
    
    I'm actually finding some of this discussion rather fascinating [but then
    again, I'm a new face too] as I didn't really get into the old
    conference until May or June of last year, didn't participate until
    July.
    
    Nancy [who doesn't like conflict...just ask Mark M.]
    
    
    
    
    

!>I chose to keep this reply separate.  Jim, do you have a clear understanding
!>of the language, traditions, and culture of the times?  
!
!    Not on every part of the Bible, I'm not a Scripture Scholar, but not every 
!    part requires us to be Scholars.
    
    I'm saying this sincerely:  What makes you think that Jonah, or where
    the transcription of Jesus' temptation in the desert, don't require
    scholarly study to determine whether the passage should be taken
    literally or allegorically?
    
    Both Barry Dysert and Collis Jackson *are* bona fide scholars, with
    books and schooling up the whazoo.  (Which is why I give their words on
    this subject more credence than my own, especially because it is
    *supported* by what I read in Scripture.
    
!    Whenever I don't understand certain parts, I leave it to the Holy
!    Spirit to guide me to the answers which usually come through the
!    interpretation my church has.
 
    This is interesting.  You know, when I don't understand certain parts,
    I give the Bible the benefit of the doubt.  The Holy Spirit always
    points to Jesus and will always confirm the Scriptures.  If the "Holy
    Spirit" ever contradicts Scripture, check twice; it is an imposter.
    
    As for the interpretation through the church, this is also fine, but
    remember that the Bereans in Acts checked out what the Apostle Paul was
    saying.  So should we also TEST EVERYTHING against Scripture.  That's
    why parallel translations, scholars who have done the studies in the
    original languages, and commentaries are all good ways to be sure of
    what Scripture is saying, against what ANYONE (including and especially
    myself) says that Scripture says.
    
!    I'm not sure what Collis or Barry believe other than  they don't agree 
!    with  what I have written in here.
    
    I hope they will provide some more of what they believe as well as
    *WHY* they don't agree with the conclusions you have (to date) drawn.
    
    Mark

I have a request for anyone who considers Genesis to be allegorical.

What do you make of Genesis 1:1-4 when compared to 1:14-15?

Now, on the other side, please give a specific example of where you
hold the Genesis account (of anything) to be shown invalid?  Do not
use any human's interpretation.  Use Genesis alone.

Lew
- who, like Nancy, doesn't like arguing.  If the first 20 verses of
Genesis don't shock you, I can't hope to do better.  You may need
to know some physics to appreciate them.

Lew!  Let's be more specific!  ;-)  (Do you have an error in your note?  Should
it read request for "anyone who *does not* consider..."?)

Genesis 1:1-4:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.  And the earth 
was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.  
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.  And God said, 
"Let there be light": and there was light.  And God saw the light, that
it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Genesis 1:14-15
And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide
the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for
days and yeards: and let them be for lights in the firmament of heaven to
give light upon the earth: and it was so.

Now, I find it interesting that today's good morning verse is this:

And the city had no need of the sun or of the moon to
shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it, and the 
Lamb is its light.       Revelation 21:23 NKJV

So, what is the light of Genesis 1:3, Genesis 1:14, and Revelation 21:23?
Are they the same, or are they different?

Mark

re:17
    
>    I'm saying this sincerely:  What makes you think that Jonah, or where
>    the transcription of Jesus' temptation in the desert, don't require
>    scholarly study to determine whether the passage should be taken
>    literally or allegorically?
     
    I do think they require scholarly study.  I have found  some 
    statements on Jonah from Scholars which state that Jonah is loaded with
    exaggerations and should not be taken literally. 
     
>    Both Barry Dysert and Collis Jackson *are* bona fide scholars, with
>    books and schooling up the whazoo.  (Which is why I give their words on
>    this subject more credence than my own, especially because it is
>    *supported* by what I read in Scripture.

 Gee, Barry and Collis have degrees in Greek Hebrew and Aramaic ? I didn't
    know that.

        
!    Whenever I don't understand certain parts, I leave it to the Holy
!    Spirit to guide me to the answers which usually come through the
!    interpretation my church has.
 
>    This is interesting.  You know, when I don't understand certain parts,
>    I give the Bible the benefit of the doubt.  The Holy Spirit always
>    points to Jesus and will always confirm the Scriptures.  If the "Holy
>    Spirit" ever contradicts Scripture, check twice; it is an imposter.
      
    Your running off on a tangent here. The Holy Spirit is one with Christ
    and so Christ guides be me to answers as well. My Church is guided by 
    the same spirit of Christ so the answers do come from Christ Jesus via
    his church.
        
>    As for the interpretation through the church, this is also fine, but
>    remember that the Bereans in Acts checked out what the Apostle Paul was
>    saying.  So should we also TEST EVERYTHING against Scripture.  That's
>    why parallel translations, scholars who have done the studies in the
>    original languages, and commentaries are all good ways to be sure of
>    what Scripture is saying, against what ANYONE (including and especially
>    myself) says that Scripture says.
 
           The interpretation my church uses comes through Scripture
           scholars and  has its own history in its background 
           to go along with understanding the traditions  which are 
           part of clear understanding of Scripture.

    Jim

Re:  53.17
    
  >Both Barry Dysert and Collis Jackson *are* bona fide scholars, with
  >books and schooling up the whazoo.

As for me, I can say that I studied under scholars and gleaned a lot
(which, unfortunately, is not the same as being a scholar).
    
Collis

Re:  .20

Hi Jim,

Yes, some scholars say that Jonah is loaded with exaggerations
and should not be taken literally.

Other scholars say that Jonah is recorded truthfully and can
be accepted as true at face value (e.g. allegory and/or poetic
license were not used much if at all in this book).

How do we decide what truth is?  Flip a coin to pick one scholar
over the other?  As a RC, you rely on your church to provide
direction and I applaud that.  However, I think a reliance on
what God Himself has revealed through His prophets (i.e. the
Bible) is at least as good (actually better).  And so, by
comparing Scripture to Scripture and pulling principles out of
Scripture (on which we have a common ground), we can indeed
move closer to the truth.

One reasonable question to ask then is, "How did the various
scholars come to their differing conclusions?"  I think you'll
find the answer to the question is that those one set of scholars
accepted the claims throughout the Bible that it is indeed
true and the other set of scholars denied these claims.  The
question that you need to answer for yourself is where do you 
stand on these claims of truthfulness that Scripture asserts. 
Perhaps you're not as familiar with them as you might be (and
thus are not in a position to make an informed choice).  If that
is the case, it is our responsibility as Bible-believing Christians
to give you the information you need in order that you *can* make
an informed choice.  I'd be delighted if this string went in this
direction.

Collis

re:22
    Hi Collis


>One reasonable question to ask then is, "How did the various
>scholars come to their differing conclusions?"  I think you'll
>find the answer to the question is that those one set of scholars
>accepted the claims throughout the Bible that it is indeed
>true and the other set of scholars denied these claims.  The
>question that you need to answer for yourself is where do you 
>stand on these claims of truthfulness that Scripture asserts. 
>Perhaps you're not as familiar with them as you might be (and
>thus are not in a position to make an informed choice).  If that
>is the case, it is our responsibility as Bible-believing Christians
>to give you the information you need in order that you *can* make
>an informed choice.  I'd be delighted if this string went in this
>direction.

     
    First off, there aren't as many disagreements between Scripture
    Scholars as you might think. Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox 
    Scholars come together on issues and what is agreed between them
    is accepted. So, the interpretation the Roman Catholic Church has
    on Scripture is not solely their own interpretation. There are
    those who claim to be scholars, but aren't recognized as such by
    any credible institutions and are usually off on their own in
    there interpretation of Scripture. As lay people, it is easy to get
    swayed by these people.


     Jim

    I'd like to make a suggestion...
    
    Barry spoke of sound hermeneutical principles that will bring about
    consistent interpretations in reply .3.  Perhaps a topic could be
    opened about the science (is it a science?) of hermeneutics including a
    discussion of exogesis vs. eisogesis (sp?) and any other relevant study
    guides.
    
    I as a "non-scholar/scholar wannabe" would benefit greatly from such
    information and would find it helpful in understanding the Word better
    (which I assume assists in advancing the Kingdom, Paul ;-).
    
    Thoughts?
    
    Steve

    (Apologies to Jim for speaking about him in the 3rd person. I have
    already replied directly to Jim (.3), and I now need to quote his words
    as I reply to Mark. I hope no offense is taken.)

Re .13 (Mark)

> Also, Collis and Barry certainly do not take the Bible "literally in
> every case" for there are clear allegories.  But determining what is
> allegory and factual is the point of contention here, isn't it?

    Mark, I don't believe that is the point of contention. If it were we
    would only be concerning ourselves with hermeneutics. The point of
    contention is indeed inerrancy. To quote from Jim's earlier note:

46.6>>    In fact
46.6>>    the  first two books of Genesis were not written until five hundred
46.6>>    years after the following books.

    I may be reading into Jim's note something that isn't there, but I take
    him to be saying that Moses didn't do the writing in the Pentateuch -
    that there was a prolonged period of oral tradition, and the first
    writing happened hundreds of years after Moses. As I said in .3, this
    is a contradiction of verses like Ex. 24:4, Num. 33:2, Deut. 31:9,22,
    and John 5:46.

46.6>>    Written inspiration is for teaching concepts of faith or morality and
46.6>>    need not be factual.

    Sounds like there's a question in Jim's mind about whether or not the
    Bible is factual when it steps outside the realm of faith/morality.

46.6>>    So although the lessons in Scripture are without error,
46.6>>    as historical fact, many times they are.

    Not much doubt about what Jim means by this.

    From the few things Jim has written it seems like there is a question
    about inerrancy in his mind. It is not simply an issue of what to take
    literally and what not. Actually, if someone believes that there is
    room for error throughout the Bible I don't even see the point in
    concerning oneself with what's to be taken literally. If you can't
    believe what it says, who cares whether what it says is literal or not.

    
Re .14 (Jim)

>    I'm not sure what Collis or Barry believe other than  they don't agree 
>    with  what I have written in here.

    I'll be glad to go into whatever detail is required, but for starters I
    believe that the original Bible manuscripts were without any error in
    any matter (faith, morality, history, science, etc.). The autographs
    were written as God revealed His word to the authors. There was nothing
    that God wanted us to know that He didn't put in the Bible, nor was there
    anything added that He didn't want in.
    
    I also hasten to add that there may be problems that exist in
    translations/versions because of reasons addressed by textual critics
    (e.g. haplography, dittography, metathesis, homophony). In the major
    versions accepted by mainstream Christianity (e.g. NAS, NIV, NKJV)
    these problems are few, minor, and do not put into question any
    doctrinal issues. Moreover, by comparing the evidence presented among
    the various manuscript families virtually all of the difficulties can
    be resolved to the satisfaction of anyone who is not already pre-disposed
    toward a non-inerrantist viewpoint.


Re .18 (Lew)

    May I suggest that specifics regarding the creation account be
    addressed in Garth's topic (don't recall the number). He has already
    done more justice to that particular subject than we could do here
    by starting from scratch.

	BD�

      Hi,
    
        I just want to say that I have run into occasions where I
        saw what seemed to be contradictions.  An example interestingly
        enough being the temptations in the wilderness (the topic from
        which this topic spawned).  If you look closely, you will find
        that two gospel writers differ in the sequence of the three
        temptations.  Another example which is an example of language
        is the Revelation verse which speaks of the church washing their
        robes by the blood of the Lamb.  This sounds like 'works' but
        is understood to be the church allowing Christ to wash them.
    
        I have found that the cross stands at the forefront with such 
        force that my sometime misunderstanding about what seems to be
        contradiction or conflict is probably indiscernment on my part
        because the same Christ who hung for me is the same Christ who
        is the Word.
    
        And without giving any explanations here, I have found several
        points of harmony where once I found contradiction.  Typically,
        the harmony came unexpectedly when I wasn't looking for it.
    
        It is my posture that were we to know the dimensions of God's
        love, the many contradictions we sometimes seem to see would
        vanish and we would be incredulous that we saw any contradiction
        in the first place.
    
                                                   Tony

	The Bible is no exaggeration, and the books within are not loaded with
exaggerations. To claim this would be tantamount to saying that God
exaggerates (which is perhaps a mild but nonetheless sinful act of lying.)

	The Bible exposes the exaggerations of man and I'm also convinced that
most "biblical scholars" are an exaggeration in and of themselves being
neither biblical or scholarly. 8*)

	But then, nobody asked me...

ace

    "If your eyes causes you to sin, gouge it out." Should this be taken
    literally ? If so, we should all be blind and not capable of noting
    here. If not is it just an exaggeration to make a point ?


    Jim

Jim,

The Bible does indeed use exaggeration at times.  However,
I find that I'm hard-pressed to say that these times include
an historical narrative.

In the particular verse you quoted, I think the relevant
question is, "have your eyes caused you to sin?"  I have
spent a lot of time thinking about this and similar verses.
I agree with the Bible that all sin originates in the heart
(mind).

And, by the way, if my eyes *were* the cause of my sin, I
honestly believe that they *should be* gouged out.  As it
is, my eyes only provide opportunities both for sinful as
well as holy behavior.

Collis

	re.28

	Jim,

	I did not say that the words in the Bible should always be taken 
literally. I spoke of exaggeration.

	The whole verse you partially referenced is an excellent example.

	Matt 5:29 "So if your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out
and cast it from you; for it is better for you that one of your members perish
and not your whole body go into Gehenna"

	This verse should not be taken literally, but it is no exaggeration
either. The Lord Jesus is pointing out the seriousness of sin in relation
to the kingdom of the heavens and the need to put away the *motive* of sin at 
any cost. It should not be observed literally and it can only be carried out
spiritually as the following verses reveal...

	Romans 8:13 "For if you live according to flesh, you are about to die; 
but if by the Spirit you put to death the practices of the body, you will live".

	Colossians 3:5 "Put to death therefore your members which are on the
earth: fornication, uncleaness, passion, evil desire, and unbridled greedy lust,
which is idolatry".

regards,
ace

    RE:30
    Ace
         I agree that Christ used the expression in his speech in order
    to convey the message of the seriousness of sin. I see it as an
    exaggeration because Jesus would know that your eye does not have
    control over your will and therefor your eye could not cause you to sin.
    The context of the verse is the source of the sin which comes from your
    heart, not your eye or hand.

    Jim

    .31
    
    I disagree with you Jim, the eyegate is the first of the senses to be
    used as temptation.  For instance lust... pornography... or perhaps its
    looking at a catalog and becoming wanton of *things*...
    
    The eyegate is powerful.  
    
    Nancy

    re:32
    What's an eyegate ? Lust doesn't come from the eye, it comes from the
    heart. You could pluck out both eyes and still commit the sin of lust.

     Jim

    Jim,

    I have heard the senses described as being the gates to our souls.  I
    suspect this is what Nancy was referring to.  An interesting thing about
    a gate is that it can be used to control what can and what can't pass
    through.  If we are spiritually exercised, we keep a watch over these
    gates in order to keep out the things which are detrimental and allow
    in the things which are worthwhile.
    
    Mark L.

{
{Lew!  Let's be more specific!  ;-)  (Do you have an error in your note?  Should
{it read request for "anyone who *does not* consider..."?)
{
{Genesis 1:1-4:
{In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.  And the earth 
{was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.  
{And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.  And God said, 
{"Let there be light": and there was light.  And God saw the light, that
{it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
{
{Genesis 1:14-15
{And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide
{the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for
{days and yeards: and let them be for lights in the firmament of heaven to
{give light upon the earth: and it was so.
{
{Now, I find it interesting that today's good morning verse is this:

Mark,

No.  The note was right.  Some were saying that Genesis is allegory, and I
am saying that it is simply factual.  Therefore, I am calling on those who
have a problem to point to a specific.

Now look at the verses above.  "Light" is the underpinning of all creation.
Light SOURCES, as people understood them for thousands of years, were not
created until later.  So what gives.  Certainly not the long accepted law
of conservation of matter and energy.  Light or energy is inded the basic of
the universe.  Furthermore, there is recently a theory concerning the existence
of "dark matter"!  It fits very well with the above.  On the other hand,
one might easily have thought, until this century, that the first "light"
verses were allegorical.  Big mistake.

What I want is for someone to say something like "It says the universe was
created in a week."; so I can point out that it does not say that.  What I
also want is for them to realize that the history is that, when current
science has conflicted with the Bible, the Bible has been shown to be right
in the end; and that this has happened more than once.

By the way, I have to take issue with you one one point.  I do not believe 
that the Bible says that all are of us are descended from Adam and Eve.  If
so, then so be it, but I haven't seen it anywhere in my reading.

Maybe I'll get more time one day, sigh.

Lew

    
    WRT: where the sin starts, I think of the verses in James...
    
    
James 1:13
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be
tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man;

James 1:14
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

James 1:15
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is
finished, bringeth forth death.

    RE:35
    Did God create a dome or did God create the sun and oxygen so that when
    light passes through the atmosphere it bends and creates the blue sky
    we have. I believe the dome that Genesis speaks about is the same as
    the scientific result of what He did. However, being the writer didn't
    have a clue as to why the sky is blue or other scientific facts around
    the earth, he could only describe it in allegorical terms. Also, did
    God create the world in six days ? Again, the author is speaking
    allegorically. It doesn't mean God didn't create the world and universe,
    Faith tells us He did, but to me understanding that the creation of the
    world probably took  billions of years makes God, in my mind, more awesome 
    and real than one who says give me some animals  and poof, there they
    are. 

    As I watch nature I see God's magnificence and wisdom. Everything happens
    so natural that unless you take time to notice, you won't see the
    miracle involved. 

    Even when I have seen faith healing's, the ones that were most legitimate,
    happen so naturally that hardly anyone in the crowd noticed. The ones
    that are noticed by the crowd are the ones that have all the hype 
    and emotional dramatics, but  these are often suspect.
    This is why  when Jesus healed and did other miracles, the crowds didn't 
    embrace  him and make him their hero. Because the miracles happen so 
    naturally, only the people of faith could see them, but the curiosity 
    seekers could not see. Jesus said, for those who have eyes, see, for those 
    who have ears, hear. He was talking about those with faith who could see 
    and hear verses the curiosity seekers that could not see or hear anything 
    He did or said.

    In His Name
    Jim

>    but to me understanding that the creation of the
>    world probably took  billions of years makes God, in my mind, more awesome 
>    and real than one who says give me some animals  and poof, there they
>    are. 

I can respect the belief that billions of years = 1 allegorical day;
I held it myself.  But I can just as readily accept that the days in
Genesis are actual factual 24 hour periods, because, "in my mind"
God is powerful enough to accomplish what *might* take natural
history billions of years.  Can you accept a God Who *COULD* have
made the world/universe in six 24-hour periods?

If you can't, then who has limited Whom?

>    Even when I have seen faith healing's, the ones that were most legitimate,
>    happen so naturally that hardly anyone in the crowd noticed

I think I know what you're saying here too.  Too often we neglect the
"natural" as miracles yet all good comes from the hand of God.  I differ
with you that one is "most" or more legitimate than another.

>    Because the miracles happen so 
>    naturally, only the people of faith could see them, but the curiosity 
>    seekers could not see.

I also beg to differ here, too.  There are plenty of examples in Scripture
where dramatic miracles were performed before onlooker (withered arm
outstreched on the Sabbath, healing of the cripple let down through the
roof, and others).  There are also others where he told people not to
tell others.  Good stuff to study.

Mark

    FWIW - The word used for day in Genesis is the same word used for a
     24 hour period elsewhere in the Bible. (Although I do not have one
     with me currently).
     
    To assume anything other than a 24 hour period, is reading INTO the
    text that which is not there. I for one do not care to doubt the Word of
    God.
    
    PDM

    on the idea of time...
    
    Any physicist should be able to tell you that time was
    quite different "in the beginning" (space, too, what with
    9 or more dimensions as compared to 3 nowadays, but I'm
    digressing).  Our current frame of reference, our perspective,
    is insufficient to really make much of an argument about this.
    Scripture gives us a good idea of the relative importance of
    faith as compared to physics.  ;-)
    
    Even if we *did* completely understand about the beginning,
    would it be any less miraculous?  Can we only believe in God when
    He works *outside* the order He created?   
    
    Mark M. put it best in asking if we believe that God is omnipotent. 
    I've noticed he's good at bringing us back to the point  ;-)
    
    In Christ,
    
    Otto
    

    re: .39
    
    Hi,
    
    The word in question is "yom" which means day and *can* mean age.  It
    is not (to my knowledge) to be strictly and only interpeted as a 24
    hour period.
    
    In fact - how the first "yom" (day) was literally 24 hours when "the
    greater light (sun) to rule by day" had yet to be created is unkown to
    me...which isn't to say that it could not have been that way - it's
    entirely possible in my view.
    
    I'm just saying there are options.
    
    Clearly - whether literal 24 hour periods or "ages", God did it in
    seven days and He did it for a purpose...I'm satisfied with that ;-)
    
    Steve

Re:  53.39

  >FWIW - The word used for day in Genesis is the same word used for a
  >24 hour period elsewhere in the Bible. 

Indeed it is.
     
  >To assume anything other than a 24 hour period, is reading INTO the
  >text that which is not there. I for one do not care to doubt the Word of
  >God.

What you are really saying is to "interpret" it any other way is to...

This word does NOT have only one meaning.  A word study shows multiple
meanings of the word.  To say that it *must* be interpreted to have the
most common meaning is not good interpretation.  Now, you can present
a case for claiming this meaning that makes this intepretation likely
(and Garth does), but I think it goes too far to claim that this is
100% irrefutable proof.

For what it's worth.

Collis

    Please excuse my ignorance, but who exactly came up with
    24 hours = 1 day?
    
    Rebecca
    
                 

RE: the last few about what a day meant.

Speculation about whether or not the day was 24 hours is not the
point.  The Bible does not say that thus and so was done in a day.
It says that thus and so was done, and THAT was a DAY.  Since this
was done first, it is clear that the use of the term "day" for our
sun period was adopted after.  The wording in the Bible is abundantly
clear and carefully repeated for each period.  In all of the versions
I have looked at, it never assumes day to be defined, but in fact,
defines day itself.  I assume that God knows what He is doing, so
I believe what I read from Him over any and all human traditions or
interpretations.

Lew

    .44  
    
    Yeah! So, no matter how you slice it, God created everything in six
    *days.*  :-)
    
    Bible stands uncorrected.  ;-)

	I talked about this "7 day" stuff with a friend of mine a few months 
ago, and he had an interesting theory. He thought that basically God showed
Moses a video of the creation of the world, and that the video lasted
a whole week (Moses must have spent a lot on popcorn). Anyway, when Moses
wrote it down, he would start with God's narration for the first day's 
showing (And God said "Let there be light", etc)  and described as best he
could what he saw during the day, and ended it by saying "And there was 
evening and there was morning, one day". And so on. He didn't write down that
he was seeing a video because he was unfamiliar with the technology God
was using. I don't think I agree with my friend, but I thought it was a pretty 
interesting theory. Anyway, since Moses wasn't used to videos, he took the 
viewing time as being the actual time of creation. And maybe it was actually 
7 days, or maybe God intended Moses to think it was 7 days....who really 
knows? For me, I suppose it's an interesting discussion topic, but I would 
bet there have been 1000 different theories on exactly how Genesis should
be interpreted, and they are all off in one way or another. 


	Bob

    Asimov (Isaac, Deceased) I think it was who wrote a short story which
    covered a scene between Moses and Aaron.  It puts another angle on the
    six-day theory which was most amusing.
    
    Since I plan to bring it in one day and outline it, I don't think I'll
    give you the punch line just yet...
    
    James

  Hi,

    Some stuff I've been blessed to hear about God's seventh-day
    Sabbath has a lot of relevence here.  It has been asked, "Why 
    seven days?  Why did God create in six days and bless the seventh?
    Why not create in 4 days or 13 days or whatever?

    Some people have suggested that God set a seven day week because
    our 'internal clocks' are just suited for a seven day week.  This
    would seem rather like putting the cart before the horse because
    God could have designed us in such a way to be suited for any grouped
    number of days.

    The skies have no 7 day time period.  One day is the rotation of the
    earth.  One lunar month equates to the time of the moon's revolution
    around the earth.  A year equates to the time duration of the revolution
    of the earth around the sun.

    But, what of the week?

    WHY seven days?

    The following is what I have come to believe...

    The fourth commandment of the ten is actually written differently in
    Deuteronomy 5 than it is in Exodus 20.  The reason for Sabbathkeeping
    is deliverance from Egypt.  In the spiritual of Israel's actual sojourn 
    from Egypt to Canaan, the Sabbath commandment refers to deliverance 
    from SIN.  Hebrews 4 speaks of this where the author calls us to enter
    that perfect rest from sin.  In another place the Lord speaks of Abraham's
    inheritance as a place where only righteoussness dwells.  (His inheritance
    is Cannan.)

    So God calls His people to remember the Sabbath day not only as a memorial
    to creation, but also as a memorial to REDEMPTION - deliverance from the
    bondage to sin.

    Here is a second point.  Peter says we can hasten the second coming.  
    God is willing to give all of Himself.  Ephesians 3 includes a prayer of
    Paul where he prays that God's people would understand the dimensions
    (the height and breadth and depth) of the agape of Christ so that we could
    be filled with all the fulness of God.  He looked forward to a church
    which GROWS UP - to a perfect man, even unto the measure of the stature 
    of the fullness of Christ.  (Eph 4).  He sees a perfected church.  made
    perfect not by given an incorruptible flesh, but rather by coming to a
    certain comprehension of the dimensions of God's love.

    How is this related to the 7 day week?

    I believe God doesn't set the time.  He awaits a corporate body willing
    and able to receive.  And by FOREKNOWLEDGE (and not by predeterminism),
    God saw that day when a group would receive Him to such a fulness that
    deliverance from sin would be complete.

    And that time was roughly 6000 YEARS!!!!!

    So He designed a millenial Sabbath rest for the people of God to enter.
    And as in foreknowledge He saw 6000 years until the work was perfectly
    accomplished, He creates the worlds in 6 days followed by a 7th Sabbath
    rest.

    To summarize:

    The Sabbath is a memorial to creation and to perfect deliverance from sin.
    God does not set the time, He is always willing to give all of Himself.
    In foreknowledge, He saw a corporate body that would perfectly enter 
    that rest in ~6000 years.  Thus He had creation take 6 days followed
    by a 7th day Sabbath as a parallel to the time duration of 6000 years
    followed by a Sabbath millenium of rest.

                                                     Tony

.49

Tony, I think we're off the subject of inerrancy a little.  Want to start 
a new note?

Also, I find this quite curious:

>    I believe God doesn't set the time.  He awaits a corporate body willing
>    and able to receive. ...
>    And that time was roughly 6000 YEARS!!!!!

Is this not a contradiction?  If God does not set the time, then 
it might be 5420 years or 10,231 years.  

I can see your reasoning that in God's foreknowledge, 
he saw 6000 years, (by your implication), before "a corporate body
[] would perfectly enter that rest" so he makes the world in 6 days.
It is an interesting theory.

MM

    re: .49
    
    Since this is off-topic - maybe a new one should be started?
    
    Hi Tony,
    
    While I personally hold out great hope that we're nearing a Millenial
    Shabbat, we can't exactly know just yet...in that, we won't really know
    until Messiah is physically here and ruling the world from the throne
    of His earthly Kingdom, centered in Jerusalem.
    
    I also think you have an interesting explanation of why 7 days, but I
    think it takes some "chutzpah"  ;-) to suggest that "God doesn't set
    the time".
    
    Surely the Author and Finisher of our faith is the author of the cycle
    of the seasons and time itself, no?
    
    This is the same God who says "the *SET* time to favor Zion has
    come...".
    
    Just some thoughts.
    
    
    Steve

    notes collision! ;-)

    I think that whenever the question of inerrancy of scripture is raised,
    it is important to distinguish between the concept of inerrancy and
    infallability.  There is certainly error in the content of scripture. 
    The ones which come to mind are Lev 11:6 and Deu 14:7 where the hare is
    described as a cud-chewing animal.  (They do look like they're chewing
    cuds, though.) 
    
    Whether these errors occurred in translation, transcription or
    interpretation is for someone else to argue, however, if you truly
    believe, as do I, in 2Tim 3:16, you must temper this belief with the
    understanding that, although scripture is God breathed, it is still
    subject to the imperfect and fallen understanding and potential
    corruption of mankind.
    
    Since all things are guided by the perfect hand of God, I believe that
    scripture is infallable in the purpose that God intended and that through
    scripture we can begin to see and understand the nature of that purpose.
    
    There is value in analyzing scripture for truth, allegory and metaphor
    but I don't consider it something on which to hang your faith.  I
    consider it a blessing that there is enough to challenge and stimulate
    my imperfect understanding.
    
    Kris

    RE:53
    Kris, 
         I agree 100% 
    
    Good Note !
    
    Jim

    Re: Note 53.49 by STRATA::BARBIERI
    
>   Thus He had creation take 6 days followed
>   by a 7th day Sabbath as a parallel to the time duration of 6000 years
>   followed by a Sabbath millenium of rest.
    
    Numerology alert; God may not have used base ten, and there is a theory
    that he would have favoured the simplicity of base two, so therefore
    the nearest time would be 8192 years...
    
    Unless he decided to measure time by some electron resonance frequency
    or something...
    
    ;-)  ;-)
    
    James

    re:  .53  Kris
    
    The rabbit does indeed re-ingest its food.  It does not do it like the
    cow does.  Because its system passes vegitation too rapidly to absorb
    sufficient nourishment, the rabbit must eat its droppings.  Scientists
    confirm that this is a form of cud-chewing.
    
    Gives you a whole new outlook on the term "morning breath" though.  ;^)
    
    The next time Jehovah's Witnesses call on you, ask them for a copy of
    the book "The Bible -- God's Word or Man's?"  It will show you that you
    can believe the Bible is completely truthful and accurate.  Or, contact
    me off-line if you wish.
    
    
    Steve

RE:56
        
>    The rabbit does indeed re-ingest its food.  It does not do it like the
>    cow does.  Because its system passes vegitation too rapidly to absorb
>    sufficient nourishment, the rabbit must eat its droppings.  Scientists
>    confirm that this is a form of cud-chewing.

        A rabbit eats its own droppings only when it has babies in the nest,
        (dogs do the same) or when it hasn't been fed. To equate this with
        a cows cud chewing is really stretching it.
      
        Is this make up fact day ?

>    Gives you a whole new outlook on the term "morning breath" though.  ;^)
>    
>    The next time Jehovah's Witnesses call on you, ask them for a copy of
>    the book "The Bible -- God's Word or Man's?"  It will show you that you
>    can believe the Bible is completely truthful and accurate.  Or, contact
>    me off-line if you wish.

       Well that explains it.    
    
    Jim

    
    >> Is this make up fact day ?

    No, today is not make-up-fact day.... rather than ridicule, why not 
    research it a little more, hmmm?
    
    You might discover, for example, that what Steve says is confirmed by
    writer Fran�ois Courli�re in his book "The Natural History of Mammals"
    and also in the book "Mammals of the World" by E.P. Walker, who
    specifically noted: "This may be similar to 'chewing the cud' in ruminant
    mammals".
    
    >>> The next time Jehovah's Witnesses call on you, ask them for a copy of
    >>> the book "The Bible -- God's Word or Man's?"  It will show you that you
    >>> can believe the Bible is completely truthful and accurate.  Or, contact
    >>> me off-line if you wish.
    >>
    >>  Well that explains it.    
    
    Explains what? that Jehovah's Witnesses do a little more research than 
    most, rather than blindly accepting what others say is truth?
    
    
    -Len

    'scuse me...
    
    Between the "that explains it" and "go chew your cud" comments, I think
    we've had enough.
    
    We're discussing the inerrancy of Scripture here - do we need this kind
    of stuff?
    
    AS to the topic at hand....
    
    If God said the sky was orange, I'd say it was time to change my
    concept of blue - but that's just my opinion.  I think eventually,
    scientists would come around to understand that the sky is indeed
    orange.  Ultimately, I think science ends up glorifying God (if the
    scientists will be honest with what they find).
    
    FWIW (WAM  [which ain't much ;-)]),
    
    Steve

re:58
        
>    >> Is this make up fact day ?

>    No, today is not make-up-fact day.... rather than ridicule, why not 
>    research it a little more, hmmm?
      
    Sorry ! I forgot I wasn't in SOAPBOX.;)
    
>    You might discover, for example, that what Steve says is confirmed by
>    writer Fran�ois Courli�re in his book "The Natural History of Mammals"
>    and also in the book "Mammals of the World" by E.P. Walker, who
>    specifically noted: "This may be similar to 'chewing the cud' in ruminant
>    mammals".

    Yeah, but rabbits are ruminant mammals ? They're rodents. The cud chewing
    is pobably teeth grinding which rodents do to sharpen their teeth.
        
>    >>> The next time Jehovah's Witnesses call on you, ask them for a copy of
>    >>> the book "The Bible -- God's Word or Man's?"  It will show you that you
>    >>> can believe the Bible is completely truthful and accurate.  Or, contact
>    >>> me off-line if you wish.
>    >>
>    >>  Well that explains it.    
>    
>    Explains what? that Jehovah's Witnesses do a little more research than 
>    most, rather than blindly accepting what others say is truth?

      Well, I wish I had  the copy of Awake that a JW gave me when he came
      to my house. It had a picture of Hitler shaking hands with an RC Bishop. 
      Under that picture it had a picture of three priest with outstretched
      hands to imply that they were giving hi'el Hitler salute. The article
      told of how the Catholic Church and Anglican Church played a part 
      in the Holocaust. When I pointed out that the picture of the three priest
      could be priest  concelebrating a Mass in which they hold their hands 
      out in the same way towards the alter and that many diplomats met with 
      Hitler in an attempt to reach peaceful solutions and shaking hands was 
      merely a formal way of greeting leaders of countries and churches and
      shouldn't be taken as some sort of an alience between the two, he quickly
      closed the magazine, changed the subject by opening the Bible to another 
      topic. 
      
      Based on that experience and many others I don't give much credit to
      truth on anything the Watch Tower Society puts out.

     Jim

>    Yeah, but rabbits are ruminant mammals ? They're rodents. The cud chewing
>    is pobably teeth grinding which rodents do to sharpen their teeth.

No, rabbits actually generate two types of droppings.  They eat normal food, and
this goes through them quickly, and produces droppings that still have a lot of
nutrition left in them and are fairly moist and soft.  They then eat these, 
which go through them again and produces dry, hard droppings.  So it is very
much like chewing a cud.

I'm not sure how this impacts cage-kept rabbits whose first droppings fall 
through the screen and out of reach.

Paul

    re: .62
    
    tangents...
    
    Reminds me of a sermon that (I believe) Jack Hayford gave once...a
    10-point sermon on "dung" (...all that I count as dung for the sake
    of...).
    
    Each point was a different property of dung.
    
    By the time he got to point 7, he and his listeners were laughing so
    much, he stopped preaching and started praying ;-)
    
    Wish I had it on tape....
    
    
    re: .60
    
    Len - no big deal...mail sent off-line.  As one who has been rebuked
    for this kind of thing, I now can spot it a mile away ;-) ;-)

    	>>Yeah, but rabbits are ruminant mammals ? 
    
    Only by today's modern scientific classification are they not
    classified as such; apparently, up until at least the 18th century, 
    rabbits/hares were considered 'cud-chewers' by individuals such 
    as English poet William Cowper and naturalist Linnaeus. So, it's
    not surprising that back in Moses time, they were considered 
    chewers of cud (they just happen to reingest differently than
    mammals with multiple stomachs).
    
    
    	>>Under that picture it had a picture of three priest with outstretched
	>>hands to imply that they were giving hi'el Hitler salute
    
    Well, there's really no need to imply anything. It's really no big
    secret how much involvement there was between the clergy and the
    German leaders at that time. By and far, the churches' clergy supported
    Hitler, and very few individuals spoke against that support.
    
    I believe it was in that massive book "The Rise and Fall of the Third
    Reich" that a point was made (paraphrasing): without the churches support, 
    Hitler could not have come into power.
    
    
      	>>Based on that experience and many others I don't give much credit to
        >>truth on anything the Watch Tower Society puts out.
    
    Sorry to hear that; my experience has been just the opposite. In the 
    past, I've tried to disprove a lot of what I read and found myself
    unsuccessful.
    
    
    -Len

     RE:64 

>    Only by today's modern scientific classification are they not
>    classified as such; apparently, up until at least the 18th century, 
>    rabbits/hares were considered 'cud-chewers' by individuals such 
>    as English poet William Cowper and naturalist Linnaeus. So, it's
>    not surprising that back in Moses time, they were considered 
>    chewers of cud (they just happen to reingest differently than
>    mammals with multiple stomachs).

 Well, isn't that what's being talked about here ? What was considered in the
 the time of the writing of Scripture verse scientific facts of today show that
 parts of the Bible are not without error in the literal sense.
    
>    	>>Under that picture it had a picture of three priest with outstretched
>	>>hands to imply that they were giving hi'el Hitler salute
    
>    Well, there's really no need to imply anything. It's really no big
>    secret how much involvement there was between the clergy and the
>    German leaders at that time. By and far, the churches' clergy supported
>    Hitler, and very few individuals spoke against that support.

       Well, this is bologna ! The Churches were persecuted by the Nazi's.
       How come JW don't talk about the clergy that died in the death
       camps for their opposition to Hitler ? 
    
>    I believe it was in that massive book "The Rise and Fall of the Third
>    Reich" that a point was made (paraphrasing): without the churches support, 
>    Hitler could not have come into power.

        Do you mean they supported the democratic process which brought him 
        into power ? They also support the democratic process that brought
        Clinton into power, but that doesn't mean they help support his 
        pro-abortion policies. There is enough documentation and eye witness
        accounts of the clergy and the Pope himself speaking out publicly 
        against Hitler's regime. There is also documents by Hitler's 
        administrators stating that the real enemy is the Church of Rome.
        Doesn't sound like they were getting support from the Church from what
        I've read.

      	>>Based on that experience and many others I don't give much credit to
        >>truth on anything the Watch Tower Society puts out.
    
>    Sorry to hear that; my experience has been just the opposite. In the 
>    past, I've tried to disprove a lot of what I read and found myself
>    unsuccessful.
    
  Keep trying, it just a matter of what and who you choose to believe.   
 
 Jim

>>    Only by today's modern scientific classification are they not
>
> Well, isn't that what's being talked about here ? What was considered in the
> the time of the writing of Scripture verse scientific facts of today show that
> parts of the Bible are not without error in the literal sense.

Only if you hold *today's* classification in higher regard than the
classification of thousands of years ago.  We're not really talking
about the redefinition of Pi, are we?  How many classifications has
the Tomato had from science?  (vegetable, fruit, for example).

(I'd prefer not to speak of the other subject in this line; take it
to another line, please.)

Mark
Participant

    
    FWIW, The "German church" was largely Protestant, I believe, not
    Catholic.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.
    
    jeff

> Well, isn't that what's being talked about here ? What was considered in the
> the time of the writing of Scripture verse scientific facts of today show that
> parts of the Bible are not without error in the literal sense.

Define "cud."  If you take "cud" to mean regurgitated food that is re-chewed,
then yes, the Bible contains a factual error here.  But if you define "cud" as
food which has been processed once by the digestive system that is re-chewed,
then there is no error.  And if you think about it, if the people had observed
the rabbits well enough to know that they were re-chewing ANYTHING and not just
eating more fresh food or grinding their teeth, then they certainly would have
known that they were re-chewing their droppings.

>>    Well, there's really no need to imply anything. It's really no big
>>    secret how much involvement there was between the clergy and the
>>    German leaders at that time. By and far, the churches' clergy supported
>>    Hitler, and very few individuals spoke against that support.
>
>       Well, this is bologna ! The Churches were persecuted by the Nazi's.
>       How come JW don't talk about the clergy that died in the death
>       camps for their opposition to Hitler ? 

I was just reading about this yesterday, in Jim Dobson's latest "Focus on the 
Family" letter.  The "front offices" of the mainline churches DID go along with
Hitler.  The mainline churches and clergy implemented the "Aryan clause," which
prevented anyone of Jewish descent from being ordained in the church, and I
believe also from being members of the church.  Some members of the church and
clergy (such as Bonhoffer) disagreed with this and were vocal against it, but
the mainline clergy turned their backs on them.  THESE were the people who were 
persecuted, the leadership of the churches danced right along to the tune that
Hitler played for them.

Paul

	FWIW,

	What is often overlooked is that Hitler was a religious man himself,
	but at no time did his church ever ex-communicate him.

	Phil.

    | <<< Note 53.69 by YERKLE::YERKESS "Vita in un pacifico nouvo mondo" >>>

    |	FWIW,

    |	What is often overlooked is that Hitler was a religious man himself,
    |	but at no time did his church ever ex-communicate him.

    |	Phil.
    
         Maybe they were afraid too....heheheheheheh
          PDM
    
    ps. us Philips' have to stick together! There are so few of us! You DO
        Spell Philip with ONE 'l' right?!
    
    

This has nothing to do with the inerrancy of Scripture!

Define how Hitler was "religious."  Did he attend church?  Not in the
biography that I read by John Toland! He certainly had a "revelation"
(but then so have a lot of people), that made the decision not to be
an architect but to go into politics.  To quote:

-----
Out of his black despair came a decision.  "The great vacillation of my life,
whether I should enter politics or remain an architect, came to an end.
That night I resolved that, if I recoved my sight, I would enter politics."

[The young corporal was blinded by mustard gas in 1918 and sent to a hospital
where he learned of Germany's capitulation; this was his black despair, because
the corporal was a super-patriot.  He regained his sight from the mustard gas
poisoning, but relapsed when he heard the news of the impending Armistice
two days later.  Doctor Forster diagnosed the case as 'hysterical blindness.']

"The shame of Germany's surrender on November 11 in the forest on Compi�gne
overwhelmed him.  Life seemed unbearable, but that night, or the next, Hitler
was abruptly delivered from his misery, as he lay in despair on his cot, by a
'supernatural vision' (perhaps deliberately induced by Dr. Forster).
Like St. Joan, he heard voices summoning him to save Germany.  All at once,
'a miracle came to pass' -- the darkness encompassing Hitler evaporated.
He could see again!  He solemnly vowed, as promised, that he would 'become a
politician and devote his energies to carrying out the command he had
received.'"

                      --- Biography, *Adolf Hilter*, John Toland.
-----

Now, who thinks we should start a new string and HOW should we separate 
this string?

Mark

re:68

>I was just reading about this yesterday, in Jim Dobson's latest "Focus on the 
>Family" letter.  The "front offices" of the mainline churches DID go along with
>Hitler.  The mainline churches and clergy implemented the "Aryan clause," which
>prevented anyone of Jewish descent from being ordained in the church, and I
>believe also from being members of the church.  

    I don't know about the Lutheran church, but I would find it hard to
    believe that Rome had anything to do with the "Aryan" clause . It would
    be documented and I'm sure that people like Cardinal Newman, a holocaust
    survivor himself, who converted to Catholicism after the war, would
    have condemned it. When Pope John XXIII was serving as a Bishop in a
    German occupied country, (I think it was Poland), he issued phony Baptism 
    certificates to Jews so they could escape the Holocaust. If he issued fake 
    certificates, I'm sure he would not have refused to issue real ones to 
    Jews who wanted to convert.

     This discussion really belongs somewhere's else and I apologies for
     creating the rat-hole.

    Jim

    I believe Hitler was  a Catholic.


    RE: The cud chewing thing. 

    The understanding that a rabbit was a cud chewier or not isn't the
    point. The point is that the writers used the understanding they
    had of the world around them when they wrote. There words taken
    literally are at times not correct in the scientific or historical sense. 
    When John wrote Revelation, did he see locus with faces of men or 
    helicopters ? Know one knows for sure, but whatever it was isn't the 
    importance of the message he was writing about.

    Jim

>    When John wrote Revelation, did he see locus with faces of men or 
>    helicopters ? Know one knows for sure, but whatever it was isn't the 
>    importance of the message he was writing about.

Literal <> inerrant

Re:  .73

The issue seems to be defining "cud-chewer".

We seem to have a different definition today than they
had when Scripture was written.  Does this mean that
Scripture was not literally true?

That's absurd.  They used the word that was appropriate
at the time.  The fact that the definition changed later
is irrelevant to the original author (although, of course,
it is *extremely* relevant for someone attempting to
interpret Scripture used a new definition for the term).

In summary, this example does not in the least prove that
Scripture is not true, even literally true in this instance.

Collis

    RE:75

    Yeah, except if you speak about  cud-chewing rabbits which don't
    exist, and tell people your reference for such a statement is the 
    Bible.

    Jim

    In all cases, about all things, God is right; man is at worst
    completely wrong and at best incompletely right.

    In His love,

				*** Daryl ***

Re:  .76

Thank you, Jim, for your illuminating response.

Collis

re .70

	Philip,

	Yes it's just the one 'l', I didn't realise that most had two l's.

	As indicated by Mark M, this not the right note string to discuss 
	Hitler etc, but I would just like to make one response for who knows 
	it might start a new note string.

;Maybe they were afraid too....heheheheheheh
	
        Actually you have hit on something there that the German churches,
	as a whole, failed to teach their congregation. That is to fear
	God rather than men, Psalms 118:6 NWT reads "Jehovah is on my side;
	I shall not fear. What can earthling man do to me?" and also 
	see Deuteronomy 6:2. Those who refused to "Hiel Hitler" were 
	persecuted even as far as death, this included small children
	who may have been taken from their parents and beaten black and blue.
	Why such ones refused to "Hiel Hitler" is that it meant salvation
	was through Hitler, and to do so would mean recanting their
	faith in that salvation was through Jesus Christ. So by refusing
	to do so they pleased their God by keeping their integrity.

	If the churches, be they Protestant or Catholic, had instilled firmly
	that one should fear God (not wanting to displease him) even in
	the face of persecution then no doubt Hitler would not have had the
	support that he was given. Also salvation will be through only one
	Fuhrer that is Jesus christ and only through one reich that is God's 
	Kingdom will mankind problems be solved. This is something the 
	churches have continued to fail to teach and so back then they did 
	not recognise this counterfeit kingdom for what it trully was. 

	Phil.

    Well, last evening when I got home, I consulted with my wife, who is a
    naturalist, and she confirmed that rabbits eat their food which goes
    through their system and then the pass it as a soft sticky substance
    almost like the stools, but softer and this is what they eat. She then
    handed me about twelve books on wildlife and they all confirm this
    including one which state "it is similar to cud chewing." 

    I stand corrected and apologize for giving you all a hard time. 
    I was wrong!  I have a dish of crow waiting for me to eat here.;)

    Now on the subject of the note. 

    I also went to a copy of "The Collgeville Bible Commentary," to reread
    what I had read in the past on the Bible.

    Number one is that there are contradictions and in the Bible that the
    Commentary points out. Here are some that it talked about.

    Human beings were created after plants and animals appeared in Gen
    1:12,21,25,27. Human beings were created while the earth was still
    inhabited in Gen 2:5, 9.

    The commentary ask the question...Must one adhere to a perception of the
    scientific findings? (Light itself was created before the heavenly
    bodies that give off light. Gen 1:3,16)

     In the New Testament there is conflicting chronology in the Gospel
     story.

     Jesus cleansed the temple at the beginning of His ministry during one 
     of His several visits to Jerusalem John 2:13-17. The cleansing occurred
     during His only visit, which took place just before his death. 
     Matt 21:12-17, Mark 21:12-17, Luke 11:15-19, Luke 19_45-28.
     
     These inconsistencies found in the Bible have resulted in various 
     ways of interpretation. You have those who hold to the Bible's
     inaccuracy scoffing at historical and scientific data with the 
     claim that God can do everything even the impossible if need be.
     
      There are those that hold to the stance that these conflicting parts of 
      the Bible may be allegorical.

      A third way is one that scholars often use in that they attempt to find 
      a truth in what is being said, They distinguish between what is
      historical/scientific truth and religious truth.

      Just some thoughts for now. Gotta go.

      Peace
      Jim

    |   <<< Note 53.80 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ "Getting Good At Getting By" >>>
    
    
    It saddens and upsets me to read your reply Jim. I must respect your
    stand, but I must tell you I vehemently have to disagree with your
    assertion that the Bible is contradictory.
    
    I would say more, but...I need to cool down first,.... mor later
      !PC

    

    Jim,
    
    Save some crow for me.  I brought up this cud business and, if I'd
    known that it would lead to a whole discussion on dung eating, I'd have
    kept my keyboard silent.
    
    Morano,
    
    Sorry, I don't know your name.  There are passages in scripture which
    appear contradictory.  Every God-loving person has the free will to
    accept these contradictions without question or examine them in a
    rational way with the hope that in doing so your faith will be
    deepened.  
    
    This, for me is the lesson of the cud.  I did not know that a hare
    reingests its food and that doing so is considered cud chewing.  I
    always held that therein was an error in scripture.  Had I not
    questioned, I would not have learned.
    
    This still does not override my questioning nature.  And, although I
    have faith in God, I know that the instruments of the recording of His
    Word and Will were human and though they may have been touched with
    grace and annointed with Spirit, they were still of flesh and therefore
    imperfect.  I, too am of flesh and imperfect as is my ability to
    comprehend God's Word.  I keep that in mind when I read.
    
    I also keep in mind some factors of scriptural history:
    
    Back in the times when all word was hand written, the "mass production"
    of books was performed by having one person read and a room of scribes
    write what they heard.  If you tried this today, what percentage of the
    written copies would be "perfect" replicas of the original?  How many
    punctuation errors or errors of tense or homonymal errors would you
    encounter?
    
    Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest copy of the
    Old Testament passages dated from between 600 - 800 AD (The Masoric
    Scrolls).  In comparing these scrolls with those from the Dead Sea,
    there are differences which may constitute corruption of the original
    Word or may indicate that the Dead Sea Scrolls were less accurate. 
    Since they are not the same, there is error in one.
    
    One of my favourite passages is 2Tim 3:16.  I had learned it from King
    James as "All scripture is given by inspiration of God...".  Imagine my
    horror when I read in NIV something about "God breathed".  The Greek
    word used is "pneumotheo" (I think) which is indeed "God breathed".  Is
    my beloved AKJV in error?  Might be construed that way.  Is it false
    doctorine?  I don't think so.
    
    Again, for me, the argument is not inerrancy but infallability.
    
    Kris

    |      <<< Note 53.82 by BRADOR::HATASHITA "Hard wear engineer" >>>
    
    
    Maybe I read you wrong, ;^). It certainly did not appear to me that you
    were first accepting the Bible as inerrant and Then examining YOUR
    understanding. I'll go off in a corner and thing about it.
    
    |This, for me is the lesson of the cud.  I did not know that a hare
    |reingests its food and that doing so is considered cud chewing.  I
    	I do not accept this yet.  Re'ingestion' is not the point 'cud' is.
    
     Webster's Dictionary states:
    	cud (kud) n. Food regurgitated from the first stomach tothe mouth
                     of a ruminant and chewed again.
     no where is feces stated or implied.
    
    
    >Sorry, I don't know your name.  There are passages in scripture which
    	P(hilip)DM

    Finally a few passages that are cited as being contradictory! Thank you
    Jim for posting .80. Now that there are a few specifics on the table we
    may be able to make some progress.
    
    	BD�

    Re: Note 53.80 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ

�    Human beings were created after plants and animals appeared in Gen
�    1:12,21,25,27. Human beings were created while the earth was still
�    inhabited in Gen 2:5, 9.
�
�    The commentary ask the question...Must one adhere to a perception of the
�    scientific findings? (Light itself was created before the heavenly
�    bodies that give off light. Gen 1:3,16)

    Addressed in 71.1.
    
�     In the New Testament there is conflicting chronology in the Gospel
�     story.
�
�     Jesus cleansed the temple at the beginning of His ministry during one 
�     of His several visits to Jerusalem John 2:13-17. The cleansing occurred
�     during His only visit, which took place just before his death. 
�     Matt 21:12-17, Mark 21:12-17, Luke 11:15-19, Luke 19_45-28.
     
    Addressed in 71.2.
    
�     These inconsistencies found in the Bible have resulted in various 
�     ways of interpretation. You have those who hold to the Bible's
�     inaccuracy scoffing at historical and scientific data with the 
�     claim that God can do everything even the impossible if need be.
    
    It's certainly true that God can do anything He wants to. It's also
    true that He almost always works within the laws of nature as we know
    them. Serious Christian Bible students know that there are no Bible
    inaccuracies, and that there are very few (if any?) problems between
    the Bible and science. We don't need to scoff at the very evidence that
    supports the truth of the Word.
     
�      There are those that hold to the stance that these conflicting parts of 
�      the Bible may be allegorical.
    
    Again, since there are no conflicting parts, the real question is much
    deeper, viz. how to properly interpret the Bible.

�      A third way is one that scholars often use in that they attempt to find 
�      a truth in what is being said, They distinguish between what is
�      historical/scientific truth and religious truth.
    
    God knows as much about history and science as He does about religion.
    It's ludicrous to suppose He could inspire truth about the meaning of
    life, heaven, hell, sin, redemption, etc., but mess up when it comes to
    piddly things like science and history.
    
�    I also went to a copy of "The Collgeville Bible Commentary," to reread
�    what I had read in the past on the Bible.
�
�    Number one is that there are contradictions and in the Bible that the
�    Commentary points out. Here are some that it talked about.
    
    Jim, please take this in the spirit that it's intended. I think you'd
    be better off without any commentary than to absorb things written by
    folks who don't accept the truth of the Word. If they believe that the
    Bible contains errors, they can't possibly be doing a very good job at
    providing accurate commentary.
    
    As I said in an earlier note, if your preconception is that the Bible
    contains errors, your theology (and ultimately your whole life) is
    going to be wide of the mark. If you think there are errors you'll be
    able to write off every difficulty as an error without really taking
    the trouble to study it and come to the truth. However, if you think
    there are no errors, when you come to a difficulty you'll invest the
    time to research it and eventually come to a better understanding of
    God and what His plan is.

    	BD�

>    God knows as much about history and science as He does about religion.
>    It's ludicrous to suppose He could inspire truth about the meaning of
>    life, heaven, hell, sin, redemption, etc., but mess up when it comes to
>    piddly things like science and history.

Amen, Barry.  Had to repeat it.

>    As I said in an earlier note, if your preconception is that the Bible
>    contains errors, your theology (and ultimately your whole life) is
>    going to be wide of the mark.

And, you're in the wrong notes conference for getting the truth as you [generic]
think it to be.  There are other notes conferences that cater to this type
of theology.  All are welcome to come into this conference and see what 
the Bible has to say about anything.  But all are not welcome to propose
contrabiblical theology as truth (which is not the same as discussing any
concept and attempting to see what the [inerrant] Bible has to say about it).

>    If you think there are errors you'll be
>    able to write off every difficulty as an error without really taking
>    the trouble to study it and come to the truth. However, if you think
>    there are no errors, when you come to a difficulty you'll invest the
>    time to research it and eventually come to a better understanding of
>    God and what His plan is.

Again, this bore repeating for emphasis.

Mark

    I'm not sure whether this note belongs in 71.  Moderators may move it
    one their discretion.
    
    Before I start into this again, I want to point out (again) that there
    is a distinction between inerrancy and infallibility and the presence
    of errors in Scripture is not an argument against its holiness nor an
    argument against God's inspiration.  What the presence of errors in
    Scripture is is an affirmation that divine perfection is not for men to
    possess but, like the judgment of righteous and the wicked is for God
    alone (Ecc 3:17),.

    Since we have worked the question of the hare and his cud to death, I
    had to go in search of other references.  Here are some that I found:

      The Greek word "theopneustos" (not "pneumotheos") is mistakenly
      interpretted as "inspiration of God" in 2Tim 3:16 of the AKJV.  It
      is, in fact the "expiration of God" (or "breath of God") as worded in
      the NIV.

      The genealogies of Jesus as given by Matthew and by Luke differ. 

      The three accounts of Saul's encounter with Christ on the road to
      Damascus given in Acts 9, 22, 26 differ on many points.  For example:

         Acts 9:7  And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless,
         hearing a voice, but seeing no man.


      Compared with:

         Acts 22:9  And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and
         were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.


      The temptation of Christ by Satan as recorded by Matthew has Christ
      tempted first in His flesh, then in His pride of life, and finally in
      His eye.  Whereas Luke has Christ tempted first in His flesh, then in
      His eye, and lastly in His pride of life.

      Finally, there is the fact that in almost all cases the Gospels
      differ slightly in their recording of the same events or of their
      recording of the words of Jesus.  Take an arbitrary quote from Christ
      from any Gospel and look up the corresponding verses from any of the
      remaining three.  In most cases there are slight, and usually
      inconsequential, differences between verses.  But these are
      differences in the recording of the same event which means that there
      are errors, as minute as they may be.  An example is in the parable
      of new wine:

         Matthew 9:16  No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old
         garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the
         garment, and the rent is made worse.
         Matthew 9:17  Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else
         the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles
         perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are
         preserved.
    
         Mark 2:21 No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old
         garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the
         old, and the rent is made worse. 
         Mark 2:22  And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the
         new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the
         bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles.
    
         
         Luke 5:36  And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a
         piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the
         new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new
         agreeth not with the old. 
         Luke 5:37  And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the
         new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles
         shall perish. 
         Luke 5:38  But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are
         preserved.

      
      
    You can see that the variations are slight.  This in itself speaks of
    divine intent and intervention.  If you were to take four people who
    shared a common (non-divine) occasion today and asked them to record
    quotations and events which took place during that occasion, the
    differences you would encounter would be much greater than those
    recorded in the Gospels.  But the fact remains that they quotations and
    they are different.

    Finally, I would argue that there is no verse in Scripture which
    proclaims inerrancy.  There are proclamations of divine inspiration
    (John 10:35, 2Tim 3:16, Matt 5:18 etc.) but nowhere (that I could find)
    does scripture proclaim inerrancy.

    I have a hierarchy of beliefs which make up my faith.  The foundation,
    mortar and pinnacle of these beliefs is that Jesus Christ is the Son of
    God and by Him and through His sacrifice alone will I be freed from the
    sin which is the fallibility of my flesh and come to know my Creator. 
    Next in my hierarchy is my belief that Scripture is the revealed Word
    of God; infallible in its intent but not inerrant in its content. 
    Finally, I believe in my own God-given rational mind and God-given free
    will.

    I do not embrace a doctrine of inerrancy of Scripture because in my
    heart such doctrine, like the doctrine of papal infallibility, is
    unbased and unnecessary for appreciating the glory which is God.

    'Nuff said.

    Kris
    
      

.87>  Kris

Infallibility versus inerrancy.
We need a definition of error.
I've condensed your 107 lines thusly.  Please elaborate if necessary.
Are these your points of contention?

(1) "Inspiration" versus "breathed by God"
(2) Genealogy differences in the gospels
(3) Saul's account in Acts
(4) Ordering of temptations in the gospels
(5) Different "quotations" of the same event in the gospels

I don't have a ready answer for all of these; I'm not so well schooled
as several others in here.

But I would contest your definition of "error."   Especially in such a
case as a variance in quotation, if the essential meaning has not changed.
You, yourself, said "If you were to take four people who
shared a common (non-divine) occasion today and asked them to record
quotations and events which took place during that occasion, the
differences you would encounter would be much greater thanthose
recorded in the Gospels.  But the fact remains that they [are] quotations and
they are different."

I agree that they are different.  I do not agree that this constitutes "error."
Do you?, Now, perhaps we really agree on the concepts of infallibility
of scripture, but are not communicating with terms we mutually understand.

Mark

      I'll accept Funk and Wagnall's  definition of error, Mark:
      
      error n. 1. Something done, said, or believed incorrectly; a mistake.
      
      
      As for the "points of contention", I have to say that there is no
      contention on my part.  To me, these are examples of seemingly
      contradictory passages which support the argument against the
      doctrine of inerrancy.  
      
      There are proposed answers for some of these "problem passages", by
      the way.  It has been proposed that the differing accounts of Saul's
      encounter is solved by assuming that the voice was spoken in a
      foreign language, hence Saul's travelling companions would hear the
      voice but not "hear the voice", so to speak.  Perhaps it is what
      really happened.
      
      There are many more "problem verses".  If you're interested, I can
      dig up some more notes and present them here along with the
      solutions.  
      
>I agree that they are different.  I do not agree that this constitutes "error."
>Do you?, Now, perhaps we really agree on the concepts of infallibility
>of scripture, but are not communicating with terms we mutually understand.
      
      If two accounts of the same event are different, one or both are
      incorrect.  One or both accounts contain at least one error.  
      
      Now, the original scriptural manuscripts may very well have been
      perfect in their recording of events or in their recording of the
      Word of God.  That is something we cannot argue.
      
      I want to make it clear again that I do not consider inerrancy to be
      a prerequisite for divine inspiration.  If the doctrine of inerrancy
      is fundamental to your belief, please ignore my postings in this
      topic for it's certainly not my intent to disuade anyone's faith.

>      error n. 1. Something done, said, or believed incorrectly; a mistake.

>      If two accounts of the same event are different, one or both are
>      incorrect.  One or both accounts contain at least one error.  

 Which of the two accounts was said incorrectly?  So if you said,
"The car came down Main street" and I said, "Joe drove the
car down Main street."  would one of us be in error?

Are we splitting hairs on what is an error?

>      I want to make it clear again that I do not consider inerrancy to be
>      a prerequisite for divine inspiration.  If the doctrine of inerrancy
>      is fundamental to your belief, please ignore my postings in this
>      topic for it's certainly not my intent to disuade anyone's faith.

Noted, and so we are not opposed; merely discussing to communicate 
the same concept to each other for our mutual understanding.

Re .87 (Kris)

>    Before I start into this again, I want to point out (again) that there
>    is a distinction between inerrancy and infallibility and the presence
>    of errors in Scripture is not an argument against its holiness nor an
>    argument against God's inspiration.

    This is not worth arguing over, but I don't see any practical
    difference between inerrancy and infallibility. According to Websters
    Third New International (unabridged), the definitions are:

    	inerrant - free from error or mistake [gives "infallible" as
    	           a synonym]
    	infallible - incapable of error

    I also can't see how one can hold to inspiration (i.e. God breathed)
    and also think that the originals contained errors.

>    Finally, I would argue that there is no verse in Scripture which
>    proclaims inerrancy.  There are proclamations of divine inspiration
>    (John 10:35, 2Tim 3:16, Matt 5:18 etc.) but nowhere (that I could find)
>    does scripture proclaim inerrancy.
    
    Whatever typos notwithstanding...

         Psa. 19:7-9 -> The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the
         soul; The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the
         simple. The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the
         heart; The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the
         eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; The
         judgments of the Lord are true; they are righteous
         altogether.

         Psa. 119:89,123,128,138,140,142,144,160 -> Forever, O Lord,
         Thy word is settled in heaven.... My eyes fail with longing
         for Thy salvation, and for Thy righteous word.... Therefore I
         esteem right all Thy precepts concerning everything, I hate
         every false way.... Thou hast commanded Thy testimonies in
         righteousness and exceeding faithfulness.... Thy word is very
         pure, therefore Thy servant loves it.... Thy righteousness is
         an everlasting righteousness, and Thy law is truth.... Thy
         testimonies are righteous forever; Give me understanding that
         I may live.... The sum of Thy word is truth, and every one of
         Thy righteous ordinances is everlasting.

         Prov. 30:5-6 -> Every word of God is tested; He is a shield
         to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words lest
         He reprove you, and you be proved a liar.

         John 17:17 -> Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth.

         1 Cor. 14:37 -> If any one thinks he is a prophet or
         spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to
         you are the Lord's commandment.

         1 Thes. 2:13 -> And for this reason we also constantly thank
         God that when you received from us the words of God's
         message, you accepted it not as the words of men, but for
         what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its
         work in you who believe.

         2 Tim. 3:16 -> All Scripture is inspired by God and
         profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for
         training in righteousness.

         Titus 1:2 -> ... in the hope of eternal life, which God, who
         cannot lie, promised long ages ago

         Heb. 6:18 -> ... in order that by two unchangeable things, in
         which it is impossible for God to lie...

         2 Pet. 1:19-21 -> And so we have the prophetic word made more
         sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp
         shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning
         star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that
         no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own
         interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of
         human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

    I believe the Bible speaks for itself on this issue.

    	BD�

    Re: Note 53.90 by TOKNOW::METCALFE
    
>"The car came down Main street"
>"Joe drove the car down Main street."
    
    The second statement contains more information; who was directing the
    car down Main street.  (Joe was running behind it with a whip... ;-) ). 
    This does not mean that the first statement was in error.  It is simply
    omitting information that is present in the second statement.
    
    If you divide the information in the universe into two sections,  the
    first of which contains the information that is in the above statements,
    and the second of which contains the information that is NOT in the
    above statements, then *most* of the information is in that second
    section.
    
    The bible does not mention what Jesus had for lunch each day.     (*)
    
    Error <> Omission
    
    
    Now if your goal was to say who was driving that car, and you spoke the
    first statement, then you have committed an error of omission.  ;-)
    
    But if your goal was to communicate the fact that a car came down Main
    street, and you also have a goal to avoid adding needless detail that
    might deter proper understanding, or even cause some split in your
    future readers, you might have to *decide* what information you put in
    your statement.
    
    Perhaps the writers' had free will...
    
    James
    
    
    (*)  Volunteers with a time machine, cloaking device, video recorder,
         and thirty or so years of video tape would be welcome...  ;-)

>    Perhaps the writers' had free will...

Indeed they did!  They were almost all Wesleyans, and if wasn't for the
one or two Calvinists, why, I'd say the Bible would be really not only
error-free, but confusion-free!  ;-)  Ah, but it was predestined to be so.
 %^P ;-)

MM

    .93
    
    [THUD], sound of me falling of chair... :-)
    
    Nancy

    MARK!

     Young man (yes, there *is* someone older than you in this conference,
     Mark!), you go to your room without suppper, until you're ready to say
     that you're sorry! 8^{) All of the Wesleyans are waiting for you to say
     that you didn't really mean that it was possible that *Wesleyans*
     introduced any some sort of error into Scriptural interpretation and/or
     translation! 

     39 lashes with a wet noodle for *you*, boy! 

     8^{p

     Brian

    re: .96
>   you go to your room without suppper
    
    A better punishment would be:
      you go to your room without *pinball*
    
    Markel :-)

>    A better punishment would be:
>      you go to your room without *pinball*

Okay, okay, I'm sorry.  The Wesleyan in me made me do it.
And so, with aforeknowledge of being forgiven, I now recant of
this rathole!

MM  ;-)

| <<< Note 71.42 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>




| Gen 2:19a "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the
| field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam
| to see what he would call them..."

| So I presume verse 19 is causing you a little trouble, Glen?

	Yes, as it makes the order of things different than what was stated in
Gen 1. A different order is confusing to say the very least, and a
contradiction (and all it implies) at the very most. 

| Do you take verse 19 to mean that it was at that point that God created
| the beasts and fowl?  

	Yes.

| "Out of the ground, the Lord God formed every beast..."  When?  If it happened
| in the sequence of Genesis 1, then this is still a true statement.  

	That's a mighty big IF Mark. 



Glen

.50 (Glen)

>| "Out of the ground, the Lord God formed every beast..."  When?  If it happened
>| in the sequence of Genesis 1, then this is still a true statement.  
>
>	That's a mighty big IF Mark. 

Is it?  Let me ask you then, do you believe that this supposition of mine is 
a possible explanation, even if you do not think it is probable?

>| Do you take verse 19 to mean that it was at that point that God created
>| the beasts and fowl?  
>
>	Yes.

Along with my question above, do you think it is possible that this verse
was merely stating that God created the animals, and was NOT referring
to WHEN they were created?

Mark

| <<< Note 71.51 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



| Is it?  Let me ask you then, do you believe that this supposition of mine is
| a possible explanation, even if you do not think it is probable?

	Yes Mark, it is a possible explaination. And yes, I don't think it's
probable.

| Along with my question above, do you think it is possible that this verse
| was merely stating that God created the animals, and was NOT referring
| to WHEN they were created?

	Same as above. 


Glen

.53 (Glen)

>| Is it?  Let me ask you then, do you believe that this supposition of mine is
>| a possible explanation, even if you do not think it is probable?
>
>	Yes Mark, it is a possible explaination. And yes, I don't think it's
>probable.

How probable was it for the sun to stand still?
How probable was it for Jesus to walk on water?
How probable was it for limbs to straighten out?

You can (may) believe these miracles happened; maybe you don't.
You have a problem with the syntax of language, and this causes 
you to lose faith?

As Barry put it, for all the stuff in the Bible that we don't have
a problem with, it would take odds of more than a TRILLION to one
for it to occur by chance - very highly improbable, I'd say.

And so we are faced with a curiosity - and not a problem for most people -
in the Genesis account.  You admit that it is a possible explanation but
disbelieve it because of what you believe is its probability.  And this is
one of the easier "problem texts" to resolve by simple language syntax
study.

Is your faith so fragile?

Mark

| <<< Note 71.54 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>




| You have a problem with the syntax of language, and this causes
| you to lose faith?

	My faith is fine Mark. But I do question the passage. For me faith is
something between God and myself, not between the Bible and myself (or any
combination you can think of centering around the Bible). 

| As Barry put it, for all the stuff in the Bible that we don't have
| a problem with, 

	And of the stuff that you do have a problem with is looked at as, "God
hasn't revealed it's meaning to me yet" or "It's a matter of faith" by many
people. No real answer to the question, but it does seem to do the job for
some. Again, like I said, my faith is with God Himself.

| You admit that it is a possible explanation but
| disbelieve it because of what you believe is its probability.  And this is
| one of the easier "problem texts" to resolve by simple language syntax
| study.

	I guess it'll get resolved when I go to heaven. :-)

| Is your faith so fragile?

	Like I said, my faith is fine. 



Glen

    
    Glen,
    
    How do you *know* God and have *faith* in Him?
    
    Nancy

"God has told" him so, Nancy.

Glen,

>	And of the stuff that you do have a problem with is looked at as, "God
>hasn't revealed it's meaning to me yet" or "It's a matter of faith" by many
>people. No real answer to the question, but it does seem to do the job for
>some. Again, like I said, my faith is with God Himself.

Yeah, I know what you mean.  My sister-in-law has completely trashed her faith
because she got "no real [satisfactory] answer" to her questions.

And the answers given to you do not satisfy you, yet your faith is fine
because it is between you and God.  Your belief in God is based on what
you feel to be God.  Feelings are shifty.

>	I guess it'll get resolved when I go to heaven. :-)

Perhaps.  But perhaps the only glimpse of heaven that you or I may see is 
from the Courtroom, the judgment bar of God where he separates the
goats from the sheep.  It certainly depends a lot on what God is really
like, doesn't it?

You can't believe the Bible because of this little, very easily explained
problem you have with this scripture.  But we also know that there are
other pieces of Scripture that would cause you greater difficulty in 
believing in such a God as the God of the Bible.  But chipping away at
anything helps to justify one's position.  Yup, the answers may not be 
satisfying to you and so you may discount them because of probability
or whatever, but they may indeed be the true answers.  It will get 
resolved and if [human-rationalized] probability fails with a Supernatural
and Holy God, the resolution won't bring you any comfort.

Mark

| <<< Note 71.56 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Search Me Oh God" >>>



| How do you *know* God and have *faith* in Him?

	Because the Bible says so. :-)  Nancy, it isn't something I can easily
put into words. I know from the things He has shown me, both when asked and not
asked, both good and bad. How He has ALWAYS been there showing me the way during
bad times, celebrating with me in the good. How to swallow my pride, put people 
in my path to help or to help me and many other things. He teaches me, instructs
me, loves me. I couldn't live without Him.



Glen

| <<< Note 71.57 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>




| Yeah, I know what you mean.  My sister-in-law has completely trashed her faith
| because she got "no real [satisfactory] answer" to her questions.

	Explain please?

| You can't believe the Bible because of this little, very easily explained
| problem you have with this scripture.  

	Goes deeper than that Mark. You know that. If not, where have you been
the last year or so? ;-)

| But chipping away at anything helps to justify one's position.  

	Mark, I don't need to justify my position. I do get the impression that
YOU need me to justify my position. It's something that I believe in, plain and
simple.



Glen

>| Yeah, I know what you mean.  My sister-in-law has completely trashed her faith
>| because she got "no real [satisfactory] answer" to her questions.
>
>	Explain please?

Unlike you, Glen, my sister-in-law, whose name is Faith (interestingly)
chose to believe that there is no God because of such questions as
"If there is a God why is there starving and suffering in the world."
Because she had no satisfactory answer, she chose to believe that God
does not exist.

Like you, Glen, you have some answers that are not satisfactory to you,
and so you choose a God based on what you feel the answers should be or
have to be to justify your position.

>	Mark, I don't need to justify my position. I do get the impression that
>YOU need me to justify my position. It's something that I believe in, plain and
>simple.

True enough; plain and simple.  I choose to believe in the Bible to justify
my position, plain and simple.  Not pieces of it, not feelings, even if I
happen to have some unsatisfactory answers to the same questions my
sister-in-law, Faith-less has.

And as you said, we'll find out the ground on which our beliefs are founded.

So you see, we can agree on some things.  ;-)

Mark

| <<< Note 53.108 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



| Unlike you, Glen, my sister-in-law, whose name is Faith (interestingly)
| chose to believe that there is no God because of such questions as
| "If there is a God why is there starving and suffering in the world."
| Because she had no satisfactory answer, she chose to believe that God
| does not exist.

	Gee, the person I'm dating thinks that way too. The belief that there 
is a higher power at work exists, but the impression I got is that it may or 
may not be God. I do hope that view changes.

| Like you, Glen, you have some answers that are not satisfactory to you,

	Agreed.

| and so you choose a God based on what you feel the answers should be or
| have to be to justify your position.

	Not agreed. I don't need to justify my position. You keep wanting me
to, but the need isn't there. Read on and you'll see why.

| I choose to believe in the Bible to justify my position, plain and simple.  

	Fine. Using the Bible to justify your position is your way of dealing
with it. If it works for you, then fine. But who do you need to justify your
position to? People? I hope you don't think that. God is the only one we need
to justify our faith to. He does that by knowing what's in our hearts. One
doesn't need the Bible to justify a position that is so easily readable by God
looking into our hearts. A Bible doesn't = instant justification of one's faith.

| Not pieces of it, not feelings, even if I
| happen to have some unsatisfactory answers to the same questions my
| sister-in-law, Faith-less has.

	I love the way you throw words around Mark. Too bad though that they
often have a demeaning connotation to them.....




Glen

>| I choose to believe in the Bible to justify my position, plain and simple.  
>
>	Fine. Using the Bible to justify your position is your way of dealing
>with it. If it works for you, then fine. But who do you need to justify your
>position to? People? I hope you don't think that. God is the only one we need
>to justify our faith to.
    
    Another cigar for a correct answer.
    
>    He does that by knowing what's in our hearts. One doesn't need the
>    Bible to justify a position that is so easily readable by God looking
>    into our hearts. 
                         
How do you know it is God looking into your heart?
    
>    A Bible doesn't = instant justification of one's faith.
             
    Never said it did.  How one measures up to what the Bible has to say
    DOES give cause for the validation and justification of one's faith.
    
>| Not pieces of it, not feelings, even if I
>| happen to have some unsatisfactory answers to the same questions my
>| sister-in-law, Faith-less has.
>
>	I love the way you throw words around Mark. Too bad though that they
>often have a demeaning connotation to them.....
    
    Oh?  i thought I've been rather nice during this exchange.
    My sister-in-law has lost faith and so the play on words by calling her
    Faith-less is appropriate.
    
    Now back to your correct answer that God is the one who justifies. You
    base your knowledge of God on feelings, on what you have decided God
    has told you.  So you justify your position through your filter. And I
    justify my position through my filter: the Bible.  That's because I
    trust the Bible to be correct, even when it declares me wrong.
    
    Mark

    more on my own reply (.110).
    
    You see, the Bible says that we can be justified before God and know
    it.  All other mechanisms for knowing whether we can justify our
    position before God are internal or flawed.   The Bible is something
    that is a reliable meter.
    
    Yeah, sometimes you might wonder if the meter is accurate - but after
    all it has always proven to be accurate.  So because you doubt that the
    meter is accurate doesn't make it inaccurate.
    
    mark

| <<< Note 53.110 by JARETH::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>




| >    He does that by knowing what's in our hearts. One doesn't need the
| >    Bible to justify a position that is so easily readable by God looking
| >    into our hearts.

| How do you know it is God looking into your heart?

	Because the Bible says so. :-) You have asked a question, but can't
answer it here. If you would like mail sent with an answer, I'll gladly do
that. But even though you asked the question, if I answered it I would then be
labeled an antagonist. Don't want to have that happen.....

| >    A Bible doesn't = instant justification of one's faith.

| Never said it did.  How one measures up to what the Bible has to say
| DOES give cause for the validation and justification of one's faith.

	It gives those who believe as you do that justification. It doesn't
mean that it has God's justification attatched to it. Many have read, many have
believed, many have fallen. But if it works for YOU, then go for it.

| Now back to your correct answer that God is the one who justifies. You
| base your knowledge of God on feelings, on what you have decided God
| has told you.  So you justify your position through your filter. 

	YOU have justified my position through my so called filter, not me.
Mark, try and understand. I don't need to justify any position with anyone. 
The only justification that is needed is what is in my heart and THAT only
needs to be done with God. Plain and simple.

| And I
| justify my position through my filter: the Bible.  That's because I
| trust the Bible to be correct, even when it declares me wrong.

	And the point you're making is...... Mark, again, as I have said
before, God has MANY times shown me when I was wrong and has also shown me
to swallow my pride and correct the issue at hand. He's even shown me how 
to do that. But maybe you're making another point so I'll shut up now and 
wait for your response.



Glen

>| Now back to your correct answer that God is the one who justifies. You
>| base your knowledge of God on feelings, on what you have decided God
>| has told you.  So you justify your position through your filter. 
>
>	YOU have justified my position through my so called filter, not me.
>Mark, try and understand. I don't need to justify any position with anyone. 
>The only justification that is needed is what is in my heart and THAT only
>needs to be done with God. Plain and simple.
    
    Have I?  This is circular, Glen, and so I'm bowing out.
    You say God justifies you between you and God, yet the only way
    you know God is by an unreliable means: a flawed Bible which you
    claim God tells you which passages are the ones you can count on
    to be true.  Isn't this your position?
    
>...God has MANY times shown me...
    
    How do you know?  The Bible?  How can you know that the Bible has told
    you the truth if some of it is in error?  God tells you which parts are
    correct, right?  So it isn't Glen's filter but God's filter, right?
    Perhaps they are one and the same.
    
>  Antagonism
    
    I'm glad that you haven't been antagonistic lately.  And I'm glad that
    we know where you stand regarding the premise of this conference and
    the meter by which we measure the Truth.
    
    Mark
    

    
    For me, knowledge of Jesus came from the Bible, but faith came from my
    experience with the person  Jesus Christ. Baptism in the Holy Spirit is
    what it is called.

    Peace
    Jim

>    For me, knowledge of Jesus came from the Bible, but faith came from my
>    experience with the person  Jesus Christ. Baptism in the Holy Spirit is
>    what it is called.

Well said, Jim.   Knowledge of God also comes from the Bible.  I've said this
before:  God did not put everything there is to know about Him in the
Bible; God put everything we need to know about God in the Bible.

Apllied knowledge is wisdom or folly.  Correctly applied knowledge is
wisdom.  Experience with the person Jesus Christ is applied knowledge.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit is when God and sinner are reconciled to 
each other.  No amount of head knowledge can do this.  No claim of it
can make it so, either.  However, the experience with the person Jesus 
Christ will never, never contradict the knowledge of Him.

Mark

I think you're misunderstanding Glen, Mark.  For example, you say:

>    yet the only way
>    you know God is by an unreliable means: a flawed Bible which you
>    claim God tells you which passages are the ones you can count on
>    to be true. 

I think Glen would disagree that this is is position (don't let me put words in
your mouth, Glen.)  I believe Glen's position is that God is speaking to him
directly, not through any external means.  I think he means that when he has an
"inner peace" about something, then God is confirming to him directly that he is
on the right path about that issue.  The opposite is also true for him.  When 
you (Mark) ask how Glen knows that God is correcting him:

>    How do you know?  The Bible? 

I believe that Glen would say, no, not through the Bible.  That when he has an
inner turmoil about an issue, that this turmoil is God working within him to
bring him to the conviction that he should change.  I don't think that Glen uses
the Bible at all to know what God is telling him, or if so, only peripherally to
what he perceives to be God's voice speaking within him.

Is that a fair articulation, Glen?

Ideally, I think that Glen is right on.  Ideally, if we truly and earnestly
seek His face, He will show us what is right.  True communion with God is not to
be found in intellectually learning about Him through a book, but by committing
to Him and walking with Him.  But note that I say ideally.  We are not ideal 
people.  There are two main problems with allowing what we claim to be God 
speaking to us through our internal peace level to determine what God's will for
us really is.

First, we are very, very bad at discerning God's "still small voice" from all
the other voices of our culture, of our own vested interests, of what we WANT
God to be like, etc.  Speaking only for myself for a moment, there have been
many times that I felt a real peace about something, only to be convicted by God
later that I was wrong.  History is littered with people who earnestly and truly
believed that they were following God's will, who were vastly off base.  Using
this standard of our "inner peace," God's will becomes very subject to our
prevailing culture.  This is just human nature.  It applies to all areas of our
lives, not just religion.  It applies from the simple levels of what we eat -
some forest people would have quite a "peace" about eating raw grubs, while you
or I would have anything but "peace" - up to our views of what God wants.  We
can easily have a real "peace" about something that is completely outside of
God's will.  Remember that evil will not always be wearing a black hat like in
old B grade westerns.  Satan can appear as an angel of light.

Second, once we allow each individual person's "inner peace" to be their 
standard of God's will for their lives, we can not argue against those who will
simply use this for their own ends.  If we have to accept what anyone has said
"God told them" was true, what about those who would lie about it?  Not to 
suggest this for a moment, Glen, but if we should just accept what you say 
because God told you, how could we possibly know if you had been lying all this
time and were deliberately leading people astray?  Only God sees people's 
hearts, we have to deal with the externals.  If what anyone says "God told me"
is to be accepted as true, then we become completely at the mercy of anyone who
wants to claim anything in God's name.

I believe that both David Koresh out in Waco, and the man who murdered the
abortionist at the clinic, would tell you that God told them in their hearts to
do what they've done.  We have no way of knowing if that's true - whether they
have a real peace in their hearts or whether they are making that up to justify
themselves.  But from everything we know about God, neither one of them is 
correct - God didn't want them doing what they've done.  God didn't tell them
to do it.  Whether they had a peace in their heart and were completely mistaken
or whether they know in their heart that God had nothing to do with it, they
were wrong, and we need to be able as God's people to stand against what they
have done.

So Glen, that's why "I just know" won't fly very far here.  Too many people over
history have been wrong when they truly believed "I just know."  And too many
people have deliberately lied and used that line to convince people of 
falsehoods.

A lot of people come to belief in the perfection of the Bible because they say
we need a standard.  As I've articulated at length before, I don't think that's
very good reasoning, but I've come more and more to see the value of a standard-
even an imperfect one.

Where I am right now, is that I believe it is in our best interest as a people
seeking to know God to use the Bible as the standard for His will - **EVEN IF
THE BIBLE IS FLAWED**.  We may possibly be prevented from doing some things that
would actually be OK.  But we will not be prevented from doing anything that is
really essential to our life with Christ.  And we *WILL* be prevented from 
falling into all sorts of harmful ideas that run counter to the will of God.  We
will be prevented from allowing God's will to be determined by what our current
culture declares is OK or by what we want to be OK.

If my choice is to stand on a version of God's word that may not be perfect but
which is *sufficient*, or to be "tossed about by every wind of doctrine," if my
choice in the rushing river is to stand upon the rock which my feet have found
which may or may not be anchored to the riverbed but which feels firm under my
feet, or to just toss myself into the raging current to be tossed and turned and
bashed against the rocks, I'll stand on the rock, thank you.

Paul

    The contradictions that I've listed earlier in no way should be taken
    as contradictions in truth. The contradictions are mostly due to
    translations and interpretations, but NONE are contradictory in the 
    truth they put forth. The Bible in without error in its purpose which
    is giving us what we need to know about God and our relationship to
    Him. 

    Jim

    Re: Note 53.117 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ

�    The contradictions that I've listed earlier in no way should be taken
�    as contradictions in truth. The contradictions are mostly due to
�    translations and interpretations, but NONE are contradictory in the 
�    truth they put forth. The Bible in without error in its purpose which
�    is giving us what we need to know about God and our relationship to
�    Him. 
    
    What contradictions? The problem passages you mentioned do not
    constitute contradictions, as I have already demonstrated. If I've made
    an error in demonstrating it, please point it out. If not, then the
    alleged contradictions have resolutions. Granted, they may not be the
    right ones or ones that are agreeable to everyone, but I believe that
    it's good enough to dispell the claim that the passages are truly
    contradictory.
    
    	BD�

    Barry,
           it boils down to interpretation. What you presented has not
    shown that the contradictions don't exist in my mind. Your satisfied
    with what you presented. That's fine with me, but I don't accept your
    explanation as accurate interpretation and this is not meant as a put
    down, but a difference of accepted interpretation.

    
    Peace
    Jim

| <<< Note 53.116 by EVMS::PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for security-lose both" >>>




| I think Glen would disagree that this is is position (don't let me put words in
| your mouth, Glen.)  I believe Glen's position is that God is speaking to him
| directly, not through any external means.  

	Actually, through both. As I know God can use me to help others (even
without my knowing it) He can/does use others to help me. 

| I think he means that when he has an
| "inner peace" about something, then God is confirming to him directly that he is
| on the right path about that issue.  

	This does happen, but not always. There have been times where there was
a lot of turmoil due to the fact that I may not want to do it, that what I have
to do will be a hard thing to do or that I may have to admit something (to
myself/others) that I don't really want to do. But like you also said, there
are many times when there is an inner peace. But that usually only occurs when
something unexpected happens that helps me in any given situation (or I've
helped another).

| I believe that Glen would say, no, not through the Bible.  That when he has an
| inner turmoil about an issue, that this turmoil is God working within him to
| bring him to the conviction that he should change.  I don't think that Glen uses
| the Bible at all to know what God is telling him, or if so, only peripherally to
| what he perceives to be God's voice speaking within him.

	This is very close Paul. If I do end up using the Bible to help with
the answer, it is because God directed me there, and directed me to a specific
verse that deals with the issue at hand. There are many tools that God uses.
And yes, the Bible is one of those tools.

| First, we are very, very bad at discerning God's "still small voice" from all
| the other voices of our culture, of our own vested interests, of what we WANT
| God to be like, etc.  

	Agreed 100%. The end result will always be (even if it takes many
attempts) the question you ask will be answered. It can be that way regardless
of whether you believe the Bible to be inerrant or not. 

| If we have to accept what anyone has said
| "God told them" was true, what about those who would lie about it?  Not to
| suggest this for a moment, Glen, but if we should just accept what you say
| because God told you, how could we possibly know if you had been lying all this
| time and were deliberately leading people astray?  

	I agree with you Paul, you don't. But I think people need to take the
time to go out and see people for who they are. They need to get to know them
before they make judgements. Not through a computer, but in real life
situations. But, the same can be said about anyone. Many people can say they
are doing, the blieve in something, but may be doing something totally
different. Two examples of this would be the con man, a lot of the evangelists
on tv (the ones we know have done something). 

| But from everything we know about God, neither one of them is
| correct - God didn't want them doing what they've done.  God didn't tell them
| to do it.  

	Well...... it should be easy in THESE 2 cases to see that God didn't
tell them as God wouldn't say not to kill people and then turn around and have
these people do just that. But in the case of the con man, it may be hard to
tell. But I truly believe that in the end these people will be found out. But
usually by then many people have already been taken. :-(

| So Glen, that's why "I just know" won't fly very far here.  

	It really doesn't need to though Paul. This works for ME. When people
use the Bible as a tell all truth book, it works for them. Who's right? Who's
wrong? To tell you the truth, I don't know. I have my feelings on the subject,
but it doesn't mean that they are or aren't right. The end result is my belief
is X, others is Y. God know's how I feel, what's in my heart, He will decide
what happens to me. 

| Where I am right now, is that I believe it is in our best interest as a people
| seeking to know God to use the Bible as the standard for His will - **EVEN IF
| THE BIBLE IS FLAWED**.  We may possibly be prevented from doing some things that
| would actually be OK.  But we will not be prevented from doing anything that is
| really essential to our life with Christ.  

	How can you say this? If it COULD prevent one scenerio, it could make
another, regardless of what it is, happen. 

	Paul, you have some very interesting thoughts. I thouroughly enjoyed
reading your note. On a lot of it you did hit the nail on the head. :-)


Glen

>	This is very close Paul. If I do end up using the Bible to help with
>the answer, it is because God directed me there, and directed me to a specific
>verse that deals with the issue at hand. 

Be careful, Glen.  From my (Bible-believing) perspective, I find these verses:

"For it is written, 'He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep
thee, and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest any time thou
dash thy foot against a stone.'"

These are the words of Satan pointing Jesus to Scripture for attempted
guidance in a matter of what Jesus should do.   Jesus answered with 
Scripture.  If Jesus did not know the scriptures, it might have been
easy to assume that the message "from Scripture" to which he had been
pointed was from God, since Scripture is from God.

This is a caution to all to know and not just believe that God is
directing them.

>Two examples of this would be the con man, a lot of the evangelists
>on tv (the ones we know have done something). 

Your parenthetical seems to imply that we should suspect all evangelists on
TV.  Do you mean to imply this?

>| So Glen, that's why "I just know" won't fly very far here.  
>
>	It really doesn't need to though Paul. This works for ME. When people
>use the Bible as a tell all truth book, it works for them. Who's right? Who's
>wrong? 

See note 31 regarding Absolutes and determining who is right and who is 
wrong.  Without an absolute, it is simply moral relativism.

Mark

| <<< Note 53.121 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



| These are the words of Satan pointing Jesus to Scripture for attempted
| guidance in a matter of what Jesus should do.   Jesus answered with
| Scripture.  If Jesus did not know the scriptures, it might have been
| easy to assume that the message "from Scripture" to which he had been
| pointed was from God, since Scripture is from God.

	Mark, this could also be done by someone telling you something,
directing you, anything. 

| Your parenthetical seems to imply that we should suspect all evangelists on
| TV.  Do you mean to imply this?

	Nope. I'm just saying, like the con man some evangelists have said one
thing but done another. Swaggart & Baker are 2 that come to mind. 



Glen

>But I think people need to take the
>time to go out and see people for who they are. They need to get to know them
>before they make judgements.

You said this in regards to knowing whether someone was sincere or not.  You may
have missed my point.  I don't think someone's sincerity has any impact on the
truth of what they are saying.  I believe that it is perfectly possible to be
following God in many areas of our life and yet be mistaken in others.  In fact
I think that describes all of us.  I believe that it happens **ALL THE TIME** 
that someone may be very sincere, loving, patient, gentle, fully convinced that
God is directing their steps - and yet still be thoroughly and completely wrong
about part of what they think God is telling them.

I'll put it on a personal plane.  I like a lot of things about you, Glen.  I 
like your gentle persistence, I like your refusal to take offense even when 
provoked.  I believe that you are really sincere about what you believe.  I 
would probably get along with you quite well as a friend.  But that recognition 
of your sincerity does not change at all my conviction that you are very 
mistaken in some of those beliefs.  My recognition of your God-given strengths
does not change my conviction that you are using those strengths in a cause that
stands against God's will.

Deception does exist.  Wrong will not always be put forth by evil people.
Wrong will very often be put forth by good people who are mistaken.  If we judge
right by sincerity, we are right back into complete relativism.

Paul

| <<< Note 53.123 by EVMS::PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for security-lose both" >>>



| You said this in regards to knowing whether someone was sincere or not.  You may
| have missed my point.  I don't think someone's sincerity has any impact on the
| truth of what they are saying.  

	Agreed. And I was thinking along the lines of sincerity. 

| I believe that it happens **ALL THE TIME** that someone may be very sincere, 
| loving, patient, gentle, fully convinced that God is directing their steps - 
| and yet still be thoroughly and completely wrong about part of what they 
| think God is telling them.

	I couldn't agree with you more Paul. And the thing is that it can
happen so easily to anyone regardless of whether they believe the Bible is
inerrant or not.

	BTW, thanks for the kind words. :-)

| But that recognition
| of your sincerity does not change at all my conviction that you are very
| mistaken in some of those beliefs.  

	I can understand why you would feel that way Paul. I too have similar
feelings about various people I know. 

| My recognition of your God-given strengths
| does not change my conviction that you are using those strengths in a cause that
| stands against God's will.

	Is this a specific thing (the cause) or a generic one? I DO understand
what you're saying (if you're speaking genericly only).

| Deception does exist.  Wrong will not always be put forth by evil people.

	Agreed.




Glen

I am quite glad to see this topic and its spinoff relations in
other topics.  Some really good contrasts, at times enlightenment,
and just general food for thought and prayer.

I fall within the inerrant camp of this discussion.  My first
reaction to any perceived errors or contradictions I find in 
the Bible is that my own understanding is limited, or that more
education/growth is needed on *my* part.  

I do much the same with other authoritative texts.  Imagine how far 
you'd get in college if, say, you declared all the difficult calculus 
problems to be in error.  I learned calculus by banging away at the 
hard problems until *I* understood *them*, not by changing the book to
suit my feelings.  Admittedly this illustration can be taken too
far, but I think it shows my point.

Anyway, maybe my viewpoint on this is a part of my nature and the way
I look at things in general.  Maybe it is a part of faith, and faith in 
God's leadership rather than my own.  Maybe it is because I've asked myself
how I could declare myself Christian when I cannot accept (even if not 
completely understand) the very Scriptures that Christ fulfilled.

Just a few thoughts and to be mostly, not *only*, read-only.  

	your brother in Christ,

		Otto
                                                  

    Re: Note 53.125 by AUSTIN::RANDOLPH

�I do much the same with other authoritative texts.  Imagine how far 
�you'd get in college if, say, you declared all the difficult calculus 
�problems to be in error.  I learned calculus by banging away at the 
�hard problems until *I* understood *them*, not by changing the book to
�suit my feelings.
    
    This is an excellent illustration, Otto; one that I'm glad has finally
    come up (I hope I didn't miss anyone else making the same point
    earlier). Some people seem to treat the Bible with less respect than
    they would any other book. Even non-reference books like novels are
    treated better. When someone curls up with a good mystery, for example,
    do you think they are constantly questioning if perhaps the author
    might have made some mistakes:
    
         "Uh oh; I'll bet the author really meant to say the *butler*
         went to the kitchen instead of the neighbor. After all, it
         usually is the butler that commits the crime. Besides, it
         makes more sense for a butler to go to a kitchen than for the
         neighbor. Yeah, I'll just assume they meant to say butler and
         go on."
         
         Naturally, the error propagates the more you go. "Since the
         butler is now in the kitchen, then he couldn't be answering
         the doorbell. Obviously, this must be an editor's mistake -
         they meant to excise the doorbell passage and just didn't get
         it out before going to press."
         
         "Hmm, if the doorbell passage doesn't really belong, then how
         did the owner get involved with the FBI? I'll bet the author
         really meant CIA instead of FBI. Easy mistake to make. It
         doesn't really affect the essence of the story."
    
    I've thought about this quite a bit lately. Imagine how you would
    function if you assumed that the phone book contained errors:
         
         "Hmm, I'd like to give Mark a call. I don't know his number,
         and the one in the phone book doesn't seem right. I think his
         area code only has valid prefixes of 454 and 432. What's this
         433 prefix doing as Mark's number!? I know - I'll just call
         around to some friends and see if they might know his real
         number."
    
         "Too bad; no one's answering their phones. No problem. The
         phone book also lists Mark's address. It's not too far, so
         I'll just drive up and see him. Oh, but wait - I'll bet that
         address isn't any more accurate than that bogus phone number.
         That address was probably deliberately altered to lead people
         to some store front where they'll want to take all my money.
         Before I go I'll check the map to see if that's the area
         where Mark lives, just to be sure.... Hey, but how do I know
         if the map's right..."
    
    As I said a hundred notes ago, it's this pick-and-choose approach to
    the Scriptures that has led to what we've seen happen in Waco, in
    Jonestown, and elsewhere. Since the Bible comes right out and claims to
    be the true inspired word of God, it should at least be given the same
    benefit of the doubt as we would give the yellow pages. It seems to me
    that the logical thing would be to be predisposed towards inerrancy
    rather than the other way around.
    
    	BD�

A terrific response!

A round of applause from this bit of the globe!

From .120 (exchange between Paul Weiss and Glen Silva)

PW>|If we have to accept what anyone has said
PW>|"God told them" was true, what about those who would lie about it?  Not to
PW>|suggest this for a moment, Glen, but if we should just accept what you say
PW>|because God told you, how could we possibly know if you had been lying all
PW>|this time and were deliberately leading people astray?
>...
PW>| But from everything we know about God, neither one of them is
PW>| correct - God didn't want them doing what they've done.  God didn't tell
PW>| them to do it.
>
GS>     Well...... it should be easy in THESE 2 cases to see that God didn't
GS>tell them as God wouldn't say not to kill people and then turn around and
GS>have these people do just that.

Let's assume that Glen is correct (which I believe he is), that it is
"easy... to see that God didn't tell them."

  *HOW* is it "easy in THESE 2 cases to see that God didn't tell them"?
  Here are some possibilities:

    (1) It contradicts the Absolute Morality given by an Absolute Authority
    (2) It contradicts common morals (the morals of the plurality)
    (3) It contradicts the morals of a group (lesser plural morality)
    (4) It contradicts the morals of a person (personal morality)

  If (2), (3), or (4) are the case in determining how it is "easy... to see
  that God didn't tell them" then we can easily have opposing opinions
  on whether God told these people the truth, and no one can know for
  certain who has listened to God.  God may indeed have told people, such
  as David Koresh what to do, and we have no *reliable* means to verify
  that he is not telling the truth.  The morals of society, a group, and
  a person change.  They change.  God never changes.  His morals are
  absolute.

  If (1) is how one can determine how it is "easy... to see that God didn't
  tell them," then we can use this metric for other things; and also we can
  depend upon and rely on the Bible to show us what God said is a sin,
  no matter how many times we, a group, or society may say, "it is not a sin,
  it is not a sin, it is not a sin."

  So, if it is obvious that David Koresh is mistaken.

  And if it is easy to see that Jimmy Swaggart was wrong.

  And if it is easy to see that Jim Bakker committed sin.

  Then it is also easy to see that people who deny the authority of the
  Scriptures to tell us what God says is right and what is sin, are
  just as obviously committing sin.

At least the atheist is consistent and would say that what Swaggart, Bakker,
and Koresh have done is neither wrong nor right because all things are
ultimately amoral (or at the very least that only  personal morality exists).

Belief is not built of shifting sands.  You can't simply hope to be right. You
can't simply hope that we'll all know in the end who was right and who was
wrong.  My God tells us in His Word that we can KNOW Him and distinguish
between Him and the counterfeit because He has given us a "sure foundation"
in His Word.

Mark

      <<< Note 53.128 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



	Mark, for me to explain the points you brought up would do me no good
(again with the must justify thing) as if I did that YOU would label me an
antagonist. Why bring up points or ask questions when you know they can't be
answered? Maybe it's just that you didn't realize or forgot that these things
can't be addressed? 



Glen

If you mean disagreeing with the premise of this conference, a view of
life based on Scriptures that are the authority and metric for truth,
you've already stated your opposing opinion.  If youmean something else,
I do not see how it applies to the discussion at hand.

The discussion at hand is the inerrancy of Scripture, and a piece of
that is its reliability for determining what is right and what is wrong, 
which we have been discussing.

Do you find it difficult to stick to the philosophy of this discussion?

Morality - all morality - is either absolute or it is baseless.

Mark

    
Christ was "the Word made flesh".  He lived, died, and arose again in 
fulfillment of the Scriptures.  This is rather a cornerstone of the 
Christian faith.  I've been wondering how one could declare themself 
Christian, yet deny the very Scriptures embodied in Christ.  Any number
of other religions accept the Bible as a holy book, even share parts
of it, yet not be Christian.

I don't mean this as an insult to anyone, but it is something I don't 
understand.  I've wrestled with this very question in trying to determine 
the basis of my own faith, and by faith I've been led to accept the
inerrancy of the Scriptures.

	a brother in Christ,

    		Otto

    The examples of the calculus book and the pick & choose Bible are two
    of the most simple and logical explanations one could hope for!  I
    sincerely pray that *anyone* questioning the validity of the Bible
    would give those two examples the serious thought they deserve...
    
    Nice job!

Glen, yesterday I acknowledged that your gentle persistence is an admirable
quality.  But that does not keep me from becoming tremendously annoyed :-) at 
times about the way you choose to use that persistence.

For something over a year now, you have (mostly)gently and (always)persistently 
hammered at this conference and its foundation in the word of God.  Whenever you
have seen an opening, you have put forth your message, which is essentially that
we must unquestioningly accept as a brother or sister in the Lord anyone who 
says they are a christian, regardless of their words or actions.  That ANY 
attempt to impose ANY standards of ANY kind is being judgemental and bigoted.
You have often spoken up in the discussions about the Bible, but I think that is
only a symptom, because the Bible is the basis of all standards.  I think the
vast majority of your replies can be tied together under the heading of 
insisting that we never say "you're wrong" to anyone unless that person is
outwardly sinister and evil.

Sorry, Glen, we don't agree.  We didn't agree last year.  We don't agree now.
We won't agree next year or next millenia.  Your voice, though indeed gentle, is
speaking words of falsehood.

I'm putting this here because I simply don't have the energy to put in a note
disagreeing with you every time you bring this up again and again and again.
You may take this as an implied disagreement of every note in which you state
again, subtly or blatantly, that christians may never make judgements.

Paul

| <<< Note 73.19 by USAT05::BENSON "God's Love's Still Changing Hearts" >>>



| Glen, God promises that His Word will make me a better person and anyone else
| who reads it, meditates upon it and acts on it.  

	Hmmm..... again this is an area that I can't really talk about. But
then I guess when one can't refute something it might make your position look
better......

| One can certainly "see" theses things in the Bible text.  My note is a
| statement attesting to the *results* of a believer immersing themselves
| in the Bible.  

	So wasn't mine.....

| Again, encouragement for the believer!  Clearly the Bible is
| either an encouragement or a judgement depending upon the reader's position
| before God.

	It's not the words Jeff, it's what one does with them towards others.
Based on that fact what you wrote above about encoragement/judgement is true,
but based on what is done by humans with the words.

| | Honestly, if you are not pleased with your relationship with the Lord

| I'm glad you are pleased with your relationship Glen, but is God pleased?  And
| is an individual's comfort level with God an indicator of his position before
| God?  

	Jeff, I based my answer on your statement. If God isn't pleased with
how I am towards Him, others, anything, He'll let me know and the neccesary 
changes will be made.



Glen

| <<< Note 53.130 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



| If you mean disagreeing with the premise of this conference, a view of
| life based on Scriptures that are the authority and metric for truth,
| you've already stated your opposing opinion.  

	This is what I am talking about.

| The discussion at hand is the inerrancy of Scripture, and a piece of
| that is its reliability for determining what is right and what is wrong,
| which we have been discussing.

	Er Mark, we've been discussing many a thing. Yes, some of it has been
about that, but a lot of it hasn't.




Glen

Glen,


>	Jeff, I based my answer on your statement. If God isn't pleased with
>how I am towards Him, others, anything, He'll let me know and the neccesary 
>changes will be made.


 Pardon me for jumping in, perhaps this was addressed earlier...but, I'm 
 curious as to how he will let you know.




 Jim

| <<< Note 53.133 by EVMS::PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for security-lose both" >>>




| For something over a year now, you have (mostly)gently and (always)persistently
| hammered at this conference and its foundation in the word of God.  

	Just expressing my views......

| Whenever you
| have seen an opening, you have put forth your message, which is essentially that
| we must unquestioningly accept as a brother or sister in the Lord anyone who
| says they are a christian, regardless of their words or actions.  

	Paul, I didn't say to accept them as Christians, but to accept them for
what they are, humans. Maybe I'm off base, but a Christian, regardless of who
they are, shouldn't get special, better treatment JUST because she/he is
perceived to be a Christian. They should be treated like any other person by
those who perceive or don't perceive themselves to be Christians. The word
Christian has such a wide variety of meaning depending upon which religion or
church you attend. Your church's version of being a Christian may not be the 
same as another church with the same religion. I mean think about it, do all
Catholic churches view everything the same way? I know I've seen big
differences going from church to church. So what I guess I'm trying to say is
view everyone on the same level, as in God's eyes no one is seen as better than
another, why should we? (btw, I'm not saying you fit this catagory)

| That ANY
| attempt to impose ANY standards of ANY kind is being judgemental and bigoted.

	Yes and no. When one is put down or told to leave because of their
beliefs then that is sad. The same goes for someone doing an action (that is
not harmful to anyone). 

| You have often spoken up in the discussions about the Bible, but I think that is
| only a symptom, because the Bible is the basis of all standards.  

	For a lot of people I agree, this is true.



Glen

    Acts 11 is when the church at Antioch was first called Christian..
    
    However, if you look at the scripture.. the church didn't call
    themselves Christian... those outside of the church in the city of
    Antioch called *them* Christians because of *Christ*.
    
    Now this may seem rather simplistic and unimportant, but I think its
    really important to understand where this term came from.
    
    Anyone one to look it up in the Greek... Acts 11???
    
    Nancy

| <<< Note 73.23 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "I know whom I have believed" >>>




| Pardon me for jumping in, perhaps this was addressed earlier...but, I'm
| curious as to how he will let you know.

	This was discussed in another topic. In the inerrancy topic I believe.



Glen

 I don't have access to the Greek, but I believe "Christian" means "Of Christ"


 I think the context of Acts 11:19-26 is significant to the application of the
 term Christian.





Jim

>	Paul, I didn't say to accept them as Christians, but to accept them for
>what they are, humans. 

All of us will agree with that.  No matter what someone has done or is currently
doing, they are a creation of God, loved by God, and should be loved by us.  But
loving them does not mean accepting what they do or say, no matter how nicely
they do or say it.

You claim that all you want is for us to accept people as humans, not 
necessarily as fellow christians.  Yet in the rest of your note you say:

>The word
>Christian has such a wide variety of meaning depending upon which religion or
>church you attend. Your church's version of being a Christian may not be the 
>same as another church with the same religion.

This again emphasizes your point that we are never to question any other person
who may call themselves christian.

>So what I guess I'm trying to say is
>view everyone on the same level, as in God's eyes no one is seen as better than
>another

MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR (did I say ****MAJOR****?) parting of ways here.  God very
clearly sees some people in a better light than others.  He sees all of us as
needing to be cleansed by Christ, true.  But Christ also said there would be
those who would claim to know Him who didn't really know Him at all.  We are
called to love all people, but we are also called to judge behavior of those
who claim the title "Christian."

>| That ANY
>| attempt to impose ANY standards of ANY kind is being judgemental and bigoted.
>
>	Yes and no. When one is put down or told to leave because of their
>beliefs then that is sad. The same goes for someone doing an action (that is
>not harmful to anyone). 

You say yes and no.  I hear your "yes" loud and clear, I hear it in every note
of yours.  I've heard it at least three more times in this note after you opened
the note by saying that this wasn't true about your position.  Where's your no? 
I've never heard your no.  In what way would you apply "no" to the above
statement?

Paul

| <<< Note 53.138 by EVMS::PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for security-lose both" >>>




| All of us will agree with that.  

	I wish that were true Paul. But many people don't. Their actions show
that (btw, it's more than a conference type-o-thang).

| No matter what someone has done or is currently
| doing, they are a creation of God, loved by God, and should be loved by us.  

	I agree with this 100% Paul.

| But
| loving them does not mean accepting what they do or say, no matter how nicely
| they do or say it.

	I agree with this as well. There are many things that both Christians
and non have said or done that many view would not be seen as actions of good
in God's eyes. And yes, regardless of how nice they seem to be doesn't hold
creedance to how they may really be. I mean, after someone is murdered, how
many times have you seen the neighbors on tv saying things like, "(S)he was
such a nice person, You never would have expected that from them"? 

| >The word
| >Christian has such a wide variety of meaning depending upon which religion or
| >church you attend. Your church's version of being a Christian may not be the
| >same as another church with the same religion.

| This again emphasizes your point that we are never to question any other person
| who may call themselves christian.

	Hmmm...... I see where you might get that impression. What I was saying
was the word Christian has many meanings. Who knows what the correct meaning
is? IMHO I feel only God really does. I think we humans have destroyed the
word. And, when you say that you should never question other religions or
things, that isn't what I'm implying at all (but do understand why you might
have thought that). Question all you like. You DON'T have to agree with all,
part or any of that religion. Just don't pursecute those who believe in a
certain way. 

| MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR (did I say ****MAJOR****?) parting of ways here.  God very
| clearly sees some people in a better light than others.  He sees all of us as
| needing to be cleansed by Christ, true.  But Christ also said there would be
| those who would claim to know Him who didn't really know Him at all.  

	Hmm..... I'm lost here Paul. How does claiming to know God, but really
don't have to do with Christ looking at some in a better light than others?

| We are
| called to love all people, but we are also called to judge behavior of those
| who claim the title "Christian."

	I agree with this statement Paul. But, would you agree that the judging
in a lot of cases has gone beyond the behavior and gone over to judging the 
person themselves?




Glen

| <<< Note 53.138 by EVMS::PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for security-lose both" >>>



	WHOOPS! I forgot to answer this earlier.....


| >| That ANY
| >| attempt to impose ANY standards of ANY kind is being judgemental and bigoted.
| >
| >	Yes and no. When one is put down or told to leave because of their
| >beliefs then that is sad. The same goes for someone doing an action (that is
| >not harmful to anyone).

| Where's your no?
| I've never heard your no.  In what way would you apply "no" to the above
| statement?

	The no is if an action is harmful to another. I hope this clears it up. 


Glen

>	Hmmm...... I see where you might get that impression. What I was saying
>was the word Christian has many meanings. Who knows what the correct meaning
>is? IMHO I feel only God really does

It is defined in the Bible, written by the Absolute Authority through his
servants.

Some God not to be able to communicate it clearly, eh?  For many of us
here, God *HAS* communicated it clearly.  IMHO, the confusion over 
the meaning of the word Christian is brought about by those who have
never accepted the definition given by God but instead cling to a worldly
point of view.

Mark


| >| That ANY
| >| attempt to impose ANY standards of ANY kind is being judgemental and bigoted.
| >
| >	Yes and no.	
>The no is if an action is harmful to another. I hope this clears it up. 

In other words, if an action is harmful to another, it is being judgmental
and bigoted to attempt to impose any standard of a kind.  

Oh we can really get into the definition of Harmful.  God was being judgmental
and bigoted when He destroyed Sodom and Gamorrah; when He overturned the
tables in the temple courtyard; when he castigated the Pharisees for their
duplicity, and the list can go on.

SIN is harmful to another, Glen, but we differ on what you and I would list 
as sins, but agree to the LANGUAGE that it is God's list that matters.

Back to the Bible.  Sounds an awful lot like Abbot and Costello.
"I don't know.  Third base!"

You can't know what God's list is for certainty without the Bible.

>| All of us will agree with that. 
>
>	I wish that were true Paul. But many people don't. 

I believe we'd all agree in principle, although you're right in that hating the
sin and not the sinner is something that a lot of people aren't very good at.
There are two extremes.  I'll certainly agree that there is an extreme of 
unloving judgementalism that is NOT what Christ wanted for us.  However, you are
pushing the extreme of no judgement at all, which is every bit as bad.

>Just don't pursecute those who believe in a certain way. 

Define "persecute."  If you mean harass, attack, or in any way actively assault
another person, then I'm right with you.  But you seem to want to include taking
a stand on anything and telling people they are wrong as persecution.

>	Hmm..... I'm lost here Paul. How does claiming to know God, but really
>don't have to do with Christ looking at some in a better light than others?

Again, your assertion that "God sees us all the same" contends that there are no
absolute standards by which we are measured.  However, if God does set absolute
standards for us, then He doesn't at all "see us all the same."

>would you agree that the judging
>in a lot of cases has gone beyond the behavior and gone over to judging the 
>person themselves?

Yes.  Would you agree that the "not judging" in a lot of cases has gone beyond
the person and gone over to not judging the behavior itself?

>	The no is if an action is harmful to another. I hope this clears it up. 

I don't even know where to start.  Uur only standard for Christianity is
that we don't outwardly and obviously hurt other people?!?!?!?!?  Sigh.  Even if
you don't believe that the Bible is inerrant, are you still able to ignore that
much of what is there?

Paul

| <<< Note 53.141 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



| >	Hmmm...... I see where you might get that impression. What I was saying
| >was the word Christian has many meanings. Who knows what the correct meaning
| >is? IMHO I feel only God really does

| It is defined in the Bible, written by the Absolute Authority through his
| servants.

	That is what you believe Mark. That is fine.

| IMHO, the confusion over
| the meaning of the word Christian is brought about by those who have
| never accepted the definition given by God but instead cling to a worldly
| point of view.

	I think it goes further than that Mark. Look at how Christians
themselves look at the word. Other labels are attached to the word and with
that label a different meaning evolves. Look at the Fundalmentalist Christian.
That person is different from someone who just labels themselves a Christian. I
don't know where you think some people stand on this issue, but what do you
think of those Christians who don't like to be known by that one word label
just because of all the negativity that goes along with it?

| In other words, if an action is harmful to another, it is being judgmental
| and bigoted to attempt to impose any standard of a kind.

	No, just the oppisite. If someone is harming another, then yes, I don't
see this as being a problem. But when someone isn't, then they shouldn't be
looked upon differently.

| SIN is harmful to another, Glen, but we differ on what you and I would list
| as sins, but agree to the LANGUAGE that it is God's list that matters.

	Mark, would you agree that there are some Christians who view those who
don't go to church as being sinners? Should these people really be looked down
upon? 

| Back to the Bible.  Sounds an awful lot like Abbot and Costello.
| "I don't know.  Third base!"

	I really used to love watching them. Back when channel 27 had them on
every Saturday night at 6:00! 

Glen

| <<< Note 53.142 by EVMS::PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for security-lose both" >>>




| I believe we'd all agree in principle, although you're right in that hating the
| sin and not the sinner is something that a lot of people aren't very good at.

	I know at times I have a problem with this. I also know everytime I do
have this problem God shows me the correct way of thinking/acting. 

| However, you are
| pushing the extreme of no judgement at all, which is every bit as bad.

	God judges us by what's in our hearts, correct? We really can't tell
what is in each others hearts so as judges we are poor ones. Yes, I sometimes
judge people. I almost always find out that when I judge someone in a negative
light that I was wrong. Luckily I have only found out a few times when I judged
someone in a good light that I was wrong. :-) But I myself try and stay away
from judging. Your mileage may differ. :-)

| But you seem to want to include taking
| a stand on anything and telling people they are wrong as persecution.

	I guess it depends on how far you want to go with it. If someone tells
me I am wrong about something and offers proof to back their claims, then I
will at least listen. I have been proven wrong on a lot of things in my 31
years. I will be proven wrong in the future as well. 

| Yes.  Would you agree that the "not judging" in a lot of cases has gone beyond
| the person and gone over to not judging the behavior itself?

	Yes.




Glen

>	Mark, would you agree that there are some Christians who view those who
>don't go to church as being sinners? Should these people really be looked down
>upon? 

A Christian should view all people, including themselves as sinners, Glen.
Some are pardoned, some continue in sin.

As for looking down upon them, I assume you mean condemntation.
The fact is that the Bible HAS CONDEMNED US ALL, "but there is now therefore
no condemnation for those IN CHRIST JESUS."

You don't seem to really understand the difference between loving the sinner
and hating the sin.  But then again, you have disputed this becuase there
are things that you consider sin that I don't, or vice versa.  Again, we
would both agree on the LANGUAGE that what God considers to be sin is
what is important.  

Without an inerrant Bible, you cannot be certain what is sin and what is not.
And you are not certain because the Bible you read is not an absolute authority.

So you say things like: "That is what you believe Mark. That is fine."

You have clung to straws such as Genesis 1 and 2 (remember how these last
40 or so note began?) to disclaim the veracity of the Bible and therefore
not a trustworthy text to order one's life on.  This is what is against
the premise of this Bible.  That is what you believe, Glen, but it is
NOT fine (in God's economy).  Oh, no one can make you believe the truth,
and people will believe what they want.  But whatever they believe will
be measured against God's plumb line.  And God did not leave us to guess,
or have certain and sure feelings only: He gave us a text by which we
can know what we need to know to live a holy life.

And there will be people who are "better" than others in many respects
and some who willbe "worse" (Far worse) for their willful ignorance of
presented truth.

Mark

.144 (Glen)

>| I believe we'd all agree in principle, although you're right in that hating the
>| sin and not the sinner is something that a lot of people aren't very good at.
>
>	I know at times I have a problem with this. I also know everytime I do
>have this problem God shows me the correct way of thinking/acting. 

Third base!

God shows you.  How can you know?  You cannot. 
Or you can inthe same way David Koresh believes he's Jesus. 
He just knows it in his heart.  God has shown him and he 
is at peace.  By the way, he's waiting for a sign right
now to show him the correct way of thinking/acting.

MM

| <<< Note 53.145 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>




| A Christian should view all people, including themselves as sinners, Glen.

	Agreed. We all do it and all should be viewed as the same in this
light. BUT, I know many who don't view themselves in this light. Many feel that
they are NOT sinners. These are the people I am talking about Mark. Can you
honestly say they don't exist?

| As for looking down upon them, I assume you mean condemntation.

	Yes, this is what I mean.

| The fact is that the Bible HAS CONDEMNED US ALL, "but there is now therefore
| no condemnation for those IN CHRIST JESUS."

	The only being that has a right to condemn another is God Himself. Why?
Because God has the power to see what is in our hearts. God has the power to
see the causes for one's actions. True, the causes don't make the action right,
but God is less likely to condemn someone for their actions when He knows why
they are doing it. 

	Would you agree that there are times we have judged a person for their
actions without ever looking into why they are doing something? This to me is
why humans will ALWAYS have a hard time judging or condemning others.

| You don't seem to really understand the difference between loving the sinner
| and hating the sin.  

	Mark, I understand what that means and all of it's implications. I also
agree that this does go on the majority of the time by a lot of Christians.
BUT, I also understand that this isn't always the case. Would you agree with
that?

| But then again, you have disputed this becuase there
| are things that you consider sin that I don't, or vice versa.  

	Mark, I'd love to see what I consider a sin that you don't. :-) The
visa versa part is more in line. :-)

| Again, we
| would both agree on the LANGUAGE that what God considers to be sin is
| what is important.

	Agreed.

| Without an inerrant Bible, you cannot be certain what is sin and what is not.

	I do understand this is what you and the majority of the people in this
file believe. This is fine for those who believe this.

| And you are not certain because the Bible you read is not an absolute authority.

	Agreed.

| You have clung to straws such as Genesis 1 and 2 (remember how these last
| 40 or so note began?) to disclaim the veracity of the Bible and therefore
| not a trustworthy text to order one's life on.  

	Mark, it goes further than that. This is only one of many verses that
don't seem to make sense to me that are in the Bible.

| Oh, no one can make you believe the truth,

	Agreed. Mainly because we can't agree on what is the truth. Mark, I am
fully aware that everything you have ever said could be the truth. But as for
now I do not agree with it for the reasons listed in the last version of
Christian.

| and people will believe what they want.  But whatever they believe will
| be measured against God's plumb line.  And God did not leave us to guess,
| or have certain and sure feelings only: He gave us a text by which we
| can know what we need to know to live a holy life.

	Again, it works for you. That is fine. For me, God alone works fine.



Glen

| <<< Note 53.146 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



| Third base!

	I LUV these Abbott & Costello analogies! :-) Especially seeing baseball
starts very shortly! :-)

| God shows you.  How can you know?  You cannot.

	Mark, explain to me how I cannot.

| Or you can inthe same way David Koresh believes he's Jesus.

	Hmmm.... Jesus coming to earth armed with an arsenal of weapons.
Somehow I just can't picture it. 

| He just knows it in his heart.  God has shown him and he
| is at peace.  

	Sigh....... you just don't get it Mark.......

| By the way, he's waiting for a sign right
| now to show him the correct way of thinking/acting.

	He's probably already received it too. He just hasn't acted on it.



Glen

	Wisdom shouts in the street,
	She lifts her voice in the square;
	At the heads of the noisy streets she cries out:
	At the entrance of the gates in the city, she utters her sayings:
	"How long, O naive ones, will you love naivete?
	And scoffers delight themselves in scoffing,
	And fools hate knowledge?
	Turn to my reproof,
	Behold, I will pour out my spirit on you;
	I will make my words known to you.
	Because I called, and you refused;
	I stretched out my hand, and no one paid attention;
	And you neglected all my counsel,
	And did not want my reproof;
	I will even laugh at your calamity;
	I will mock when you dread comes,
	When you dread comes like a storm,
	And your calamity comes on like a whirlwind,
	When your distress and anguish come on you.
	Then they will call on me, but I will not answer;
	They will seek me diligently, but they shall not find me,
	Because they hated knowledge,
	And did not choose the fear of the Lord.
	They would not accept my counsel,
	They spurned all my reproof.
	So they shall eat of the fruit of their own way,
	And be satiated with their own devices.
	For the waywardness of the naive shall kill them,
	And the complacency of fools shall destroy them.
	But he who listens to me shall live securely,
	And shall be at ease from the dread of evil."

>| Without an inerrant Bible, you cannot be certain what is sin and what is not.
>
>	I do understand this is what you and the majority of the people in this
>file believe. This is fine for those who believe this.
>
>| And you are not certain because the Bible you read is not an absolute authority.
>
>	Agreed.
>
>| Or you can inthe same way David Koresh believes he's Jesus.
>| He just knows it in his heart.  God has shown him and he
>| is at peace.  
>
>	Sigh....... you just don't get it Mark.......

No, apparently, you don't.  You are in the same boat as David Koresh.
You may not have weapons that make it *obviously* not God's will (to you)
but it is not obviously out of God's will if one does not know for certainty
what God has said is right and wrong.  You claim to know for certainty
what God tells you is right and wrong. So does David Koresh.

I'm off this merry-go-round.  You just go 'round and 'round without
reason.  Until next time, Glen.

    Glen,

    You know that I care about you.  That is why I must say now, perhaps
    in a different way than I've said it before, the following:

    Glen, you may truly believe with all your heart that you are
    following God and that He is showing you what is right and what is
    wrong, to the best of your ability to perceive it, and that He is
    working for your good (which in fact He is, though not as you think).
    But I am here to tell you as God's messenger and servant to you that
    your god will not get you into heaven.  Why?  Because the Bible says
    so, and very plainly; I do not need to judge your heart to say this.
    And no amount of rationalization, justification, or interpretation on
    your part will change this truth.  If it did not violate conference
    guidelines, I would include Scripture to back this up, but if you
    remember, I did send you the relevant passage by mail.  If you would
    like me to send it again, let me know.

    Have you ever for a moment considered the possibility that the Bible
    might be right in all things, and that you might be wrong?  Further,
    have you ever contemplated the consequences to you on the Judgment
    Day if the Bible is right and you are wrong?

    With love in Christ,

				*** Daryl ***

>| He just knows it in his heart.  God has shown him and he
>| is at peace.  
>
>	Sigh....... you just don't get it Mark.......

The same piece of your response leapt out at me that leapt out at Mark, with the
same reaction - that you are the one who just doesn't get it.

I don't know that much about David Koresh as a person.  But let's just for a
moment suppose that he is not power tripping, but that he is deceived - that he
really does believe the stuff he is saying, and that he really does have an
inner peace that this is what God wants him to do.  Do you agree Glen that this
is possible?

If so, how is he different from you?  He says God is telling him in his heart to
do some things.  You say that God it telling you in your heart to do some
things.  You think David Koresh is wrong - "You just can't picture it."  On what
basis?  I think you are wrong on some things.  "I just can't picture it."  Why
can't I make the same statement about you that you make about David Koresh?

Now you may say that David Koresh is advocating hurting other people, and you
aren't, and your standard of right/wrong is whether we hurt other people.  So
let's move away from David Koresh for a moment.  Suppose you meet someone who
claims to be a christian.  You find that they hold one of the following views,
or partake in one of the following actions.  They have a real peace about what
they are doing, and are quite sure that God has told them that these practices
are perfectly OK.  None of these actions hurt other people.  May you condemn any
of these, or may you say that it is outside christianity to partake in any of 
these:? (I apologize if anyone finds these offensive, but I think it needs to be
shown what can be included if "not hurting other people" is the only standard by
which we can judge christians.)

	They favor "Open marriages," allowing sex outside of marriage in any
	context.

	They favor prosititution, provided that the prostitute is a willing
	participant.

	They include ritual prostitution as part of their christian worship.

	They include idols of hindu gods in their sanctuary, and worship the
	idols as part of their christian worship.

	They sacrifice animals to the hindu idols as part of their christian
	worship.

	They include witches and the practice of the occult in their christian
	worship.

	They worship satan as well as God in their worship services, as another
	god of equal standing.

None of these practices hurt other people, Glen.  According to your standard as
I understand it, we cannot condemn any of these practices.  If we can condemn
these practices, on what basis can we condemn them?

Paul

                           Jeff, is wisdom a woman?



Glen

    .153
    
    Glen,
    
    Wisdom is no more a woman, then the entire populace is a *he*, as
    referred to oftimes when speaking of *all* mankind.
    
    But then I think you were trying to be sarcastically funny... but just
    in case... 
    
    Now a personal note:
    
    Glen, as long as you represent a view diametrically opposed to the Word
    of God, you will be responded to in the manner by which these last few
    replies have shown.  
    
    I want you to know that what I see here is *real* agape in action. 
    Because true love and friendship speaks truth even when we know it may
    hurt the person to receive it.
    
    If you feel no hurt in here by the responses, I would be most
    surprised, because what I see is *so* much hurt, that you can't let it
    go and you keep coming back to right what you perceive as the wrong.
    
    Denial is a strong addiction...  Oftimes denial has been masked by what
    many call "survival"... Whenever I hear the term he/she is a survivor,
    it concerns me... because that indicates a level of denial can be
    present in that person's life.  [notice I said *can be*]
    
    Also denial keeps us from feeling guilt, or understanding the
    consequences of our behavior.  
    
    I see you shrouded in denial.. denial because your survival utterly
    depends on it...  I've said it before, I'll say it again, Glen, denying
    the Bible to be faulty,  can only result in anarchy of the soul.
    
    As many, when their behavior is evident and God's Word is clear against 
    it, we declare the Bible to be false, because the consequences of
    declaring it to be true, might mean giving up something we like.
    
    Yes, sin is pleasurable... as Satan can be seen as an Angel of Light...
    so can our sin be seen as goodness.
    
    The Bible declares in the last days, good shall be called sin, and sin
    shall be called good.
    
    Your choice Glen, as long as you stay in this conference, your words
    will be declared as false and leading people astray into DENIAL which
    only results in DEATH...not LIFE. [See the Secret Sin Topic]
    
    With much love,
    Nancy
    

| <<< Note 53.152 by EVMS::PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for security-lose both" >>>

| that he really does believe the stuff he is saying, and that he really does 
| have an inner peace that this is what God wants him to do. Do you agree Glen 
| that this is possible?

	Yes.

| If so, how is he different from you?  

	Paul, I have told you it's really not a feeling. You keep implying
though that it is. This is one difference between David and myself. Please
reread my previous notes in this string.

| He says God is telling him in his heart to do some things. You say that God 
| it telling you in your heart to do some things.  

	And like David, like those who read and believe the Bible to be true,
all of us, the reality/answer/right way/etc of any situation could have already
been brought forth to us by the Lord, but it doesn't mean that any of us have
listened. The answer could be right there in the Bible, yet some may not think
this is the correct answer. Any of us are capable of choosing with our own
mindset and not with the Lord's (and I seriously doubt that one person in here
hasn't done that in their lifetime of being with the Lord). To compare me to
David in any form is also to compare yourselves. It is possible for anyone,
regardless of what sign they have received by whatever means they received it
to do the wrong thing because they chose to think with their minds and not with
God's answer.

| None of these actions hurt other people. May you condemn any of these, or may
| you say that it is outside christianity to partake in any of these:? 

	Before I get into these, I want to say upfront that you can tell anyone
that what they are doing is outside of your version of Christianity. It doesn't
mean that other religions will agree with your verion of Christianity, and it
also doesn't mean that what you are saying is correct, but you are free to say
it.

| They favor "Open marriages," allowing sex outside of marriage in any
| context.

	What happens to love? A marriage is based on love. Can one really love
the person they are married to if they are willing to go outside of the
marriage to have sex? Marriage, to me anyway, is based on the love two people
have with one another. In this case the people are hurting or straining the
love they have for one another, are breaking their union with God, so the end
result with this is they are hurting each other. So, I would have to say that
this is wrong. 

| They favor prosititution, provided that the prostitute is a willing
| participant.

	You'll have to explain this one a little more. I gather that what you
are saying is the "married" couple favors having sex with a prostitute? IF this
is what you mean, then the same as above applies. Remember, sex doesn't = love,
sex CAN be an extension of that love, but it doesn't = it.

| They include ritual prostitution as part of their christian worship.

	This definitely needs explaining. Are you talking about having
prostitutes attend the service and then have sex with them? 

| They include idols of hindu gods in their sanctuary, and worship the
| idols as part of their christian worship.

	If they have hindu gods in their sactuary, then they aren't Christians.

| They sacrifice animals to the hindu idols as part of their christian
| worship.

	Same as above.

| They include witches and the practice of the occult in their christian
| worship.

	If they include witchcraft in their worship, then they aren't
Christians.

| They worship satan as well as God in their worship services, as another
| god of equal standing.

	Same as above (except satan is where witchcraft is)

| None of these practices hurt other people, Glen.  According to your standard as
| I understand it, we cannot condemn any of these practices.  

	Paul, you can dissagree with what they are doing all you want. They
don't equal your version or my version of Christianity. I myself would tell
them that what they are doing I felt was wrong. BUT, I would not condemn the
person or people themselves. 

| If we can condemn these practices, on what basis can we condemn them?

	I don't know if by my saying that you can disagree with people = your
version of condemn or not. Maybe we should clear that up first so we know where
we are coming from.



Glen

>                          Jeff, is wisdom a woman?

Glen, is a ship a woman?

Go figure.

| <<< Note 53.154 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Search Me Oh God" >>>


	Hi Nancy!


| Wisdom is no more a woman, then the entire populace is a *he*, as
| referred to oftimes when speaking of *all* mankind.

	Exactly Nance. It's a human term. Not God's. But funny how it's used in
the Bible.....

| If you feel no hurt in here by the responses, I would be most
| surprised, because what I see is *so* much hurt, that you can't let it
| go and you keep coming back to right what you perceive as the wrong.

	Nancy, do you think it is possible to want to correct what is right
without looking at the actions of others as being hurtful towards you because
you understand that they are saying these things because they actually believe
it? That they actually think they are helping? And because of these actions,
you may not agree with what they are saying, but realize that what they are
trying to do is help? In this light, I see no hurt being done. In this light
they are expressing what they believe to be the Truth. They aren't harming me
in any way, are they? They are just expressing themselves. So, in this light
there is no hurt given.

| Denial is a strong addiction...  

	Cleopatra was the Queen of de-Nile! :-) 

| Also denial keeps us from feeling guilt, or understanding the
| consequences of our behavior.

	But what one views as denial may not actually be the case.

| I see you shrouded in denial.. 

	You mean I'm related to Cleo? ;-)

| denial because your survival utterly depends on it...  

	Nancy, could you please explain this one?

| I've said it before, I'll say it again, Glen, denying
| the Bible to be faulty,  can only result in anarchy of the soul.

	This is what you and many others believe to be the truth Nancy. It's ok
to think that.

| As many, when their behavior is evident and God's Word is clear against
| it, we declare the Bible to be false, because the consequences of
| declaring it to be true, might mean giving up something we like.

	Nancy, how does the passage in Genisis = not wanting to give something
up that I like? 



Glen

    .157
    
    No further comment... I won't be dragged into an online semantics
    debate.
    
    Am praying for wisdom :-).
    
    Nancyf

    
    I have a question for all: Has anyone ever acted upon, trusted in,
    meditated on, wallowed in the Word of God and found themselves
    disappointed with the result?  Has anyone ever found God's Word to be
    wrong or bad advice?   I have not found any of this to be true.  His
    Word will stand forever while everything else passes away.  What a
    tremendous thought and fact - God's Word is so trustworthy and so
    eternal that we shall never stop hearing it!  Certainly we can depend
    upon His Word to be Truth.  
    
    jeff 

>| I've said it before, I'll say it again, Glen, denying
>| the Bible to be faulty,  can only result in anarchy of the soul.
>
>	This is what you and many others believe to be the truth Nancy. It's ok
>to think that.

Repititious denigrating of the premise of this conference may soon take on
the air of antagonism.  Apparently, you don't practice what you preach because
it is not sufficient for you that we "think that."

The agenda is showing.

Mark Metcalfe

    re: Glen - God will let you know what is/isn't pleasing to Him
    
    Glen,
    
    What if God's tool for that is the Bible?
    
    Steve

| <<< Note 73.30 by POWDML::SMCCONNELL "Next year, in JERUSALEM!" >>>




| What if God's tool for that is the Bible?

	If the tool/answer for anything is in the Bible, He will lead me to
that particular verse(s).



Glen

>	Paul, I have told you it's really not a feeling. You keep implying
>though that it is. This is one difference between David and myself. Please
>reread my previous notes in this string.

Yes, you've said it's not a feeling.  But you've said it's just God speaking to
you.  This "speaking to you" takes some form in which you "just know" what God
wants of you.  Don't get hung up on my saying David Koresh has an inner peace
about what he's doing.  Assume that however it is that you "know" what God wants
of you, David "knows" it in the same manner.

I'll agree and more than agree that Bible-believing christians also may be
deceived and misled and may substitute their own desires for God's will.  The
difference is that with Bible-believing christians, we have a way to show 
them(us) the error of their(our) ways.  A way that if we are honest with
ourselves, will cause us to see the true light.  In the model you propose, I see
no way to correct anyone from any wrong turning.  If we recognize nothing but
what God is telling us inside ourselves - which you agree we are very bad at
distinguishing from our own desires - there's nothing to turn us to the right
path, when once we get off of it.

Regarding your answers to "can you say they aren't christians."  Let's drop the 
sex-related examples for a moment and focus on the idol worship.  You say:

>	If they have hindu gods in their sactuary, then they aren't Christians
>	If they include witchcraft in their worship, then they aren't Christians

Why not?  God has told them that He resides in the idols, and that it is OK to
worship them.  God has told them that He will accept all forms of worship of
higher beings as honoring Him.  Of course the Bible tells us strongly and 
repeatedly that God abhors worship of any idols, but the Bible is just an old
book anyway and it's not right.

Without using the Bible or any Jewish or Christian heritage, how can you show me
that idol worship is wrong?  Remember, I'm convinced that God has told me that
this is fine, just as strongly as you are convinced that God has upheld your
positions.

>	Paul, you can dissagree with what they are doing all you want. They
>don't equal your version or my version of Christianity. I myself would tell
>them that what they are doing I felt was wrong. BUT, I would not condemn the
>person or people themselves. 

If I agree that anyone who wants to call themselves a Christian *IS* a 
Christian, no matter what else they may say or do, then *I* am participating in 
destroying Christianity, just as much as they are.  As Christians, we are 
clearly empowered and *instructed* to judge *and condemn* non-christian 
behavior (I'd quote Scripture, but there's no point).  We are also empowered to
judge and condemn *people*, although I agree that we are often too quick to do
this.
	
>I don't know if by my saying that you can disagree with people = your
>version of condemn or not. Maybe we should clear that up first so we know where
>we are coming from.

By "condemn" I mean go beyond simple disagreement.  I mean saying "you are 
wrong."  I mean removing from fellowship in the Body of Christ.  I mean active
and conscious disassociation.  I DO NOT mean any kind of harassment or attack.

Paul

RE:               <<< Note 73.31 by JURAN::SILVA "Memories....." >>>
                  -< He's done it before, He'll do it again >-


>	If the tool/answer for anything is in the Bible, He will lead me to
>that particular verse(s).




And how does God do that?  People he's put in your life, for example?




Jim

    Glen,

    Have you ever actually read the Bible, from cover to cover?

				*** Daryl ***

| <<< Note 53.161 by EVMS::PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for security-lose both" >>>


| I'll agree and more than agree that Bible-believing christians also may be
| deceived and misled and may substitute their own desires for God's will.  The
| difference is that with Bible-believing christians, we have a way to show
| them(us) the error of their(our) ways.  A way that if we are honest with
| ourselves, will cause us to see the true light.  

	The same goes for the model that I use. The end result is the same, if
we listen to what we are being told (whether through others, God directly, the
Bible, etc) then things will turn out the way God wants them too. If we don't,
we end up losing.

| If we recognize nothing but what God is telling us inside ourselves - which 
| you agree we are very bad at distinguishing from our own desires - 

	Paul, where did I say this? I had thought what I said is that anyone
has the ability to use their own minds in any situation. I seriously don't
recall ever saying that we are very bad at this or not. I do remember saying
that we are all very capable. The key words are, "we all". You see, I don't
look at it as my way being any more seceptable for error than your way. I view
them as the same because it depends upon the individual, regardless of how the
information is relayed, to use their mindset or God's.

| there's nothing to turn us to the right path, when once we get off of it.

	Except God.....

| God has told them that He resides in the idols, and that it is OK to
| worship them.  God has told them that He will accept all forms of worship of
| higher beings as honoring Him.  Of course the Bible tells us strongly and
| repeatedly that God abhors worship of any idols, but the Bible is just an old
| book anyway and it's not right.

	Paul, I don't need the Bible to show me that if I love God, I worship
Him, and not other gods/idols/etc. Just as I don't need the Bible to show me
when I love someone I love them, no one else. As far as commenting on the Bible 
being an old book and not right goes, I can't. If you'd like, I'll send you 
mail. 

| If I agree that anyone who wants to call themselves a Christian *IS* a
| Christian, no matter what else they may say or do, then *I* am participating in
| destroying Christianity, just as much as they are.  As Christians, we are
| clearly empowered and *instructed* to judge *and condemn* non-christian
| behavior (I'd quote Scripture, but there's no point).  

	Then by those statements above, tell me what is the correct version of
Christianity, with all the correct things that have to be done, things that are
wrong, all the do's and don'ts. I gaurentee that you will be in disagreement
with many in this file. Those people also believe the Bible to be the inerrant
Word of God. Reason being is that we humans have taken the origional view of
Christianity and warped it into many different forms. I mean, how else can you
explain how so many people disagree with so many things when it comes to
different parts of Christianity? (btw, I'll just talk of the body of people in 
this file)

| By "condemn" I mean go beyond simple disagreement.  I mean saying "you are 
| wrong."  I mean removing from fellowship in the Body of Christ.  I mean active
| and conscious disassociation.  I DO NOT mean any kind of harassment or attack.

	OK, I guess we aren't talking the same thing. I agree with you through
the you are wrong part. It's ok to tell people they are wrong. I don't agree
with the 3rd & 4th sentences. I'm glad and agree with sentence #5.



Glen

| <<< Note 53.162 by SLBLUZ::DABLER "America Held Hostage-Day (insert #)" >>>


| -< Who is Lord of your life, Glen? >-

	The same as yours....

| Glen, you use a lot of phrases like 'if it works for you, fine' when responding
| to someone's belief in an inerrant Bible.  And just recently, (.155 or .157) you
| used the phrase 'your version of Christianity', as if following the Lord was
| something that was customizable to everyone's environment.

	Jim, I agree that customizing isn't the right approach. But I also
believe that this IS what has happened. I believe as I do. Is that customizing?
By your standards, yes. By mine I truly believe no. 

| I also hear you saying that you follow God's leading.  But, who is Lord of your
| life?  Is it God or is it Jesus Christ.  And before you say they are one and the
| same, I must correct you that they are not.  While both are of the essence of
| the One True God, 'God' is God the Father of the Trinity while Jesus is God the
| Son.  They are distinct persons. (As is the Holy Spirit, who is the Third person
| of the Trinity)

	Semantics. 

| Now, if you say Jesus is Lord of your life, how do you know him?  There is
| nothing in creation that points that Jesus Christ is God.  

	If you would like me to send you mail on anything I don't answer, send
me the questions. I can't answer this here.

| Your statements of 'your version of Christianity' and 'if it works for you,
| fine' are extremely relativistic.  If Jesus Christ is Lord of your life (as He
| deserves to be) then there is no 'customizing' Christianity.  The Lord Jesus has
| defined what it is and there is no changing it to suit ourselves.

	I agree. It is humans that have customized it. But, I truly believe
that I am doing the right thing.



Glen

| <<< Note 73.34 by SLBLUZ::DABLER "America Held Hostage-Day (insert #)" >>>



| Do you not see the inconsistency in this statement?  How can you know that the
| verse you were 'lead to' is without error?  By not holding the Bible as
| inerrant, you must suspect each and every verse to possibly contain as error.
| How do you know which ones are not in error?

	I don't know, God does. Many people take the Bible to be very literal.
If God shows me a verse from the Bible it is because it is similar with what I
am going through. It has the answer He wants me to see. Whether or not the
things discussed really happened or not is irrelavant. God uses people that
many consider don't follow Him as tools with giving the correct information,
why not anything? 

| Remember, Satan lead the Lord to Scripture and it was the Lord's knowledge that
| Scripture is True and error free that enabled Him to use it against Satan and
| drive him off.

	But God has the power to know what's in his (and our) hearts. We as
humans do not have that ability. God has given us free will. He isn't forcing
anything onto us. It's there for us to take. All we have to do is believe that
He will help us and He will. Remember, there is a difference between someone
saying I want this or that to happen as opposed to saying, "Lord, show me the
correct way to do this or that." In the first instance God may give us what we
want, but it doesn't mean that it is correct. The latter of the 2 instances God
will help us do the right thing (providing we listen to what He has to say).

	I hope this helps you understand where I am coming from a little
better.


Glen

>| -< Who is Lord of your life, Glen? >-
>
>	The same as yours....

Invalid answer.  Unsubstantiable declaration.

>	I agree. It is humans that have customized it. But, I truly believe
>that I am doing the right thing.

So does David Koresh.

Housekeeping.

I'll be moving some notes that are definately not about Christ versus
Antichrist (topics 73) to here because they continue to discuss the
veracity of scripture in other places.

Please stand by.

Mark Metcalfe
Christian Co-mod

Note 73.22 through 73.35 were moved here because they deal more with this topic.

Mark Metcalfe
Christian Co-mod

    Thanks Mark for doing, what I was getting ready to do!!! 
    
    This Notes Conference is based on the common belief of its participants
    that the Word of God is inerrant.
    
    Any communications geared towards that understanding will be placed in
    this note topic, regardless of origin of discussion.
    
    If you participate in this conference and do not hold the Bible to be
    inerrant, please be assured that there is a borderline judgement to be
    called as to whether or not antagonism is being wrought.
    
    If not, the discussion will be brought here.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy
    co-mod CHRISTIAN

>Note 73.22 through 73.35 were moved here because they deal more with this topic.


Correction.  I went through these notes after moving them here, and some of 
them belonged back in topic 73.  73.* should be contiguous replies, now,
even though 53.* may have some gaps.  Oh, well.

Mark
Maverick Mod

The fact that questions come again, such as "how do you know what God
tells you," in other topics springs from a certain viewpoint (in this case,
Glen's view of Scripture).

In other topics all over the conference, we ask the same question:
"How do you know" and the response is generally with chapter and
verse, and an interpretation from a background, upbringing, or
commentary, and the like.

As Nancy has said, this is the topic for people who have a problem
with Scripture as an authority and wish to discuss the problems that
they have with it.  

Regarding *other* topics, a view that does not espouse Scripture as
an authority is not welcome, because it inevitably ratholes down the
same tired old arguments about Bible veracity and authority, the premise
of this conference and the basis for discussion.  In other topics,
the BIBLE IS THE METER BY WHICH WE WILL ATTEMPT TO ARRIVE AT THE TRUTH
OF 
THE ISSUE.

Mark Metcalfe
Christian Co-Mod

Note to Glen:
Feel free to continue the merry-go-round in here, Glen.   But it would be
more productive if you merely cited those places where you feel the Bible
is flawed in here for answer, or in topic 71 (if you have Bible *difficulties*).

| <<< Note 53.167 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>

| >	I agree. It is humans that have customized it. But, I truly believe
| >that I am doing the right thing.

| So does David Koresh.

	And so don't you.

>| >	I agree. It is humans that have customized it. But, I truly believe
>| >that I am doing the right thing.
>
>| So does David Koresh.
>
>	And so don't you.

Yes, but I have something to point to as Authority, which is proven to be
trustworthy (to borrow from Jim).  You don't, and if David Koresh claims
it, he is judged a liar by it.

So there you have it.

| <<< Note 53.190 by SLBLUZ::DABLER "America Held Hostage-Day (insert #)" >>>



| >> 	I don't know, God does.

| I would like to address this statement, apart from the rest.  How can you trust
| God?  

	Once He led me to Him it was easy. He will ALWAYS show me the correct
thing to do in any situation. Whether or not I listen is another subject. Now,
for proof? I base it on what has happened to me since I gave my life to Him.
Nothing more, nothing less.

| How do you know that God is trustworthy enough to guide you to a particu-
| lar verse when you need it?  

	Based on past experiences.

| And since you do not hold to an inerrant Bible, how
| can you trust God to guide to a verse that you consider to be truth?

	It doesn't matter if *I* think the verse itself is true or false. What
happened back then happened. Most in this file believe that what is written is
the Truth. But if the verse gives the correct answer, it doesn't matter if it
is a true or false statement. What matters is that God has led me there for my
anwer because it deals with the problem at hand.

| I know how I can trust God.

	Same goes here. You believe my way is wrong so you can't/won't look to
see if it is true. 

| As an aside:  You use the name of God a lot, but never (that I have seen) do you
| claim that Jesus Christ is your Saviour and Lord of your life.  (I know you
| answered my question with the statement 'Same as yours', but you did not call
| anybody by name, so I still am wondering).  

	Paul, in other versions of Christian (in the intro section) I told of
how I came to know the Lord. Your way may be praise Him this, In Christs name
that, but that is not me. He know's what's in my heart, and He knows that I
will talk about Him to anyone, regardless of whether the person believes in Him
or not. If I choose to or not to say in Christs name or whatever is irrelavant.
What's in my heart is.



Glen

Glen,

Maybe I missed it, but I don't believe you answered this question that
Daryl asked you.

/Scott

  <<< Note 53.181 by EVMS::GLEASON "The Word of God is living and active!" >>>

    Glen,

    Have you ever actually read the Bible, from cover to cover?

				*** Daryl ***

>	Paul, where did I say this? I had thought what I said is that anyone
>has the ability to use their own minds in any situation. I seriously don't
>recall ever saying that we are very bad at this or not.

I think it was back around .30 somewhere.  My connection is too slow right now
to dig for it.

> 	Paul, I don't need the Bible to show me that if I love God, I worship
>Him, and not other gods/idols/etc. Just as I don't need the Bible to show me
>when I love someone I love them, no one else.

I don't need the Bible to show me that some of the things that you stand by (and
which we cannot discuss here) are not in God's plan for us.  So now where do we 
stand?  I can say exactly the same thing about some of your beliefs that you can
say about idol worship.  Does my saying "I don't need the Bible to tell me" have
the slightest effect on your belief?  It's as clear to me that some of your
positions are wrong as it is clear to you that idol worship is wrong.

But now what do you do with people who are **SURE** that idol worship is fine, 
just as you are sure about some of your positions?  It doesn't matter that their
reasons don't make the slightest sense to you - your reasons don't make the
slightest sense to us.  They say "God has told me" just like you say "God has
told me."  Do you just say "I disagree, but I'll still call you a Christian?"  
No, you didn't.  You said "People who would do that are not Christians."  **ON 
WHAT BASIS, GLEN??**  Just because it's "clear to you"?  How come "It's clear to
me" works for you telling people that idol worship is wrong, but "It's clear to 
me" doesn't work for me on some of your positions?

>| By "condemn" I mean go beyond simple disagreement.  I mean saying "you are 
>| wrong."  I mean removing from fellowship in the Body of Christ.  I mean active
>| and conscious disassociation.  I DO NOT mean any kind of harassment or attack.
>
>	OK, I guess we aren't talking the same thing. I agree with you through
>the you are wrong part. It's ok to tell people they are wrong. I don't agree
>with the 3rd & 4th sentences. I'm glad and agree with sentence #5.

You say you don't agree with the third and fourth sentences.  Now suppose a 
small but vocal segment of your congregation wants to be "inclusive," and they 
want to include the worship of hindu idols in your Sunday morning worship.  They
won't take no for an answer - no matter how many times they bring it up and you 
tell them NO, they keep asking and asking and asking.  No amount of reason will 
change their minds, and the reasons they put forth make absolutely no sense to 
you.  You are "sure" that this is completely outside God's will, and they are
"sure" that it IS in God's will.  Neither of you will budge on your position.

Do you keep telling them NO?  For how long?  Your church is having all the
   energy sapped out of it by constantly arguing about this.
Do you eventually give up to "keep the peace" and agree to worship idols in your
   services?

Or do you at some point say: "Depart from this Body of Christ.  We wish you 
well, we hope that by the Grace of God you may find your way to salvation.  But
we cannot allow you to remain among us and spread that which is clearly outside
of God's will, disrupting this Body and sapping us of our ability to serve God.
You will be welcome to return at any time that you renounce idol worship."

Paul

| First, we are very, very bad at discerning God's "still small voice" from all
| the other voices of our culture, of our own vested interests, of what we WANT
| God to be like, etc.  

	Agreed 100%...

<<< Note 53.197 by EVMS::PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for security-lose both" >>>



| First, we are very, very bad at discerning God's "still small voice" from all
| the other voices of our culture, of our own vested interests, of what we WANT
| God to be like, etc.  

	>Agreed 100%...

	But remember something, thems not my words! :-) Yes, they are from my
note, but are not from me. 



Glen

| <<< Note 53.192 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>




| So there you have it.

	Mark, so you have what you and most people believe to be the truth.
Like I said, fine. You believe this. You feel you're better off for it. I'm
happy for you.



Glen

200 notes already!  And Glen didn't even show up in this string until .99
only one week ago (23-MAR)!  The first half took twice as long to 
reach .100.

Observation off.

| <<< Note 53.195 by EVMS::PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for security-lose both" >>>

| >	Paul, where did I say this? I had thought what I said is that anyone
| >has the ability to use their own minds in any situation. I seriously don't
| >recall ever saying that we are very bad at this or not.

| I think it was back around .30 somewhere.  My connection is too slow right now
| to dig for it.

	Well, if you're offering .197 as proof, then you might want to go back
and check again! :-) Thems not my words. :-)

| Does my saying "I don't need the Bible to tell me" have the slightest effect 
| on your belief?  It's as clear to me that some of your positions are wrong 
| as it is clear to you that idol worship is wrong.

	Paul, there are many positions that Christians hold that I think are
wrong. If/when I mention them to you or any others, does it have any effect on
your belief? I seriously doubt it. So I guess I don't understand the point
you're trying to make here.

| Do you just say "I disagree, but I'll still call you a Christian?"  

	Paul, I seriously don't care if in your eyes I am viewed as a
Christian. Just as you really don't care if you're viewed as one in my eyes.
Now, whether I view them or tell them that they don't fit the mold of Christian
really should have no effect on them. The only one who needs to know that
you're a Christian or not is God Himself. He know's what's in your hearts. That
is what is important, not a label. Label's are human terms to describe things.
God needs no such label to see what's in our hearts.

| Do you keep telling them NO?  For how long?  Your church is having all the
| energy sapped out of it by constantly arguing about this. Do you eventually 
| give up to "keep the peace" and agree to worship idols in your services?

	Paul, if I were in that position I would inform them of the following.
We are doing this with our sermon. We will not be doing Y at the sermon. If you
wish to ask us to do Y the answer will always be no and then explain why. I
would ask them to please continue to come to the mass as they are important to
the church as a whole. But know upfront that Y won't be discussed.

	What I don't understand is why people make a deal about energy. With
the day to day things that I have to face in my life I always have energy to
talk to others about things that bother them about certain subjects. Even those
who come close to violence or have said they would use violence if such and
such a thing would happen. If I give up, then someone else has lost. IF they
choose to walk away, then there is nothing I can do but pray. But as long as 
they don't, I will do my best (and with God's help, I can't go wrong).

| Or do you at some point say: "Depart from this Body of Christ.  We wish you 
| well, we hope that by the Grace of God you may find your way to salvation.  But
| we cannot allow you to remain among us and spread that which is clearly outside
| of God's will, disrupting this Body and sapping us of our ability to serve God.

	How do you serve God? By pushing others away? Hmmmm....




Glen

    Glen,

    The issue is not whether Mark and others (which includes myself)
    believe what they have to be the truth, but rather whether or not it
    is in fact the Truth.  If it is, then there is no other truth, and
    that which everyone else (including you) has is in fact falsehood
    -- deception and lies, no matter how strongly they may believe in
    them.  The consequence for choosing to believe these lies over the
    Truth is eternal death in a place where there will be weeping and
    gnashing of teeth -- the lake of fire.

    Glen, your eternal future is at stake here...  You're betting your
    life, and much, much more, that your god is in fact God Almighty.
    The Bible makes it clear that this is not the case.  Not only that,
    it stands in direct opposition to everything for which you stand,
    because your spirit is in opposition to the Holy Spirit, whether or
    not you are conscious of it.

    Whose word would you have us believe: God's Word as revealed in the
    Bible or Glen's word? Whose word do you think will endure forever?
    Upon whose word are you betting your eternity?

    And I'm still waiting for your answers to my other questions.

    In Christ,

				*** Daryl ***

I find your reply .201 quite remarkable, and I'll have more to say about it, but
I'll just address this for the moment:

>| First, we are very, very bad at discerning God's "still small voice" from all
>| the other voices of our culture, of our own vested interests, of what we WANT
>| God to be like, etc.  

>	>Agreed 100%...

>	But remember something, thems not my words! :-) Yes, they are from my
>note, but are not from me. 

True, the sentence is not your words, they are mine.  But the words "Agreed 
100%" are YOUR words.  Now unless "Agreed 100%" has some hidden meaning like
"I don't agree with you at all," I took them to mean that you agree with the
quoted sentence.

Paul

>	Paul, I seriously don't care if in your eyes I am viewed as a
>Christian. Just as you really don't care if you're viewed as one in my eyes.
>Now, whether I view them or tell them that they don't fit the mold of Christian
>really should have no effect on them.

Glen, I care.  You do not espouse the views of this conference's premise
on Christianity and frankly, you should take your views and move on.
I say this because your definition of Christian is diametrically 
opposed to those who want to discuss issues from a Biblical perspective.

If it was a question about the Bible, here and there, that would be one
thing, but in almost every case, you pipe in with an opinion you claim 
is Christian (by your own defintion) and when asked to substantiate your
claim, you steer the conversation away from the conference premise,
claiming that your opinion is as good as anyone elses.

The fact is, you opinion is NOT as good because it does not have a 
basis for substatiantion in the guidleines of this conference.  This 
means that you are offering an opinion that you believe to be Christian
but which also conflicts with what the conference guidelines say is the
meter for truth.

You want to say things like, "you believe that way, then fine" but this
violates conference guidelines (under antagonism; which I still don't believe
you really understand the word's meaning).  The conference is based
in inerrant Scriptural viewpoints.  To provide a viewpoint that is supposedly
Christian without scriptural basis is simply antagonistic.
(anti, against; agonizesthai, to struggle < agon, contest).
If you think it is mere belligerance, then there's some evidence of that,
but clearly you oppose the tenor of this conference.

You said your piece over and over and over and over, and we get your messagem
but reject it wholeheartedly.  Start a conference where you opinion can
be Protagonistic.

Mark

| <<< Note 53.203 by EVMS::GLEASON "The Word of God is living and active!" >>>




| The issue is not whether Mark and others (which includes myself)
| believe what they have to be the truth, but rather whether or not it
| is in fact the Truth.  

	Daryl, you know my position on this. 

| If it is, 

	I agree with this.

| then there is no other truth, and
| that which everyone else (including you) has is in fact falsehood
| -- deception and lies, no matter how strongly they may believe in
| them.  

	That's a mighty big IF Daryl.

| Glen, your eternal future is at stake here...  You're betting your
| life, and much, much more, that your god is in fact God Almighty.

	Daryl, just as my chances for changing your beliefs are slim to none,
same goes here. Daryl, this IS what I believe to be true. You know the many
positions of the Bible that I have. We've discussed them many a time. This is
my belief. 




Glen

    Glen,
    
    There are many things that I want to say but or now a quick pass
    through gets me:
    
    Romans 3:10-20
    Romans 6:1-4
    Romans 7:14-25
    1 Cor. 5:9-13
    1 Cor. 6:12-20
    2 Cor. 11:3-6
    2 Cor  13:5-10
    Titus  1:10-16
    Hebrew 12:6-17
    1 Peter 1:13-18
    1 John 1:8-10
    1 John 4:1-3
    3 John 4
    Jude  4,
    
    Glen, I would be interested in how your thoughts compare with the Word
    you profess to follow and employ?
    
    PDM

    >Daryl, just as my chances for changing your beliefs are slim to none,
    >same goes here. Daryl, this IS what I believe to be true. You know the
    >many
    >positions of the Bible that I have. We've discussed them many a time.
    >This is
    >my belief.
    
    
    Folks, please PAY ATTENTION to what Glen has expressed.  SLIM TO NONE
    for changing his mind.
    
    Are you HEARING this?  If so, then let's get back to scripture "AVOID..
    SHUN.. PROFANE AND VAIN BABBLINGS!!!" [paraphrased KJV]
    
    If no-one answers Glen, then the dialogue stops.  
    
    As a participant of this conference, Glen, I am asking you to please
    move on to where your viewpoint will make a difference.  And allow us
    in this conference the peace to banter without antagonism.
    
    This is a request... one that I do not like to make, but the growing
    dislike of the kind of dialogue happening here is starting to build. 
    
    In Him,
    Nancy
    

Romans 3:10-20
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one;
There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there
is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit;
the poison of asps is under their lips;
Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness;
Their feet are swift to shed blood;
Destruction and misery are in their ways;
And the way of peace have they not known;
There is no fear of God before their eyes.
Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are
under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become
guilty before God.
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his
sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Romans 6:1-4
What shall we say them? shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
God forbid, How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were
baptized into his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was
raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk
in newness of life.

Romans 7:14-25
For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin.
For that which I do I allow not; for what I would, that do I not; but what I
hate, that do I.
If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing; for to
will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
For the good that I would I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth
in me.
I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
For I delight in the law of God after the inward man;
But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and
bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve
the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

I Corinthians 5:9-13
I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators;
Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or
extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called
a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a
drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them
that are within?
But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves
that wicked person.

I Corinthians 6:12-20
All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient; all things are
lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats; but God shall destroy both it and
them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for
the body.
And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own
power.
Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the
members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two,
saith he shall be one flesh.
But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that
committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in
you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
For ye are bought with a price therefore glorify God in your body, and in your
spirit, which are God's.

II Corinthians 11:3-6
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his
subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in
Christ.
For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if
ye receive another spirit, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with
him.
For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.
But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been
throughly made manifest among you in all things.

II Corinthians 13:5-10
Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye
not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates.
Now I pray to God that ye do no evil; not that we should appear approved, but
that ye should do that which is honest, though we be as reprobates.
For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.
For we are glad, when we are weak, and ye are strong; and this also we wish,
even your perfection.
Therefore I write these things being absent, lest being present I should use
sharpness, according to the power which the Lord hath given me to edification,
and not to destruction.

Titus 1:10-16
For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of
the circumcision;
Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which
they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway
liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
This witness is true, Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in
the faith;
Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the
truth.
Unto the pure all things are pure; but unto them that are defiled and
unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable,
and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

Hebrews 12:6-17
For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he
receiveth.
If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he
whom the father chasteneth not?
But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye
bastards, and not sons.
Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave
them reverence; shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of
spirits, and live?
For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he
for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.
Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous;
nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto
them which are exercised thereby.
Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees;
And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of
the way; but let it rather be healed.
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the
Lord;
Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of
bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;
Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of
meat sold his birthright.
For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he
was rejected; for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it
carefully with tears.

I Peter 1:13-18
Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the
grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts
in your ignorance;
But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of
conversation;
Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according
to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear;
Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as
silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your
fathers;

I John 1:8-10
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in
us.
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to
cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in
us.

I John 4:1-3
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God;
because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God; Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus
Christ is come in the flesh is of God;
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is
not of God; and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that
it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

III John 1:4
I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.

Jude 1:4
For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to
this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into
lasciviousness, and denying the the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

    
    

    Notes in regards to *TRUTH* have been moved to topic 82, entitled TRUTH
    or CONSEQUENCES..
    
    Please continue that discussion there, as it is *not* entirely related
    to Truth of Scriptures... but to how God uses Truth.
    
    Nancy
    Co-Mod CHRISTIAN

    Glen,
    
    As a participant in this conference who adheres to its guidelines and
    requirements, I too ask that you move on and take your opinions where
    you can freely vocalize them and find some means for discussion of
    them.  Or, just move on.
    
    I find your antagonism a constant irritant and an obstruction to my
    ability to discuss issues with those who share the belief in and act in
    accordance with the conference guidelines.
    
    Please do this for me/us.
    
    Thank you Glen!
    
    jeff

    Glen,

    If you are so hardened that you cannot and/or will not hear the Truth
    being proclaimed to you by the Lord's servants, then I have little
    choice but to ask in agreement with Nancy and Jeff that you take your
    opinions elsewhere.  Speaking for myself, you are no longer welcome
    here, and if you continue to voice your opinions, I regret that I
    must stand in opposition to you on all fronts.  I will not allow you
    the opportunity to lead others in this conference astray with your
    beliefs, which are based upon the wisdom of this world, i.e.,
    falsehoods.

    If and when the Lord opens your eyes and heart to His Word, and you
    repent of the sin in your heart, of which you are presently in
    denial, then I will be among the first to welcome you back with open
    arms.  Until that time, I request that you refrain from any further
    contributions in this conference and cease from being a stumbling
    block to those who truly are seeking God through Jesus Christ.

    With regret,

				*** Daryl ***

| <<< Note 53.205 by EVMS::PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for security-lose both" >>>




| True, the sentence is not your words, they are mine.  But the words "Agreed 
| 100%" are YOUR words.  

	Yes Paul, they are my words. I think I would have noticed them before
if you had included the entire text and not just the words that make your
point. Here is the entire exchange:

| First, we are very, very bad at discerning God's "still small voice" from all
| the other voices of our culture, of our own vested interests, of what we WANT
| God to be like, etc.  

	Agreed 100%. The end result will always be (even if it takes many
attempts) the question you ask will be answered. It can be that way regardless
of whether you believe the Bible to be inerrant or not. 

	By putting in the whole text a totally different meaning comes from it
Paul. I agree with what you said, yes. But I agree with it as it applies. To
everyone, regardless of their beliefs in the Bible.




Glen

	Well, I guess I should have expected the response. Oh well, such is
life......

I'm about done, Glen.  I resonate with the reply that is getting quite tired of
this merry-go-round.

>| Does my saying "I don't need the Bible to tell me" have the slightest effect 
>| on your belief?  It's as clear to me that some of your positions are wrong 
>| as it is clear to you that idol worship is wrong.
>
>	Paul, there are many positions that Christians hold that I think are
>wrong. If/when I mention them to you or any others, does it have any effect on
>your belief? I seriously doubt it. So I guess I don't understand the point
>you're trying to make here.

Your mission here seems to be to get people to say "Yes, you're a Christian,
Glen" (an aside - You're sure to say that's not it.  But what *IS* your mission
here, Glen?  You've mentioned that God has worked in your life, but I've never
seen anything here written by you which sets aside our differences and seeks
to upbuild this Body of Christ.  Every word from you - always written in a
glowing tolerance to show how godly you are - is a word of dissent.  If you 
really believed the "we're all christians here" line that you say you do, might 
you not *at least once in a while* incarnate yourself to us poor, unenlightened,
bigoted, fundamental wackos and try to speak to people where they are?  Instead,
you say "if you want to believe that, fine" to accentuate our differences.  You
are always trying to point out that we are the ones who are accentuating the 
differences between us.  Well, who among us is it that is wearing their 
differences prominently, and is displaying those differences at every 
opportunity?

You've claimed several times that you're not here to justify yourself, that it
is we who put a need for justification upon you.  Well if it's not that, then
why are you here, Glen?  It's certainly not for edification.  It's certainly not
for a warm fuzzy feeling of acceptance.  It doesn't even seem to be to seek to
understand where we are coming from.  From the outside, it seems very simple:
you have an agenda to push, an agenda which is outside and opposed to the stated
standard of this conference.  And you are here to get us to understand and 
accept your agenda.  Yet you *say* that's not why you're here.  Why *are* you
here, Glen?

That turned out to be a longer "aside" than I intended. :-)

My point in the case above is that you have no problem in proclaiming "If they
do that (idol worship, in this case), they aren't a Christian."  Yet you get 
quite indignant (expressed gently, true.  But indignant none the less) if 
someone were to dare to suggest that some of your views are not consisten with 
Christianity.  I was simply attempting to point out the gross inconsistency 
between these two facts.

Yes, only God knows our hearts.  And yes, only God knows who of us are truly
seeking to know Jesus.  And yes, we are ALL going to be in for some surprises in
heaven, both in some of the admissions and some of the ommissions from the 
heavenly roll call.

But that doesn't mean that we are completely barred from adhering to some 
standards here on earth.  We may be wrong in the standards we adhere to, true.
But if we decline ANY standards, we just descend into anarchic chaos.

> What I don't understand is why people make a deal about energy. 

Well, take the case that you and I are both thinking of, but which we can't
discuss here.  The actual issue is beside the point in the discussion at hand
anyway.  In all major denominations today, there are groups of people who are
devoted to changing a major policy of the church.  In some denominations they
have succeeded.  But there's been a tremendous expenditure of time and effort
going through the politics involved, enlisting people to their cause, bringing
motions and resolutions to the forefront.  This is going on at all levels, from
the local churches through all the intermediate steps up to the centers of the
denominations.

In response, to avoid losing by default, people on the other side of the issue
are being forced to mobilize, to counter resolutions, to put forth their own
resolutions, etc.  All of this time and effort is going into something that is
doing NOTHING for the world at large, all of it being taken away from time that
could be spent ministering to the world.

There is no way that I can see for this energy drain to stop.  The most 
resounding NO has no effect - those pushing this agenda return home from a 
569-13 vote and plan their next steps.  In the meantime, the church is being
emasculated from being effective in the world, as they must constantly devote
their energies to avoid being taken over from within.

That's why I make a big deal out of energy.

>	How do you serve God? By pushing others away? Hmmmm....

Glen, even if you don't think the Bible is perfect, you must at least admit that
it is a 4000 year history of a people struggling to know God.  Even if you don't
believe every word is innerrant, do you at least believe that as a whole it is
a reliable witness of God?  Because there are HUNDREDS of verses in the Bible
which instruct us not to tolerate evil, and not to accept that which is evil, 
and to disassociate ourselves from those who persist in evil.

Another question for you.  You use the standard of "it doesn't hurt people" to
know whether something is wrong or not (BTW, then why is idol worship wrong?
You never addressed that).  But this standard of yours is just out of your head
anyway, it has no other basis.  If I disagree with that standard because God
told me differently, then you have to accept me as a Christian, because who are 
you to determine what God has told me, anyway?

Would you accept people in your church as fellow christians who sacrificed their
children on the altar as an offering to God?  If they sacrificed their children
on an altar before an idol of another god?  If they sacrificed their children on
an altar to satan?  Remember, Glen, you can't serve God by pushing others away.

Hogwash, Glen.  The glowing tolerance that you seek to show here with the 
implied "**I** wouldn't try to serve God by *pushing away* one of *HIS* 
children, which shows that I'm more Godly than you" is a covering over the
acceptance of pure evil.  Sorry, Glen, but this position is "like a whitewashed
tomb, which outwardly appears beautiful, but within is full of dead men's bones
and all uncleaness."

I'm done, Glen.  The most I will do on this subject in the future is post the
number of this reply as a note to eliminate your sense of "If I put in the last
word, then I've won," but which will not give you anything to reply to and fuel
on.  I will no longer participate in helping you push your agenda by responding
to you.

Paul

    Paul,
      I applaud your reply. I feel and believe your conviction and I
    stand beside you. You managed to say in 1** lines what I tried to say
    in 47. - And they set MINE HIDDEN ;^) (Just kidding mods....
      sshhheeesshhh (sorry Andy))
    
    I also stand with Daryl Gleason, I would welcome *anyone* with open arms
    the moment he embraced the Word of God and USED it as a tool and aid
    of instruction and understanding. ( I am a product of the prodical son, I
    was welcomed back when I strayed).
    
    Now we have all said our peace, we must let our Creator God, our
    Saviour Lord God and the Holy Spirit Comforter God to do His work.
    
    As Nancy stated some replies back, the Word must speak because we will
    not change *anyone*'s mind, only God can do that. No one is saved in
    the name of PDM only in the name of the Lord Christ Jesus.
    
    Grace and Peace be unto you all,
       PDM

| <<< Note 53.219 by EVMS::PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for security-lose both" >>>




| Your mission here seems to be to get people to say "Yes, you're a Christian,

	Actually, no. Show me where I have stated I want to be known as a
Christian?

| Glen" (an aside - You're sure to say that's not it.  But what *IS* your mission
| here, Glen?  

	To show all of you your wrong doings, to keep you from being
hypocritical and to show you your views are wrong! Now, I'm sure that
is what you're expecting, but now on to the truth. There is a lot of
topics in this file that I really like. I usually only READ those topics. 
BUT, when I see something that strikes me as funny (no, not ha ha funny) 
then I respond to it. True, some topics in this file (and not just the ones
I choose to participate in) can become quite volitile, but I attribute 
that to us being human.

| You've mentioned that God has worked in your life, but I've never
| seen anything here written by you which sets aside our differences and seeks
| to upbuild this Body of Christ.  

	Hmmm.... if I agreed with your view of Christianity then everything
would be fine. That is until I disagreed with something. Many topics in here
have/had a lot of arguing. Most of those I haven't said a word in. At times it
seems like it's a believe as I say conference and love seems absent. But, then
you just hit next unseen and you can see some love happening (prayer request is
one of these). Why is that?

| Every word from you - always written in a
| glowing tolerance to show how godly you are - is a word of dissent.  

	How godly I am? Paul, I very rarely get ticked off at anyone to the
point of taking out anger. That is how I am, period. Oh, it doesn't mean that I
won't get ticked off (remember Nancy?) but I try to keep it to a minimum. But
as far as godly goes, I don't think so.

| If you
| really believed the "we're all christians here" line that you say you do, might
| you not *at least once in a while* incarnate yourself to us poor, unenlightened,
| bigoted, fundamental wackos and try to speak to people where they are?  

	You lost me on this one Paul....

| Instead,
| you say "if you want to believe that, fine" to accentuate our differences.  

	Hmmm..... and pointing out my differences every step of the way is
different? Oh.....

| you have an agenda to push, an agenda which is outside and opposed to the stated
| standard of this conference.  

	Nope..... I don't like it. There is no agenda here.

| My point in the case above is that you have no problem in proclaiming "If they
| do that (idol worship, in this case), they aren't a Christian."  Yet you get 
| quite indignant (expressed gently, true.  But indignant none the less) if
| someone were to dare to suggest that some of your views are not consisten with
| Christianity.  

	Paul, in my notes you will also see that I say YOUR version of
Christianity. Just as MY version of what it means is different. There is NO
inconsistancy here.

| In response, to avoid losing by default, people on the other side of the issue
| are being forced to mobilize, to counter resolutions, to put forth their own
| resolutions, etc.  All of this time and effort is going into something that is
| doing NOTHING for the world at large, all of it being taken away from time that
| could be spent ministering to the world.

	If you're ministering the wrong message, then isn't spending the time
and energy worth it?

| Glen, even if you don't think the Bible is perfect, you must at least admit that
| it is a 4000 year history of a people struggling to know God.  Even if you don't
| believe every word is innerrant, do you at least believe that as a whole it is
| a reliable witness of God?  

	I believe that it is a different kind of book than that.

| Would you accept people in your church as fellow christians who sacrificed their
| children on the altar as an offering to God?  If they sacrificed their children
| on an altar before an idol of another god?  If they sacrificed their children on
| an altar to satan?  Remember, Glen, you can't serve God by pushing others away.

	Sigh.....

Glen

.221 

 Thank you for your [opposing opinion].
 Please see 2.8 before making further comments.

Mark

| <<< Note 53.221 by JURAN::SILVA "Memories....."                     

| Many topics in here
| have/had a lot of arguing. Most of those I haven't said a word in. At times it
| seems like it's a believe as I say conference and love seems absent. But, then
| you just hit next unseen and you can see some love happening (prayer request is
| one of these). Why is that?

Glen,

Some time ago I wrote to one of the moderators about my concerns over
this same observation - namely heated arguments apparently lacking in
Christian love.  My concerns were twofold:  One, that we shouldn't
savagely attack one another in examining Scripture.  Two, that new 
noters reading the exchange may develop the opinion that we are
hate-filled fanatics rather than bretheren in Christ.

A little further digging on my part has largely laid my first concern
to rest.  Two brothers with great fondness for each other may still like
to wrestle.  A stranger may see a "fight" where there isn't one.  Iron
sharpening iron is an expression I've seen in this notesfile.  I was
that stranger when I first wrote my note to the mod.

My second concern over our appearance to other "strangers" is still there.
This notesfile *is* a form of Christian witness.  I think we should all
consider the impact of our notes to other readers - readers who may not
be aware who is or is not a pair of wrestling brothers.  I'm not saying that
heretical beliefs should be embraced, but that firmness does not equate
to harshness.  The Good Shephard (or sheepdog  ;-)  does not maim the 
straying sheep, after all.  And just maybe those wrestling brothers could
keep from mussing their clothes so much.  ;-)

Oddly enough I've worked my way back to this topic (didn't think I could
do it, did you  ;-).  This notesfile witnesses both through *how* we conduct
ourselves and with *what* we support and hold to be true.  The Truth if
you will.  Bible-believing Christians have a responsibility to make their
position clear (and especially within this conference).  In this respect, and 
within the context of the tenets of this conference, I can see why circular 
arguments lacking in Scriptural support would have to come to an end.  

Naturally this all MO (humble or otherwise  ;-)  and may or may not 
be supported by the mods.  Works for me though.  ;-)

A brother in Christ,

Otto
                    

	Thanks for posting that Otto.



Glen

    Glen,

    There is exactly one acceptable version of Christianity, and that is
    God's version as described in His Word, the Bible.  No other version is
    valid, and this would include your version, since yours does not even
    acknowledge the Bible as His Word.

    Whether or not you personally have an agenda, the spirit by which you
    are being unwittingly used does, and it is that spirit which I must
    oppose.

    In Christ,

				*** Daryl ***

     
    
    You said it better than I, Daryl.
    
    I still don't see how someone can be Christian, a follower of
    Jesus as the Christ, our Lord and Savior, the risen Son of God, 
    and not believe the Bible.
    
    Even Moslems, who do not believe the Bible, accept Jesus 
    as a prophet.  Without faith in Scripture, how can anyone see
    Jesus as anything more?
    
    a brother in Christ,
    
    Otto

     "You must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by
      the prophet's own interpretation.   For prophecy never had its origin
      in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along 
      by the Holy Spirit."
     					2 Peter 1:20,21 (NIV)



	According to this, no Scripture is from man. Yet Paul had his own
opinion. Why the controversy?



Glen

 Did any of Paul's "opinions" contradict scripture?







 Jim

    Re .228 (Glen)

>                     -< A new point brought to light.... >-
    
    This is hardly a new point. You've hammered away at this plenty of
    times before, and it has been explained almost as many times. What you
    insist in calling Paul's "opinion" is no less inspired than any of the
    other stuff he wrote. As with the rest of Scripture, all of it has the
    Holy Spirit as its Author.
    
    I suggest that before people start chasing this red herring that they
    look in last year's conference to see that in fact this very subject
    has been addressed.
    
    	BD�

    Glen,
    
    re: .228
    
    a) it doesn't say that no Scripture came about as man's opinion, it
    says that no PROPHECY of Scripture came about by the prophet's own
    interpretation.
    
    b) it does say that these men "spoke from G-d as they were carried
    along by the Holy Spirit."
    
    If today we would hear (by being carried along by the Holy Spirit), our
    hearts wouldn't be hardened to the Truth of what has been written for
    us.
    
    Sadly - some choose to be carried along by the lusts of their flesh and
    can't hear the Truth.
    
    Steve
    
    

Re: .228 (Glen)

Two scriptures for someone who brings up the same things over and over again:

Matthew 6:7  But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do:
for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

2Timothy 2:16  But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase
unto more ungodliness.

The Word is trustworthy.

MM

Hi Glen,  

Had you forgotten this one?

I presume you're referring to 1 Corinthians 7:10-12, where Paul is bringing 
together marriage rules.  He refers to some rules which Jesus gave 
explicitly, as from 'not I, but the LORD'.  By inspiration of the Holy 
Spirit, he has further information to give on the same subject, which the 
LORD Jesus didn't cover, which he refers to as from 'I, not the LORD'.

No conflict with the inspiration of scripture there that I'm aware of.
And certainly not just Paul's opinion.

If you had any real problem, or something that your mind sees as 
controversy, feel free to point out the reference, and what problem 
you're struggling with...  Even if we don't know the answer, the LOrD can 
give you peace if you're willing to receive it.  Our first requirement is 
not to understand the LORD, but to love Him...

						God bless
							Andrew

More for .228

Romans 14:1  Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful
disputations.

John 10:24  Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long
dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
 25  Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I
do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
 26  But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
 27  My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

 See also 2 Peter 3:15-16 "..and regard the patience of our Lord to be salva-
 tion; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given
 him wrote to you, as also in *all* his letters (italics mine) speaking in them
 some of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the 
 untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the scriptures, to
 their own destruction."


 Which to me clearly identifies Paul's writings as scripture, which no doubt
 has been pointed out to you before.






 Jim

Titus 1

 10  For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they
of the circumcision:
 11  Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things
which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
.
.
.
 14  Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn
from the truth.
 15  Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and
unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
 16  They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being
abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

    In Romans... don't have my Bible at my desk, aw shucks it says these
    words as I am paraphrasing and I can product reference tomorrow, if
    someone wants.
    
    For in their ignorance they know not the righteousness of God, and set
    up their own righteousness... 
    
    I'm afraid their are many folks in the world today who live by their
    own righteousness, sometimes through ignorance, and sometimes through
    willful choice.  The latter is the most heartbreaking. 
    
    When someone chooses their sin over the Righteousness of God, as
    defined in His Word, the consequences of knowledge is much.  For those
    whom he has given much, much is required.  That includes knowledge.
    
    Nancy
    

	Gee, all this info! Well, Marks has nothing to do with what's being
discussed, just pushing his own agenda, but the rest of it is actually new
(well, most of it). Jim Henderson pointed out Scripture that I hadn't seen
before. Thanks. Andrew (I think) pointed out the *I* factor. But I guess the
part that confuses me most is this. IF Scripture in from man but gotten from
the Holy Spirit that was dwelling in them, why would anyone take any credit for
something that was truly never said by them? Wouldn't their human mind have
taken over to say that it is their "opinion" instead of getting it from the
Holy Spirit? I mean, is the book inspired by God or through God and human
inspiration?




Glen

RE:               <<< Note 53.238 by JURAN::SILVA "Memories....." >>>
   



>	Gee, all this info! Well, Marks has nothing to do with what's being
>discussed, just pushing his own agenda, but the rest of it is actually new


 Go back and read .236 again (particularly the reference to Titus 1:16 and
 tell us that is "Mark's agenda"





 Jim 

    
    I would advise all reading this string that Glen has brought up these
    questions and "doubts" many times before. The same questions have been
    asked albeit in slightly different form. 
    
    I would caution you to all go back and read what Glen has written, what
    was written back to Glen.
    
    Glen? Do you remember the guidelines that were set for you and whatever
    info/data/questions you had? I'm sure you do.
    
    Your query about Paul's opinion did not fall into line with those
    guidelines. I wil let it stand without deleting it this time. If
    you wish your memory refreshed, I or one of the other co-moderators
    will be happy to re-post those guidelines for you. 
    
      If you do have much more data to enter at a later date, please
    remember to follow the guidelines established (Oh yeah!!! I think
    they're back in this note somewhere!! :)
    
    Regards,
    
    Andy
    

             <<< ATLANA::DUB1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN_V6.NOTE;1 >>>
        -< See 642.* - Conference rollover, Friday 2/27 @5pm EST (USA) >-
================================================================================
Note 40.354                  Why believe the Bible?                   354 of 589
SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "You get what He paid for!"        45 lines  24-JUN-1992 14:30
                            -< Fish or cut bait... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Glen,
    
      I admit that the title of this note string might seem a bit
    ambiguous, but please go back and re-read some of the explanations as
    to what this note is for. It is not meant to show God's Word as 
    errant, but to discuss the pluses for believing it is God's Word.
    
     Please understand that.
    
    
      As for your constant rebuttal (I won't use Brad's term, although I
    agree with it), it doesn't hold water. Honestly.
    
      I'll take you up on the challenge.. okay?
    
      You enter, **one at a time** and only one at a time, your perceived 
    "flaws". It is incumbent on you to show where the flaw exists. That
    means that you can't just say "Here it is". You have to do some
    studying and show, since you are the accuser, where the flaw exists.
    Not just "here it's one way and over there it's another way...see!!
    it's a flaw!!". 
    
      As one "flaw" is taken care of and behind us, you may enter the next
    "flaw".
    
      Things that will not be allowed and will hurt your argument are
    things like:  "I feel..."  "I think..."  "It's my opinion..." 
    "God told me..."
    
      You will be taken to task and rebuked whenever you turn to and use
    rhetoric instead of biblical exegesis...
    
      So there you are... Those are the rules. If you persist in ignoring
    the guidelines of this conference (2.*), then fine. You will not be
    allowed to deviate from the above...
    
    
     Andy
    
    
    P.S. I really don't know why I'm doing this... maybe cause I'm
    Polish... (Andy??? Why are you banging your head against the
    wall??.....  "Cause it feels so good when I stop!!!"
    

               <<< Note 53.238 by JURAN::SILVA "Memories....." >>>
� the part that confuses me most is this. IF Scripture in from man but gotten 
� from the Holy Spirit that was dwelling in them, why would anyone take any 
� credit for something that was truly never said by them? Wouldn't their human
� mind have taken over to say that it is their "opinion" instead of getting it
� from the Holy Spirit? I mean, is the book inspired by God or through God and
� human inspiration?

Glen, this is to do with the way most people perceive - or don't perceive -
the Holy Spirit speaking through them.  We can give the word from the LORD, 
and mix it with our own understanding, which dilutes it.  It is then 
subject to being tested, by others who have the Holy Spirit within.  This 
is indicated in 1 Corinthians 14:29.  A parallel example of this also is in 
Matthew 16:16-17, 22-23, where Peter speaks by revelation that Jesus is
the Christ, the Son of the living God, then a few minutes later tries to
disuade Jesus from going through death and resurrection!  You've surely
heard sermons where you can accept some things as 'from the LORD' for your
own heart, while other parts you can recognise as being more humanly based,
with maybe a bit of pastoral license? 

The Bible is totally inspired - it does not have this mixture.  This is a 
criterion for inclusion.  But those who wrote weren't just robots doing 
automatic writing.  That's in the area of demonology.  The Holy Spirit does 
not stomp in to usurp our minds and wills.  He woos us, and takes only that 
which we yield freely to Him.  Sure, sometimes we come under discipline 
from Him too, but He does not violate our free will.  The Holy Spirit 
gives His word in various ways.  A frequent one is for the word to be 
present in the mind - almost like one of our own thoughts - and we can
choose whether to use it or to reject it.  This is what 'The spirit of the
prophets is subject to the control of the prophets' (1 Corinthians 14:32) 
means.

Only after each book of the Bible was written, would it be considered for
inclusion in the canon of Holy Scripture.

� I mean, is the book inspired by God or through God and human inspiration?
God uses the human mind which He created, to receive the inspiration of the 
Book he has given.

When you express concern about :
 'why would anyone take any credit for something that was truly never said by
  them? '
	- do you mean Paul's 'I', in 1 Corinthians 7:12, or have you a more 
concrete example?  In that case, I thought I made clear that he is 
distinguishing between teaching given by Jesus (in Matthew 5:31-32, 19:3-12
Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18), and that revealed through himself. For the
prophet, or one speaking the words 'to be tested', it a bigger thing to
claim that his words are from the LORD's inspiration as it would be to
merely admit that he said them.  The subsequent test confirmed that this 
was the word of the LORD (as shown in 2 Peter 3:15-16, and by its inclusion 
here at all!)

However, that verse also points out that his letters contain some things 
which are hard to understand.  If you find that so, it's not because the 
information is superfluous or irrelevant, or that there are errors in it; 
rather that we need the Hol;y Spirit Who inspired its writing to also 
inspire the understanding.  If these things still seem obscure, maybe 
they're not where you need to be studying at the moment.  Ask the LORD to 
guide you, and read where you find more help; in time you may well be 
brought back to passages you previously found difficult, only to find that 
the way he has instructed your heart in the interim has clarified the 
significance of the passage.

Remember, Glen, in getting to know the LORD, we *think* we are following 
the path of our wisdom, but the reality is that He is guiding us to mold 
our spirits according to what He knows we *really* need.

						God bless
								Andrew

	Just some things that need to be made clearer to me. 


=============================================================================

	The first makes me wonder as it talks about the birds that one is not
to eat and lists a bat as one of them. When did a bat become a bird?

DEU 14:11  Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
DEU 14:12  But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the  eagle, and 
	   the ossifrage, and the ospray,
DEU 14:13  And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
DEU 14:14  And every raven after his kind,
DEU 14:15  And the owl, and the night hawk, and the  cuckow,  and the hawk 
	   after his kind,
DEU 14:16  The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
DEU 14:17  And the pelican, and the  gier  eagle,  and  the  cormorant,
DEU 14:18  And the stork, and the heron after her kind,  and  the lapwing, 
	   and the bat.

=============================================================================

	How did Judas really die?


Acts 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of
iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his
bowels gushed out."

Matt. 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple,
and departed, and went and hanged himself.  And the chief priests...bought
with them the potter's field."
=============================================================================


	Just what were the last words Jesus spoke?


Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast
thou forsaken me?"  ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded u
the ghost."

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto
thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is
finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."



	Now, in no way am I saying the Bible isn't an inerrant book. But I am
wondering about these verses and what could they mean.....


Glen

Off the top of my head....

The ancient Hebrews didn't do a whole lot in the way of zoology.  They 
classified animals by what they observed, they didn't do extensive taxonomic
studies.  Their word for "bird" probably means something like "animal which 
flies."  They no doubt observed that bats have fur, no beak, etc, but their 
first order of classification was whether it flew or not.  If it flew, it fell
under the 'bird' category.

God of course knew the difference, but when giving these commands to the Jews He
spoke in the language they understood.  He could have gone into a long tangent
on "By the way, bats aren't really birds, they're mammals.  Now since you don't
have any concept of what a "mammal" is yet, let me explain that..." but a bat's 
precise classification was beside the point.  He wanted to tell them "don't eat
bats."  If they classified bats with birds that was fine with God.

Matt.27:46,50 says that Jesus cried again with a loud voice.  That loud cry
could be either of the other quotes attributed to him.

Response to the others would require further study.

Paul

RE:              <<< Note 53.244 by DEMING::SILVA "Memories....." >>>
                        -< here's 3 to start off with >-



>Acts 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of
>iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his
>bowels gushed out."

>Matt. 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple,
>and departed, and went and hanged himself.  And the chief priests...bought
>with them the potter's field."



 I haven't done an exhaustive study on this, but have heard it explained that
 (lacking a great deal of other evidence) Judas, being rather inept, couldn't
 even kill himself right..hung himself on a weak limb of a tree, which broke
 causing his body to fall with the ensuing results as indicated in Acts.





 Jim

    
    RE: .244
    
    Glen,
    
     We'll do them one at a time (and others are welcome to chime in
    anytime... thanks Paul [.246]!! :)
    
     Paul is correct in .246 Glen. I could get picky and say that the word
    'bird' was used in verse 11 of chapter 14 and after that (v.12) it
    states... "But these are THEY of which ye shall not eat:..." in that
    "they" not necessarily meaning a bird.
    
      But if you look at Leviticus 11:13-20, you can see the same
    admonitions and the word used there is "fowl" where fowl was a generic
    term. You can see that from verse 20 on where "fowl" is used for
    locusts, beetles, grasshoppers.. etc. in respect to practically all
    flying things.
    
    
     Andy
    

    A perhaps weak explanation to you on Judas.
    
    Luke, who was a physician wrote the book of Acts.  I believe as a
    physician would be more clinical in his terms explaining Judas' death.
    The place of death is consistent in both accounts.  Thereby, leading me
    to believe that while Luke described medically what happened, the book
    of Matthew gave the story of what happened.
    
    As far as who bought the field and when, I don't know.  I can speculate
    on that one without study, but it wouldn't be productive.
    
    Nancy
    

    
    RE: .244
    
    Glen,
    
     In respect to Judas.
    
      First of all, he and the priests in the temple understood that the
    thirty pieces of silver was "blood money". When Judas threw it back at
    them, it couldn't be put back in the treasury because it was unlawful. 
    Therefore, the money still belonged to Judas and the potters field was
    purchased, as it were, in his name. So the verse in Acts is correct in
    that it was bought by Judas.
    
      As to the hanging and the dashing headlong.... there is no reason not
    to see this as descriptions of the same event. One by Matthew of the
    initial hanging, and one by Luke. 
    
      One possibility (and again this is speculation) is that when the
    description of events in Matthew 27: 51-53 happened.. specifically the
    quaking of the earth and the rocks being rent... sounds an awful lot
    like an earthquake. Judas' body may have been thrown down because of
    the violence of the earth. 
    
      Speculation nonwithstanding, there is no reason to dis-believe the
    two things occuring.
    
    
      Andy
    

Hi Glen,

You're really bringing up some old chestnuts here, some at least of which
we have covered fairly recently.

You've had a selection of answers on them again, but I'd like to add a bit
on Judas.  Andy came close, with the field being bought in Judas' name, but
missed a vital link: 

�      First of all, he and the priests in the temple understood that the
�    thirty pieces of silver was "blood money". When Judas threw it back at
�    them, it couldn't be put back in the treasury because it was unlawful. 
�    Therefore, the money still belonged to Judas and the potters field was
�    purchased, as it were, in his name. So the verse in Acts is correct in
�    that it was bought by Judas.

The field they bought was for burial of those who had no relatives or left
no money to get themselves a burial place (Matthew 27:7).  Visitors,
unknowns, foreigners *and* those deemed too unclean for the normal burial
place.  Like suicides.  Judas came under that category.  After he hanged
himself, he would be thrown into the field, which was a steep side of a 
hill, outside the walls.  We are told that he burst asunder under the impact.
    
								Andrew

RE: Judas


	Well, many different people responding and many different, but not
definitive answers. Words like speculation were used. Why nothing definitive?
Religious people who follow the teachings of the Bible believe it to be the
Word of God. But God and speculation don't go hand in hand. 


RE: Birds vs bats


	I can see where one could have a different perspective on what a bat
may or may not be. But when it comes to the writing of the Bible, I thought the
Holy Spirit had control over what was written?



Glen

>	Well, many different people responding and many different, but not
>definitive answers. Words like speculation were used. Why nothing definitive?
>Religious people who follow the teachings of the Bible believe it to be the
>Word of God. But God and speculation don't go hand in hand. 
    
    Glen,
    
    What practice for the Christian life is "missing" because the story of
    Judas' death is not fully expounded?  What would change in the lives of
    an individual Christian or the church if we knew the exact details of
    his death.  The Bible is not claimed to be an encyclopedia or
    compendium of all knowledge.  It is the Word of God, containing what we
    need to know (if we are willing to believe it) for salvation, knowing
    God, and living lives that are pleasing to Him.
    
    Mark L.

    		re: interpretations, apparent conflicts, etc....
    
    In general, I don't think man struggles as much as he'd like to think
    he does with the parts of the Bible he doesn't understand.  I think
    man's struggle is with the parts of the Bible he understands all too
    well.
    
    What good does it do to explore the "hidden things" if the things in
    plain view are rejected outright?
    
    For those who would like answers to the "Bible Toughies", I would
    suggest starting with the "Bible Easies" that you may have discarded
    long ago.
    
    FWIW,
    
    
    Steve
    
    PS - does anyone know to whom the first paragraph of this reply is
    attributable?  I know someone "famous" coined the phrase, but I don't
    remember who.
    

    
    Hmmmm... Glen, I was thinking, you say believe in God without believing
    the Bible to be inerrant.  Can you tell just what attributes would you
    use to describe God?
    
    and then after you think of that one, let me ask you one more question,
    
    Nancy

Hi Glen,

Sounds like you're not looking for answers at all, but rather for an excuse 
to avoid considering anything which touches close to home.  You realise, 
you're effectively saying that you reject a God you can't totally 
understand?  Regardless of the fact that *I* might reject a God you *could* 
totally understand ;-)

� I thought the Holy Spirit had control over what was written?
You didn't, or you wouldn't be approachiong the Bible with that attitude.
And you'd have been asking Him, rather than us, for the things about the
Bible that He has for you to learn.  The rest follow when you're ready. 
You don't start a first grade math student on calculus [ unless I've got the
grades mixed up...].  Find the way in, explore what you *can* understand.
Learn the excitment of finding His revelation, instead of being confused by
man's ignorance. 

Do you realise that's just what God designed the Bible to do?  Confuse those 
who don't listen to the Holy Spirit!  It's in 1 Corinthians 2:14...


							love
								AndreW

>      <<< Note 53.254 by POWDML::SMCCONNELL "Next year, in JERUSALEM!" >>>
>                               -< out of order? >-
>    In general, I don't think man struggles as much as he'd like to think
>    he does with the parts of the Bible he doesn't understand.  I think
>    man's struggle is with the parts of the Bible he understands all too
>    well.
>    
>    What good does it do to explore the "hidden things" if the things in
>    plain view are rejected outright?
    
    Quite "in order", if you asked me.

    
    RE: .257
    
    Hi Jim,
    
      The "big deal" is that some people will bring up certain
    "discrepancies" to the forefront to show that the bible is not a
    reliable instrument to live ones life by and that there are
    inconsistencies which can be "proved" to show that it's not God's Word
    but mans. In that case, if it's wrong in one area, then it can be wrong
    in others, where it might condemn certain sins. What this type of
    thinking entails is basically this:
    
      "See! It's wrong here and here and here and there.. see the
    differences!!! If it's wrong then it must have been written by man and
    not the Holy Spirit!! If it was written by man, then things that were
    written by "man" to be words from "God" might have been
    misinterpretted, or miswritten, or forgotten, or.... whatever!!! This
    might mean that God never really said thou shalt not covet thy
    neighbor's < >!!! Or it might mean that this was never really a sin,
    just... just a cultural thang!!!"
    
    
      I guess that's the "big deal" Jim.... 
    
    
      As someone in the bible once said... "Did God really say???....."
    
    
     Andy
    
    
     P.S. I apologize for straying.... for possibly opening a rathole, if
          I did open one, please be sure that I'll close it real fast...
    

================================================================================
Note 53.253                The Inerrancy of Scripture                 253 of 258
CHTP00::CHTP05::LOVIK "Mark Lovik"                   16 lines  11-MAY-1993 13:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| What practice for the Christian life is "missing" because the story of
| Judas' death is not fully expounded?  

	Will answer with mail.

| What would change in the lives of an individual Christian or the church if 
| we knew the exact details of his death.  

	Will answer with mail.

| The Bible is not claimed to be an encyclopedia or compendium of all 
| knowledge.  

	Will address this in mail.

| It is the Word of God, containing what we need to know (if we are willing to 
| believe it) for salvation, knowing God, and living lives that are pleasing 
| to Him.
  
	Will address this by mail.  

================================================================================
Note 53.254                The Inerrancy of Scripture                 254 of 258
POWDML::SMCCONNELL "Next year, in JERUSALEM!"        23 lines  11-MAY-1993 13:22
                               -< out of order? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| What good does it do to explore the "hidden things" if the things in
| plain view are rejected outright?
 
	Maybe one feels that if the "hidden" things could be explained it would
make the entire picture seem believable.   

================================================================================
Note 53.255                The Inerrancy of Scripture                 255 of 258
JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze"     8 lines  11-MAY-1993 13:37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Hmmmm... Glen, I was thinking, you say believe in God without believing
| the Bible to be inerrant.  Can you tell just what attributes would you
| use to describe God?

	Will send mail.
    
| and then after you think of that one, let me ask you one more question,
 
	Cool.   

================================================================================
Note 53.256                The Inerrancy of Scripture                 256 of 258
ICTHUS::YUILLE "Thou God seest me"                   23 lines  11-MAY-1993 13:45
                                  -< re .252 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Sounds like you're not looking for answers at all, but rather for an excuse 
| to avoid considering anything which touches close to home.  

	I couldn't DISagree with you more.

| You realise, you're effectively saying that you reject a God you can't 
| totally understand?  

	Actually, you are saying that. I don't reject God at all. 

| And you'd have been asking Him, rather than us, for the things about the
| Bible that He has for you to learn.  

	And what makes you think I haven't asked Him?

| Do you realise that's just what God designed the Bible to do?  Confuse those 
| who don't listen to the Holy Spirit!  It's in 1 Corinthians 2:14...

	Andrew, I couldn't agree with you more! 

================================================================================
Note 53.257                The Inerrancy of Scripture                 257 of 258
SLBLUZ::DABLER "America Held Hostage - (insert day)" 22 lines  11-MAY-1993 13:46
                           -< What's the big deal? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| But, the question remains : What is the hangup you have with Christians not
| having all the answers?  

	I don't have a hang-up with you not knowing all the answers. But it
never ceases to amaze me when so many people can offer so many different
answers to any given question. 

	But the hang-up is when one says that the Word of God is inerrant, but
they don't have any means of proving it. By many giving different responses to
questions asked in here surely shows that the Bible's teachings mean different
things to different people. And when a discussion becomes heated over who's
right/wrong, then it shows a complete lack of understanding when it comes to
the Bible.

| If the two accounts of Judas' death do not contradict any teaching of the Lord,
| what difference does it make?  

	A book that is inerrant is not supposed to have one single error or
contradiction, right? Regardless of whether the <insert possible flaw> is about
a teaching or an event that took place shouldn't matter. The book is inerrant,
right? There should be ZERO errors in it then.

Glen

RE:               <<< Note 53.260 by JURAN::SILVA "Memories....." >>>


>	But the hang-up is when one says that the Word of God is inerrant, but
>they don't have any means of proving it. By many giving different responses to
>questions asked in here surely shows that the Bible's teachings mean different
>things to different people. And when a discussion becomes heated over who's
>right/wrong, then it shows a complete lack of understanding when it comes to
>the Bible.

I just need to quietly point out that even if one were to prove to themselves to
their own satisfaction that the Bible is not inerrant, there's still another
huge hurdle to be overcome to be able to discount the Biblical witness on any 
given issue: is the Bible *authoritative*?

I don't currently believe that the Bible is perfectly inerrant (stay tuned, the
Holy Spirit's not done with me yet. :-)  But I *very much* accept the Bible's
authority.  I've written long notes about why I believe that in older versions
of Christian.  I could dig them up if people are interested.  But for the most
part I have little need to address little nits of this sort, either to show that
the Bible's perfect or to show that it's not.

There's a sort of a scale of how you view the Bible:

	Inerrant      - God's perfect Word - every word true.
	Authoritative - Directed by God, but through human vessels.  Though
			every word may not be true, God's plan has prevailed -He
			has put into the Bible all that is necessary for 
			salvation.  The overall witness of the Bible on any 
			subject can be trusted.
	Inspired      -	God has spoken through some people in the Bible, but
			others are speaking on their own initiative.  Some 
			verses can be taken as God's Word, but others can be
			discounted.  Even if the Bible's overall witness on a
			given subject is clear, it may not be from God.
	?	      - Just a collection of writings by people searching for
			God.  Some parts may be from God, just as some words
			from any other source may be from God.  The Bible has
			no more authority than any other book.

It is not necessary to believe that every word in the Bible is perfect to 
believe that it is in fact God's Authoritative Word for our lives.  Even if you
were able to show to your own or anyone else's satisfaction that the Bible is
not inerrant, there is still a loooonnnnnnnggggg way to go before you come to
the point where the Bible's stance can be discounted.

Paul

Note 53.238 JURAN::SILVA

>Gee, all this info! Well, Marks has nothing to do with what's being
>discussed,...

It had to do with you discussing it.    (.232, .234, .236, were 
the contributions I made.)


.252

>        Well, many different people responding and many different, but not
>definitive answers. Words like speculation were used. Why nothing definitive?
>Religious people who follow the teachings of the Bible believe it to be the
>Word of God. But God and speculation don't go hand in hand.

The fact that none of these explanations suit you from people with various 
schooling in the matter show your intent more clearly than anything else
(to disprove the inerrancy of Scripture, which you have not done - you 
have only proved that you can get a variety of opinion on the matter).
You use your own standard to judge God's Word as false, rather than 
using God's Word as a standard to judge your reasonings.  This is backwards
and anti-Christian.

Religious people are not Christians.  Merely following the teachings
of the Bible doesn't make you a Christian.  Growing up in a Christian
home or a Christian church doesn't make you a Christian.  Following
the teachings of Christ (apart from Christ himself) doesn't make you a 
Christian.

Matthew 3:9  And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our
father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up
children unto Abraham.

Christ is the only One that makes one a Christian.

So before you trumpet your slanderous sarcastic remarks that "God and 
speculation don't go hand in hand," consider what speculation has gripped
you in perilous error.

Mark M

    Glen,
      A couple things.
    
    First, the Bible is the WORD of God. Now please do not confuse the
    MESSAGE with the text. God told us that He would preserve His WORD, the
    message - SALVATION. Now The Blble has been translated/transcribed and
    interpreted for centuries. So long as noone ADDS TO or TAKES AWAY
    anything of the message of SALVATION, it remains the inerrant WORD of
    God.  To remove the fruits of the SPIRIT is just as bad as adding
    Worpshiping mother Mary.  Both are damaging. Glen, it is the MESSAGE a
    christian concerns himself with not the black and white. - Now about
    the black and white. There have been many scholars over the years that
    have not been able to completely translate the old scripts, but they
    pray and try  REAL hard (at times conferring with MANY different
    denominations) to get the "RIGHT" context and message - to PRESERVE the
    ORIGINAL INTENT. To these scholars "atta-boy." Then there are the
    scholars who for one reason or another choose to add or remove pieces
    of scripture. Why? Ask Satan. Oh, BTW, Satan knows the Bible better
    than any scholars, christians or apostle. He has too, so he knows where
    to stop quoting scripture *small humor here* ;^)
    
    Now, how did the Bible come to be written. God tells us it was
    inspired, "God breathed". So why the differences. God had different
    writers, with different skills and talents and cultures so that He
    could get His Word to ALL. So much rich history is NOT included in the
    Bible, because it is NOT RELEVENT to the MESSAGE. (ALthough some times
    I wish HE did put the more controversial historical matters in there -
    but then it would have nothing to do with the MESSAGE would it. ;^) ) 
    Over the course of time, the books slowly came together. How did we
    know which books to include and which not? Easy, God PRESERVED His
    Word. How? Who knows, call it politics, petty arguments and possibly
    timing. (I once heard a funny stroy about a catholic priest that tried
    to get one of the books of the apothocraphia (sp?) into the Bible but
    he got to the print shop too late. Hence he had to wait for the
    catholic church to reprint the Bible with its 72 books.) In any case
    call it Divine intervention, God preserved His word.
    
    So Glen, look for the MESSAGE of SALVATION. There are clearly RIGHTS
    and WRONGS spelled out in the Bible. There is the WAY and the LIGHT
    within its pages. Try not to get "hung-up" on whether a parable in Luke
    comes before some other parable in Mathew. We are to just get that the
    action was, done, and for a reason, rather than chronology of Jesus'
    travels.  Sometimes the Bible will be very confusing, other times it
    may appear as a book of many contradictions. But, the trueth is that it
    is clear as a bell to one who sheds Earthy wisdom and dons the wisdom
    of God through the Son carried forward by the Spirit.
    
    Glen, one last thing. (Actually I am saying nothing new.) Concentrate
    on those things you do understand and can relate to. Then, increase
    your readings to new things, slowly. Soon, passages that have once held
    mistery will become alive. Do not fall into the trap that so many
    others have fallen into, - dogma. Keep your mind open to the Holy
    Spirit, continually beseeching the Lord to enlighten your heart and
    mind with His trueth. Put off preconceived notions. Search your Holy
    soul for the revelation of God. Do not permit Satan a foot hold. And
    lastly, - do NOT judge - but DO discern. Become all things to all people
    so that you may be able to share the Word revealed to you - to others.
    And LOVE, above all LOVE, for everything passes away.
    
    In Christ's Love,                                   
    	PDM
    

I found a contradiction in Scripture!

Proverbs
  4  Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto
him.
  5  Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own
conceit.

Now which is it?  To answer a fool or to answer not a fool?  
That is the question: whether it is nobler in the mind to 
damn oneself if you do or to damn oneself if you don't.

Proverbs 26:11  As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his 
folly.

Okay. I'm out again.  Have fun kiddies.

    First, I am addressing Glen's push to take his responses to mail.  I
    strongly suggest that you not go this route.  As he has brought this
    issue into public view, why now is he taking it offline.
    
    .264
    
    Paul, your authoritative stance without an inerrant Bible is
    wishy-washy.  It appears you are purporting a philosophy-based belief
    structure, versus a belief that is in season and out of season.
    
    How can one live one's life with an authority that is based on personal
    preference?  For example Peter's Vision as accounted in Acts.  
    I could interpret it myself something like this:
    
    Peter was wrong about his vision, he interpreted it as meaning that 
    salvation was now being dispensed to the gentiles, but when I read 
    the actual vision myself, I think God just meant we could eat all meat.   
    
    I believe this kind of thinking and faith is what Christ was talking
    about as being lukewarm.  
    
    In Him,
    Nancy
    

Re .267 Mark,

Well how about...

  4  Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto
him.

Paraphrase: two wrongs don't make a right.  If you act like a fool in his
folly, you blow it too, and you aren't showing the fool where he's wrong.

  5  Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own
conceit.

Paraphrase: correct a fool with wisdom and love.  Even if he doesn't change
(see Proverbs 26:11) at least you've shown him his folly, and he is without
excuse.

Are we having fun yet? :-)

In general: christians aren't here to change the world.  But we are here to
preach to the world the only message of hope for change, ie turn to the Lord
with all your heart and he will heal and restore you, and raise you up in
the last day, and you will be with Him forever.

Rob (one of the kiddies :-)

>    Paul, your authoritative stance without an inerrant Bible is
>    wishy-washy.  It appears you are purporting a philosophy-based belief
>    structure, versus a belief that is in season and out of season.

I sort of wish that I hadn't brought this up, because I really have no desire to
put myself in the position of even appearing to diminish the authority of God's 
Word.  I brought it up not to do that, but to point out to Glen that even if he
could prove to his own satisfaction that the Bible was not inerrant, that 
wouldn't destroy the authority of the Bible.

I suppose that my stance can be viewed as being wishy-washy, and in my life I
desire anything but wishy-washiness.  But a desire not to be wishy-washy is not
sufficient reason to believe something.  Neither is a desire for a written
inerrant authority sufficient reason to label the Bible as that authority.

I would love to believe in an inerrant Bible, I really would.  It would make
life so much simpler.  But I don't think I should be accepting something as
true because I'd like it to be true.

I'm sure part of a response to this will be about "believing by faith."  Rather
than allow that rathole to develop here and then have to move it to its own note
later, I'll start a note on that now.

Paul

Re:  .267

THE NOTE of this topic

| <<< Note 53.261 by SLBLUZ::DABLER "America Held Hostage - (insert day)" >>>



| Anyway, what I was trying to point out to Glen is that people have preconceived
| notions about many things in life.  And they bring those preconceived notions to
| bear in every facet in their lives.  If a person already believes that the Bible
| is flawed, it will be very easy for them to find a "proof" passage to show that
| the Bible is in error.  

	I think I can clear this up. There was a time (most of my life) where I
believed the Bible to be inerrant. Now, just why did I believe this? Because I
was brought up to believe it was. There is the preconceived notion that I had
of the Bible. 

	But, while reading the Bible I saw many things that I questioned. When
asking others about it (before I ever found this file) I was told that the
meaning hasn't been revealed yet, to believe it because of faith are two that
readily come to mind. 


The Meaning Hasn't Been Revealed Yet
------------------------------------

	This offers zero proof (to me) for saying something is inerrant. Either
it is or it isn't. This to me is more of a cop out for saying they really
aren't sure if it is or not inerrant. 


To Believe It Because Of Faith
------------------------------

	Again, to me this offers zero proof that the book is inerrant. I
origionally went in thinking the Bible was just that, inerrant. I came out
thinking something totally different. IF I am to believe something out of
faith, then I want it something that was shown to me to be true by Jesus 
Himself (as He has done soooooo many times before) and not something that 
a person has told me I should believe in. Jesus proves to me time and time
again just how real He is. That is something that REAL faith can be put into.
For me, having others tell me to believe the Bible is inerrant because of faith
that they tried to instill into me doesn't wash. If the faith is to be real,
then it has to come from the source, Jesus Christ.

| The passages you have indicated as discrepencies have time and again been 
| given very credible explanation.  Why do you refuse to even give those 
| explanations a chance?  

	Jim, first things first. I do NOT think that most of the explainations
have been satisfactory. I wouldn't keep asking if I thought that. To say
something like, well, even if they do contradict each other, it doesn't change
the teaching that Jesus is giving" isn't a good answer at all. Either the
entire book is inerrant or it is not. I think this explains the second question
as well.

| Are you waiting for God to tell you that the answers given are correct?

	Is He not capable of doing this?



Glen

| <<< Note 53.266 by MKOTS3::MORANO "Skydivers make good impressions" >>>





| So Glen, look for the MESSAGE of SALVATION. There are clearly RIGHTS
| and WRONGS spelled out in the Bible. 

	I agree with you on this Phil. I think we may differ on what rights are
actually right and what wrongs are actually wrongs. It all comes back to the
inerrancy thang. 

| There is the WAY and the LIGHT
| within its pages. Try not to get "hung-up" on whether a parable in Luke
| comes before some other parable in Mathew. 

	Again, to me this is a cop out. You only want to examine what you feel
are the important parts and not the entire book as a whole. To me this is not
the correct way to do things. 




Glen

| <<< Note 53.268 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>



| First, I am addressing Glen's push to take his responses to mail.  I
| strongly suggest that you not go this route.  As he has brought this
| issue into public view, why now is he taking it offline.

	Because Nancy, I thought I would have been in violation of the
conference guidelines. I did not want to do this, so I took it to mail. You
have said that my mail message to you would not be in violation of conference
policy, so if you wish to post it in this notesfile, feel free. I know the one
I sent to Mark Lovik might be in violation, but if Mark would like he can send
it to the mods and if they agree that it is ok to post, then please do. I
really have nothing to hide, but just thought that would be the better route to
go. Sorry for the inconvience.




Glen

.262 (Glen)

>	Again, to me this offers zero proof that the book is inerrant. I
>origionally went in thinking the Bible was just that, inerrant. I came out
>thinking something totally different. IF I am to believe something out of
>faith, then I want...

"...for [insert_name], man's understanding of God's character lies,
not in God's revelation of Himself to be taken by faith, but in our ability 
to reason out that character subject to the laws of our reasoning processes..."

Isaiah 55:8  For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my
ways, saith the LORD.
  9  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than
your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

"By this statement God certainly did not say reason and thought should be 
abandoned in the process of inquiry, but merely that no one can know the
mind, nature, or thoughts of God in all their fullness, see that man is
finite and He is infinite.  The term 'reason' and derivatives of it 
(reasonsable, reasoning, reasoned, etc.) are used eighty-eight times
in the English Bible, and only *once* in all these usages (Isiah 1:18)
does God address man.... God never said 'reason out the construction of
my Spiritual Substance or Nature,' or 'limit my character to your reasoning
powers.'"

Romans 11:34  For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his
counsellor?
 35  Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him
again?
 36  For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be
glory for ever. Amen.

(Quotes from _Kingdom of the Cults_, pages 55-56)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>	Jim, first things first. I do NOT think that most of the explainations
>have been satisfactory. I wouldn't keep asking if I thought that. To say
>something like, well, even if they do contradict each other, it doesn't change
>the teaching that Jesus is giving" isn't a good answer at all. Either the
>entire book is inerrant or it is not. I think this explains the second question
>as well.


"...even if they do contradict each other..."  

(1) They do not contradict.
(2) Your [dis]satisfaction does not change the Truth

>| Are you waiting for God to tell you that the answers given are correct?
>
>	Is He not capable of doing this?


God is not capable of doing this in your lifetime if you are unwilling to 
receive Truth when presented.  But you have not found certain Truths to be
"satisfactory."

Mark M

� I think I can clear this up. There was a time (most of my life) where I
� believed the Bible to be inerrant. Now, just why did I believe this?
� Because I was brought up to believe it was. There is the preconceived
� notion that I had of the Bible. 

Interesting, Glen.  While I was *instructed* that the Bible was truth from
my earliest youth, that wasn't the reason I accepted it.  In fact, I
accepted the Bible because I saw God there.  A real God, Who is more real,
even than my parents who would teach me to believe the Bible.  I rejected
some of their positions and statements on the Bible, because I could see
that God - the God of the Bible - was greater than what they were teaching.
The Bible is it's own witness, and to believe it because you're merely told
or taught to, in human obedioence *isn't* faith in God, it's faith in your
parents...!  So it's a good job you shook off that one.  Each person needs
to step into it for themselves (you know the saying 'God has no 
grandchildren'?).

The Christian faith has to be in God Himself, as revealed in the Word; not 
just in words.  It's through getting to know Him that faith in His Word 
becomes tangible.

� | Are you waiting for God to tell you that the answers given are correct?
�	Is He not capable of doing this?

He would do exactly that - *if* it were what you *need*, rather than what 
you *want*, satisfying curiosity, rather than learning to love and trust.  
The two tend to work in opposition, so that no-one can work or reason their 
way into heaven, which would make it a place of unbearable law....


							God bless
								Andrew

    !          <<< Note 53.273 by DEMING::SILVA "Memories....." >>>
    ! | There is the WAY and the LIGHT
    ! | within its pages. Try not to get "hung-up" on whether a parable in Luke
    ! | comes before some other parable in Mathew. 

!	Again, to me this is a cop out. You only want to examine what you feel
!are the important parts and not the entire book as a whole. To me this is not
!the correct way to do things. 

    Glen, perhaps I was not clear. I did not say disregard that which is not
    readily apparent, no! Rather, do not get "hung-up", meaning - stopped,
    or hindered by them. When you have read on or studied more, then - go
    back - re-read and re-exmine yourself (understandings) against the
    difficulty. If still there is no sense, seek onward. Continue this
    pattern until 1. either light will dawn (total relative understanding),
    or 2. the apparent "MEANING" is revealed.  Surely, there is no copout in
    this approach, in fact, it is just the opposite, it is a lot of work
    and perseverance.
    
    Glen, I would like to comment on your statement that you once believed
    the Bible to be inerrant and then changed your mind. If your premise IS
    to believe the Bible, and you find something you do not understand. It
    is ok to ask others, but, if the answer you get sounds ineffectual
    "wishy-washy", then disregard it. Glen, no one has a complete
    understanding (except maybe SATAN and of course GOD). Do not use man as
    your authority for the Bible, use the Bible and God. Glen, it all comes
    down to a matter of Faith as you said, but if you are going to
    "believe" in God and his Word, then DO THAT. If you chose not to
    believe what God has written is his inerrant Word, then BELIEVE THAT. 
    But realize that the Bible is then no longer a Message of salvation for
    you. Rather it becomes one of many fine philosophical pieces of
    literature that MAN has created! Therefore, toss your Bible away or
    at most put it on your bookself and stop treating it as something to
    be revered.
    Get off the fence! God does not like luke warm, "be ye either hot or
    cold but not lukewarm!" Whatever you chose to believe Glen is fine. If
    the Bible is with fault, then so is God. If that is your choice, then
    so be it, but then stop trying to get the Bible and God within to fit
    your mold, because it can't, (more appropriately God wont). But if you
    take the Word of scripture (not the black and white, but the Word) as
    true and God with it. Then you are allowing God and giving God to be
    the OMNIPOTENT one that He is. This of course means that one must
    therefore examine him/her self to FIT GOD's mold. Be as God tells us
    to be. Deny yourself and pick up your cross. "Be holy for I your God
    am holy." (Glen Holy means "apart"). No longer conform to the thinking
    of man but look to God for understanding. Yeld yourself fully to prayer
    and the fellowship of the saints. Use the Word as an instrument for
    encouragement, rebuke, comfort and life. This is the choice God would
    have for his holy people. But because of His love Glen, he has allowed
    you and each one of us (OUR OWN CHOICE), choose wisely. No one Glen,
    no one, in here or anywhere can PROVE to you that God's Word is Holy.
    Only the holy Spirit himself can reveal it to you, but you must
    pay attention, be quiet, "reflective", willing to examine yourself
    not against what you "believe" but against your heart. (But first you
    must seek him where he may be found. It is the spirit of each of us
    that seeks God, not all know what it is that they are seeking. Some
    believe it to be the things they understand. How silly we can all be.
    Man seeks peace but because of sin many (not all) can not find it.)
                                                                       
    Peace be with you,
       PDM

| <<< Note 53.275 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>




| "...even if they do contradict each other..."

| (1) They do not contradict.
| (2) Your [dis]satisfaction does not change the Truth

	Mark, not even the order in which things were created? Come on! How can
TWO totally DIFFERENT versions of the SAME thing be considered uncontradictory?



Glen

| <<< Note 53.276 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "Thou God seest me" >>>



| I rejected
| some of their positions and statements on the Bible, because I could see
| that God - the God of the Bible - was greater than what they were teaching.

	How do you know?

| The Christian faith has to be in God Himself, 

	Agreed 100%!





Glen

RE:              <<< Note 53.278 by DEMING::SILVA "Memories....." >>>


>	Mark, not even the order in which things were created? Come on! How can
>TWO totally DIFFERENT versions of the SAME thing be considered uncontradictory?




 I'm not Mark, but I KNOW this was discussed exhaustively to your 
 dissatisfaction in V6.  Why not just go back there and read it again and save
 the diskspace here?





 Jim

| <<< Note 53.277 by MKOTS3::MORANO "Skydivers make good impressions" >>>



| Glen, it all comes down to a matter of Faith as you said, but if you are 
| going to "believe" in God and his Word, then DO THAT. If you chose not to
| believe what God has written is his inerrant Word, then BELIEVE THAT.

	I am doing that Phil. Just not in here.... ;-)

| But realize that the Bible is then no longer a Message of salvation for
| you. Rather it becomes one of many fine philosophical pieces of
| literature that MAN has created! 

	Exactly.

| Therefore, toss your Bible away or at most put it on your bookself and stop 
| treating it as something to be revered.

	Uhhh Phil? I have already done that.

| Get off the fence! God does not like luke warm, "be ye either hot or
| cold but not lukewarm!" Whatever you chose to believe Glen is fine. If
| the Bible is with fault, then so is God. 

	To the best of your belief, yes, you are correct.

| If that is your choice, then
| so be it, but then stop trying to get the Bible and God within to fit
| your mold, because it can't, (more appropriately God wont). 

	I wasn't aware that I was trying to get the Bible to fit within any
type of mold. I view it as I do and haven't tried to change any of it. BTW, I
would NEVER try and get God to fit into any mold. That would be an
impossibility.

| This of course means that one must therefore examine him/her self to FIT 
| GOD's mold. Be as God tells us to be. Deny yourself and pick up your cross. 
| "Be holy for I your God am holy." (Glen Holy means "apart"). No longer 
| conform to the thinking of man but look to God for understanding. 

	I try and do this daily. I may not always succeed, but am trying
harder.

| Yeld yourself fully to prayer and the fellowship of the saints. 

	Hmmm..... while I do pray at any given point in my life I do so with
God, not anyone else. I guess if God pushes my prayer off onto a saint that's
ok, but I don't want to pray to a saint and bypass God. To *me*, that's a big
no no.

| Only the holy Spirit himself can reveal it to you, but you must
| pay attention, be quiet, "reflective", willing to examine yourself
| not against what you "believe" but against your heart. 

	Agreed Phil. Like I said, I try harder and harder everyday.



Glen

> From early on, some things in the Bible, I've had to say "I don't
> understand how this can be - either self consistent, or consistent with my
> understanding of the world around, etc.".  

I've experienced this too, and I've also experienced the resolution of many 
things that I thought were "inconsistent" or which didn't make sense to my world
view, when I later discovered that it was my world view that was wrong.  I will 
never point to any Bible verse and try to claim it is wrong, I will claim 
nothing more than my understanding of it is incomplete.
 
> ...my understanding is flawed.  In time, He may grant me more understanding.  
> Meanwhile, I have to leave it with Him, not arguing that black is white, 
> but that there's something more yet for me to understand here.  

Exactly.  I have been granted that increased understanding in many instances.
In some I have not been granted it yet, but that does not deter me.

> But I *know* that the *whole*
> Bible is written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit...One thing I 
> cannot question is the sanctity and total accuracy of the Bible as given.

*How* do you know, and *why* can you not ask this question?  If you "just know,"
or if the Holy Spirit has told you, then we are right back in Glen's position,
and I think this is what sometimes frustrates Glen.  I abhor the relativism
that is the result of Glen's view, but if our basis for claiming Biblical 
authority is that we "just know," then we've only added an intermediate step to
that relativism:

Glen:
	I "just know" that the Holy Spirit has told me that "Y" is OK.

Us:
	We "just know" that the Holy Spirit has told us that the Bible is God's
	perfect and inerrant Word, and the Bible says that "Y" is not OK.

*WHY* do you believe that the Bible is God's perfect and inerrant Word?

> Once any part of that is in question, my mind is being given more respect 
> than God is; the foundation is being attacked, and I have no reliable basis 
> to stand upon.  'God' replaced by 'me'....

This absolutely true - IF the Bible is God's perfect, inerrant Word.  But it's
only a statement of what is true given that premise, it doesn't address why the
premise itself is true.

Paul

	Paul, good note. You pretty much summed it up. Thanks! :-)



Glen

| <<< Note 53.285 by SLBLUZ::DABLER "America Held Hostage - (insert day)" >>>



| To say this is a cop out is to claim that the Bible is just a book.  

	Correct.

| If it is living,
| and it is, then it is entirely possible that the meaning has not been revealed
| to you yet because the Holy Spirit has not enabled you to comprehend the meaning
| yet.  

	In other words, cop out.

| You do not think they are satisfactory because if you EVER admitted that the
| Bible is inerrant, 

	Sigh..... did you read the entire note? You would see that I did state
IN THE BEGINNING I did believe the Bible to be inerrant. It was from reading it
that I discovered differently.

| it would require many changes in your life.  

	Let's put the life changes aside for just a moment. I had done that
LONG ago. I have been talking about the flaws that have nothing to do with
life, changes, etc. Just some good old thangs that I have seen to contradict
each other. I don't base my belief in the Bible on anything in my life. I base
it on something that is inerrant, God Himself.

| There are none so blind as those who will not see...

	I've always liked this line. Ever really listen to it Jim?


Glen

>	Paul, good note. You pretty much summed it up. Thanks! :-)

Sigh.  That's really not what I want to do.  I'm not expressing myself well here
at all.  I'm allowing myself to be drawn into the discussion on the side of
questioning the inerrancy of the Bible, because I do have those questions.  But
I'm coming across as denigrating the authority of the Bible, when that's the 
very last thing that I want to do.  Let me try again to restate why I entered
this discussion in the first place.

I very much relate to what Andrew said in that other note that keeps getting
mixed up with this one (we HAVE to get a moderator involved in this to 
straighten it out! :-)  I believe in the authority of the Bible because I've
found God there.  I've found salvation there.  I've found the Living Lord Jesus
Christ there.

It is clear from any serious reading of the Bible that God is speaking through
its pages.  Dozens of prophecies of a coming Messiah hundreds and even thousands
of years before Christ's birth.  Dozens of very specific prophecies of the
Babylonian exile.  And of course the introduction to the Lord, which through
taking that "leap of faith" (oh no, the other note!) has been proven true over
and over in great abundance.

So there's fact #1, which demands great attention to the Bible: God clearly
speaks there.  But the fact that God clearly speaks there through some words
does not necessarily mean that every other word is perfect and true.  If I read
a newspaper, and identify some places where it speaks the truth, it does not
follow that every other word is also true.  So now we go to fact #2:

There have been numerous occasions where I was *convinced* that something in
the Bible was incorrect or contradictory, yet I have come to see that I was in
fact the one who was wrong.  When I combine these two facts, I become completely
unable to discount anything in the Bible.  I *know* - not by "just knowing" but
by examination and experience, that God does speak through its pages.  And I
*know*, by experience, that I've been mistaken before.  I've found that
Scripture is more reliable than I am.  And so I trust it more than I trust
myself.  I approach Scripture in just the same way I would if I believed it was
inerrant - I assume that it is right, and if I can't understand it, I assume 
that it is my understanding that is lacking.

But though I have found it to be more trustworthy than myself, the leap from
there to inerrancy is one that I can't make - not yet at least.  God's chosen 
people, the ones He has chosen to do His work here on earth, have *always*
screwed it up, to one extent or another.  There isn't one Biblical figure - save
God Himself in Christ, of course - who didn't in some way distort God's plan
through them.  I haven't yet seen a reason given why the Bible should be the one
and only exception to this.

BUT, and this is a huge BUT, God's people have always gotten the job done that
needed doing, if not as perfectly as God would have done it himself.  This is
where Glen and I part company completely.  Glen finds one "contradiction" in the
Bible, and immediately stops revering it, and tosses it away or puts it on his
bookshelf as just another piece of literature created by man.  I look at it and
say "So fine, you found a contradiction.  The people God has chosen to do His
work have always been imperfect, but they have always done the job God needed
doing.  A flaw in the Bible in no way diminishes it from being God's message of
salvation, any more than Moses's disobeying God negates his leading the people
out of Egypt.  The overall message of the Bible is still just as true as it 
would be with a perfect and inerrant Bible."

**That's** why I came into this discussion in the first place.  I don't really
want to focus on why I don't believe the Bible is not inerrant, and I apologize
for allowing myself to be drawn into this discussion in that way.  If anyone is
interested either in trying to convince me or in finding out more of why I 
don't believe the Bible is inerrant, I'd be glad to continue off-line.  But I
will no longer air my questions about it in this conference.  They come across
to too many here as undermining the authority of the Bible, and I do not want 
to do that. 

My whole point in this discussion is to proclaim that God's message of 
salvation, and the overall witness of the Bible, is **just as true** if it is
flawed like every other thing humans have done as it is if the Bible is God's
perfect and true Word.  Finding one contradiction is not enough to discount the
stand of the Word, any more than it would be enough to discredit Peter's entire
ministry and the founding of Christ's Church by pointing to his failure and
denial of Christ.

Paul

================================================================================
Note 53.278  DEMING::SILVA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>| "...even if they do contradict each other..."
>
>| (1) They do not contradict.
>| (2) Your [dis]satisfaction does not change the Truth
>
>       Mark, not even the order in which things were created? Come on! How can
>TWO totally DIFFERENT versions of the SAME thing be considered uncontradictory?

You have had more than one witness in this conference testify that this has
been answered (to your dissatisfaction) in the previous conference.

================================================================================
Note 53.281 DEMING::SILVA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By definition of the Bible, you are not a Christian by your own admissions. By
your definition, you are a Christian.  We are in diametrically opposed camps
and cannot serve the same God, for God is not Cosmos, nor does He change.


================================================================================
Note 53.282                The Inerrancy of Scripture                 282 of 289
SLBLUZ::DABLER "America Held Hostage - (insert day)" 26 lines  12-MAY-1993 13:14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>As a very distinguished ex-member, ex-mod, ex-Digit once said:
>
>       " 1. Face wall
>         2. Bend at waist at high speed
>         3. Impact wall
>         4. Straighten body
>         5. Repeat steps 1-4 "


I wish I had said this, but I'm not very distinguished.  ;-)

================================================================================
Note 53.283   EVMS::PAULKM::WEISS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul,
  I did see your later reply but stillwant to respond to this:

>Glen:
>       I "just know" that the Holy Spirit has told me that "Y" is OK.
>
>Us:
>       We "just know" that the Holy Spirit has told us that the Bible is God's
>       perfect and inerrant Word, and the Bible says that "Y" is not OK.
>
>*WHY* do you believe that the Bible is God's perfect and inerrant Word?
>
>> Once any part of that is in question, my mind is being given more respect
>> than God is; the foundation is being attacked, and I have no reliable basis
>> to stand upon.  'God' replaced by 'me'....
>
>This absolutely true - IF the Bible is God's perfect, inerrant Word.  But it's
>only a statement of what is true given that premise, it doesn't address why the
>premise itself is true.


No one can prove that God exists (see Note 31.*) because no one can prove
infinity.  There is ALWAYS infinity+1.

BUT one can make a statement of faith (assurance) based on evidences.
Evidences of a Grand Designer, evidences of prophecies fulfilled, evidences of
miracles.  Someone in this conference said something to the effect that he
could believe the "ordinary miracles" but could not come to believe the
"big miracles."  I wondered how he could reconcile these two thoughts.
What is an ordinary miracle?

The Bible has evidenced itself.  "So what," is the countercharge, "Glen
has experiential evidence, too."  Indeed.  So in this we may have a conflict of
evidences, no?

The Bible testifies of itself.  It says that it is God's Word.  We believe that
or call it a liar.  What are the evidences of its truth?  The prophecies, the
accuracy of its history, the life experiences of the supernatural that testify
to it.  Do these evidences that stand in contradiction to another person's
evidences have good track records?  The Bible has proven to be completely
accurate.  Glen tries hard but "sometimes makes mistakes."  Which bodies of
evidences prove to be more reliable?

Witness for the defense:

o   The Bible is wonderfully united.

    Over 40 authors wrote 66 books in different lands and over a period of
    1,800 years .  Many never saw the writings of the others and yet there is
    no contradiction between any two of them.  Collect any group of book by any
    other 40 men on any subject and see if they agree.


o   The Bible is scientifically and historically correct.  No one man has even
    found the bible at fault in any of its man hundreds of statments on
    history, astronomy, botany, geology, or any other branch of learning.

o   About 3,000 verses of prophecy have been fulfilled, predictions made
    hundreds and even thousands of years before their fulfillment.  Not one
    detail has yet failed.  About 2,908 verses are being fulfilled or will yet
    be fulfilled.

o   Over 3,800 times Bible writers claim God spoke what they wrote.  The Bible
    itself claims to be the word of God (2 Tim 3:16).

o   Man could not have written it if he would, and would not have written
    it if he could.

    Good men must have written the Bible because it condemns all sin and
    records the sins and faults of its writers as well as others.  This, evil
    men would not do. Even good men would not do it unless inspired to do so to
    help others.

o   The Bible is superior to other books in its origin, formation,
    doctreins, principles, claims. moral tone, histories, prophecies,
    revelations, literature, present redemption and eternal benefits, and its
    general contents.

o   The Bible has influenced the world.  It has blessed millions in every
    generation, made the highest civilizations, and given man the highest
    hope of destiny.

o   All man's present and eternal needs are met by the Bible.  Redemption and
    promised benefits have been given to all who believed in all generations
    and this will always be so.

o   It has been preserved throughout the ages.  Whole kingdoms and religions
    have sought in vain to destroy it.  It is still victor and indestructable.

o   Hundreds of miracles are recorded in Scripture  and many happen daily
    among those who pray and claim Bible promises.

More later...

                        WHO WROTE THE BIBLE?

   The Bible was written by 40 different authors during a period of
   about 1,600 years.

   The Canon of Scripture means the complete collection of books which
   are regarded as of Divine authority. The Canon of Scripture was
   at first gradual and not created by ecclesiastical authority. The
   beginning was made by Moses. In David's time the office of recorder
   was established and detailed records were kept by all the Kings
   of Israel. The final collection of writings and the Canon of the
   Old Testament was compiled during the time of Ezra, Nehemiah...
   about 292 to 289 B.C.

   [All the Jews accepted these writings as the Holy Scriptures. Moses
   wrote the first five books, and many prophets of God wrote other
   books. They were collected and made up the volume we know as the
   Old testament.]

   Of the 8 authors who wrote the 27 books of the New Testament, not
   one ever suggested that he was adding to a collection of holy Scrip-
   tures; nevertheless, the New Testament books written by the apos-
   tles and other inspired men were soon held to be as sacred ad in-
   spired as the Old Testament books; and together, they became the
   rule of faith for the church.

   In the formation of the New Testament, 20 out of 27 were univer-
   sally accepted immediately as genuine. Only Hebrews, 2 and 3 John,
   2 Peter, Jude, James, and Revelation were questioned by some. The
   main objections were that Hebrews did not bear the name of its
   author; 2 Peter differed from 1 Peter in style; the writers of
   James and Jude called themselves servants instead of apostles;
   and the writer of 2 and 3 John called himself an elder instead
   of an apostle. The book of Revelation was questioned because of
   its peculiar character. After deliberate examination, however,
   these books were also received as genuine and authentic.

   -Dakes Annotated Bible, Page 510, Column 1

Some people say that the Bible is just another good book with good teach-
ings and is no different that other good books. The problem with this
idea is that with 40 different authors, how could one guy write so ac-
curately about what was going to happen in the future? Also, the 66
books of the Bible all agree with each other. All the prophecies about
Jesus that were predicted in the Old Testament about Him were fulfilled
down to the last one. Also, some of the teachings of the Bible are far
greater than anything a person could think of without God's help.

o  Luke 24:44-47

   He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with
   you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the
   Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

   Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.
   He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and
   rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgive-
   ness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, begin-
   ning at Jerusalem.

o  John 10:35

   If he called them 'gods' to whom the word of God came-and the Scrip-
   ture cannot be broken -

o  1 Corinthians 15:3-4

   For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that
   Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was
   buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scrip-
   tures, ...

o  2 Timothy 3:15-17

   ...and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which
   are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Je-
   sus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, re-
   buking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man
   of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

o  1 Peter 1:10-12

   Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that
   was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care,
   trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit
   of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of
   Christ and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them
   that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of
   the things that have now been told you by those who have preached
   the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels
   long to look into these things.

o  2 Peter 1:20-21

   Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came
   about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had
   its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were
   carried along by the Holy Spirit.

The Bible is INFALLIBLE (unable to fail) and INERRANT in giv-
ing us God's message of Salvation.

    Two good books on this subject are "Evidence That Demands a Verdict"
    and "More Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell.  As I
    mentioned in the last version of this conference, Josh originally set
    out to disprove the accuracy of the Bible.
    
    Dave

Paul, in .283, you agree that lack of understanding of the Bible does not 
imply error in the Bible, but rather, more truth yet to be revealed.  You 
base your salvation on following the Bible.  Yet you maintain that you can 
"question the sanctity and total accuracy of the Bible as given."

This implies giving the mind more authority than the Word; lets you pick
and choose what *you* want to believe, and re-interpret the Bible to make 
your own gospel.  I know you don't mean it to be taken that far, but any 
doubt on the integrity of what is written denies it's inspiration, 
washes 
out faith, 

� *WHY* do you believe that the Bible is God's perfect and inerrant Word?
Because of the witness of the Holy Spirit.  This was what I was trying to 
express when I said that this assurance is more real, solid and genuine 
than the instruction of my respected mentors.  This is what is meant by 1 
John 4.  This chapter speaks of the Holy Spirit living within the believer, 
and being the inner witness as to what is truth, and what is not truth.

"We know that we live in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His 
Spirit."  1 John 4:13

This is also reflected in John 14:26, John 16:13, 1 Corinthians 2:13.

I agree fully that this is what the Word claims for itself.  But I have 
tested it and found it to be true.  Totally true, in a way in which no 
person ever has the ability to approach.

This is also why it is incomprehensible to anyone *without* the Holy 
Spirit.  It seems an empty claim, because they do not read that there.
When the Holy Spirit enters in, suddenly the Book lights up, and new 
meaning appears.  A lot of obscure areas, but that is insignificant 
compared to the vitaliuty of what is revealed, and the light continues to 
spread.

To ignore where there is light, just because there is somewhere without, is
like rejecting the first page of a math primer because you can't understand
the last page. 

If the Holy Spirit is spreading light, *that* is where you look, because 
it is where you can be fed, and it's exciting to be nourished.  It's not 
very bright to go somewhere else, and complain you can't digest that food 
yet.  Inquire, discuss, ask the LORD, yes, but tunnel vision on a blind 
spot denies you the joy of receiving what He is giving.

To Glen, in reply to .286 :
===========================

�| and it is, then it is entirely possible that the meaning has not been 
�| revealed to you yet because the Holy Spirit has not enabled you to 
�| comprehend the meaning yet.  
�	In other words, cop out.

Glen, this is where your claim to be a Christian just doesn't seem to hold
water, to those who are learning to listen to the Holy Spirit.  the 
rejection of the inspiration as a 'cop out' just because it goes beyond 
normal human definition is the reaction of someone *without* the Holy 
Spirit, not the reaction of sonmeone *with* the Holy Spirit.

btw - yes, 1 John 4 also emphasises that there are other spirits to be 
tested and avoided...

� Sigh..... did you read the entire note? You would see that I did state
� IN THE BEGINNING I did believe the Bible to be inerrant. 
What we understood from your entry was that you 'believed' what you were 
told, as an external application.  It wasn't conviction, it was human 
obedience.  That, if anything, involved what has been referred to as 
'blind' faith, but faith in the person who instructed you, rather than 
faith in the Word itself, and certainly not a faith in God speaking it.

� It was from reading it I discovered differently.
Naturally.  You had to go through that to be reject the human instructor
element, which isn't worthy of glory.  You need to look a bit closer to 
find God.

- that's all I've time for here just now...

						God bless
							Andrew
	

| <<< Note 53.294 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "Thou God seest me" >>>




| Glen, this is where your claim to be a Christian just doesn't seem to hold
| water, to those who are learning to listen to the Holy Spirit.  the
| rejection of the inspiration as a 'cop out' just because it goes beyond
| normal human definition is the reaction of someone *without* the Holy
| Spirit, not the reaction of sonmeone *with* the Holy Spirit.

	Are you saying someone you you perceive to HAVE the Holy Spirit is
someone who when faced with a problem in the Bible uses blind faith to justify
the non-answer of a question they may have? (Like it hasn't been revealed yet
is = to non-answer)

| What we understood from your entry was that you 'believed' what you were
| told, as an external application.  It wasn't conviction, it was human
| obedience.  

	Isn't that were we all got started (well, most)?



Glen

    Faith is only a part of the whole thing. Since there are no
    contradictions or factual errors, this can be accepted on the basis of
    pure reason. Where faith enters in is for the passages that are
    difficult to understand (e.g. what was Paul talking about when he
    referred to "baptism for the dead?) or believe (e.g. the sun standing
    still).
    
    The more one studies it, though, and realizes that the things that
    *are* verifiable are totally true then the easier it gets to accept on
    faith the "subjective" difficulties that we bump into because of our
    limited and fallen nature.
    
    Now that I think about it, not only did this happen in my own life
    (i.e. I learned that the objective stuff is true, then God provided the
    faith for me to accept the subjective stuff), but the Bible seems to
    give this sequence itself: "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the
    Word of God." Sounds to me like if you can't come to accept the Bible
    as the Word of God, then faith may not come either. Hmmm..
    
    	BD�

Hi Glen,

No.  I'm saying that the reaction of a Christian and the reaction of a 
non-Christian to an obscure area in the Bible is essentially different.

The non-Christian uses it to judge the Bible, as if his lack of
understanding invalidated the whole, because he has nothing more solid to
go on. 

The Christian knows the Author, and is able to wait for understanding.  The 
aspects of the Bible he has found to be significantly and personally true 
vouch for the whole.

To the person without faith, this *is* a cop-out - a 'blind' faith,
because he hasn't got that relationship with the Author.  That is why
dismissing this as a non-answer says more about you than it does about the
Bible. 

I do hear some Christians bending over to imagine what the answer might be.
I have done it myself, but try to limit this to where I think the recipient
is honestly interested in possibilities, rather than battling with the
principle of the integrity of the Word at a deeper personal level. 

�| What we understood from your entry was that you 'believed' what you were
�| told, as an external application.  It wasn't conviction, it was human
�| obedience.  
�	Isn't that were we all got started (well, most)?

Not significantly.  The significant starting point was testing the reality 
of God.  It might have come from what was *thought* of as unbelief - but 
the awareness of His answer of truth overcame human teaching and even 
logic, to reveal a deeply personal, righteous and loving God.


								Andrew

| <<< Note 53.297 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "Thou God seest me" >>>



Hi Andrew!


| No.  I'm saying that the reaction of a Christian and the reaction of a
| non-Christian to an obscure area in the Bible is essentially different.

	I agree with this Andrew. 100%! But I think where we differ is in the
area of who is and who isn't a Christian.

| The non-Christian uses it to judge the Bible, as if his lack of
| understanding invalidated the whole, because he has nothing more solid to
| go on.

	I can see your point Andrew, but does that mean anyone who may think
this way about any part of the Bible is a non-Christian?

| The Christian knows the Author, and is able to wait for understanding.  The
| aspects of the Bible he has found to be significantly and personally true
| vouch for the whole.

	Blind faith.

| Not significantly.  The significant starting point was testing the reality
| of God.  

	Again, I agree with you 100% Andrew. Where we may possibly differ is 
how this test may be done. 



Glen

> But I think where we differ is in the
> area of who is and who isn't a Christian.

Glen, 

Jam fingers in ears, shut eyes tightly, and repeat to yourself whatever
you like at the top of your lungs.

To repeat something worth repeating (from Andrew's note):

>To the person without faith, this *is* a cop-out - a 'blind' faith,
>because he hasn't got that relationship with the Author.  That is why
>dismissing this as a non-answer says more about you than it does about the
>Bible. 

Mark

Hi Glen ... again ;-)

� ...where we differ is in the area of who is and who isn't a Christian.

Glen, we're not the judge.  He is the Judge, and shall not the Judge of all
the earth do right (Genesis 18:25)?  He knows the heart, while man looks
only on the outward appearance.  I'm not saying who is, and who isn't...

BUT - there are certain behavioural indications which bring a welcoming 
glow into the heart of a Christian, as he recognises another, and there are 
other reactions, which flash a red warning light; which indicate that *if* 
this is a Christian, there's something significant wrong or missing.  We 
expect the Holy Spirit to have an effect within us, to respond to Himself 
dwelling in others, and to sense the lack of Him elsewhere.

There's a passage in Luke 6 which is significant - verses 43 - 45.  It ends 
with 'out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.', referring to 
both the good man and the evil.  By their fruits you shall know them.

To 'be a Christian' implies asking the LORD Jesus to take control,
cleansing the heart from sin, and starting the lifelong work of
sanctification there.  That's the start.  It doesn't mean complete
enlightenment and wisdom immediately; it does rather imply an openness to
the LORD to learn and be built up, in various ways, including through the
Word which contains the record of God's dealings with mankind. 

Where that openness is missing, there's doubt as to whether the foundation 
has actually been laid.

You could build a ramshakle shed on a great, deep, strong foundation, but 
those who lived in the mansions round about would be very surprised to find 
that your foundation was the same as theirs...


�| The Christian knows the Author, and is able to wait for understanding.  The
�| aspects of the Bible he has found to be significantly and personally true
�| vouch for the whole.
�	Blind faith.

But Glen, if you don't know the Author well enough for *that*, how can you
possibly trust Him with your eternity????  Or is that something which
doesn't seem to matter so much as the minutes which fleet by?   Something 
insignificant enough to leave to blind faith!!!!?

						God bless
								Andrew

    I am way behind on my extracts from this conference and have little
    time to participate, but regarding Paul's "opinion," it only requires
    that one read a little further in 1 Corinthians 7 to understand why he
    wrote his opinion and that it in no way compromises Scripture:

	Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a
	judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.
		-- 1 Corinthians 7:25

    The God-breathed Bible stands forever in its entirety, regardless of
    our unbelief or skeptism; it is Truth.  Anyone who would question its
    validity would do well to question their own hearts first.  God is
    right, always.  Now, can we *please* get beyond this elementary
    point?

    In Christ's love,

				*** Daryl ***

I have been listening to a particular series on the radio which
deals with the attributes of God but seems like it could also 
apply in this note.  Moderators, if this is way off topic then 
a new note may be in order.

There are certain attributes that God has revealed to man through Christ, 
the scripture, prophets, and apostles.

The following attributes are just a small list.  However, I believe that 
there is an infinite number which we may never know even those who will be 
with Him in paradise.  Anyway, here they are.

    o God is imutable - unchanging
    o God is omniscient - all knowing
    o God is omnipresent - present everywhere
    o God is omnipotent - all powerful

Now believing that God that is unchanging, all knowing, present everywhere
and all powerful, it is most certain even with human reasoning that
God would preserve his Word (scripture).  To do anything else would 
seem to violate the attributes above. 

For example: There's a certain piece of scripture that appears to be
    contradictory or we don't like or think is wrong.  Since God is
    all knowing then it must be something that we are not getting.  God
    is surely not mistaken.  He also knows that there will be those
    that will try to dilute his word, may by accident or on purpose
    mistranslate or misinterpret that scripture.  Well, God has that 
    covered since he is all knowing he knew this would happen; and since 
    he is all powerful he will make sure that those who really want to 
    know Him and the Truth will get the understanding.

    If we don't get the understanding then it's not God's fault.  Since he's
    all knowing it must be that it's not for us to know now or ever and
    isn't that critical for our stay on this earth.
    

Now, if there is any one presently on this earth that has those very 
attributes listed above, then they will get my attention and scrutiny.
I don't see that person now.  According to scripture, and yes even 
according to history there was a man called Jesus.  There is also 
historical evidence of the Jewish nation and physical evidance of 
Noah's ark as described in the bible.  Hmmm. Seems to stand up to
some of those attributes above.  That God being omniscient and omnipotent
has preserved over these thousands of years the actual facts that puney
man is proving with physical and historical evidence now.

Seems to me, that man could have saved a lot of time just believing
what the bible (inspired by God) has to say about all matters rather
than fumbling around with our own reasonings and rantings.

Put God's word to the test.  There are places in the bible where God says 
Prove ME!   God also instrucst what will happen if someone does what he
says and what will happen if someone doesn't do what He says.  Study the 
scriptures and find at least those attributes listed above.  Then put the 
rest of the scriptures to the test.

                                             LIC 
                                            -Jim-




    

So here I am, currently dealing with this topic.  I've been wondering somewhat
about the fact that I am standing fast on the Word in some areas - and standing
fast publically and vocally - but I haven't been totally convinced that the Word
is perfectly worth standing on.  It hasn't been a forefront issue in my life, 
but it has been an issue.

So twice in the past 12 hours I have had a brother and a sister in the Lord come
up to me and tell me the Lord had given them a Scripture for me.  One of them
knew I had been dealing with this issue and felt the Lord was telling them this
Scripture was for me, but was a bit hesitant to tell me, as he wondered if it
was him that wanted to give me this Scripture instead of the Lord.  The other 
person gave it to me in a totally different context, and had not the slightest 
idea that I was considering this issue at all.  Yet both of them gave me 
*precisely* the same verses.  When I told him this morning that the other person
had given me these verses last night, he started laughing, and told me he had 
been wanting to give me those verses for a week, and was now quite sure they 
were from the Lord and not from him.

The verses are Proverbs 2:1-9:

   My son, if you accept my words             <<<------------!!!!! :-0
     and store up my commandments within you, 
   turning your ear to wisdom 
     and applying your heart to understanding, 
   and if you call out for insight 
     and cry aloud for understanding, 
   and if you look for it as for silver 
     and search for it as for hidden treasure,
   then you will understand the fear of the Lord
     and find the knowledge of God.
   For the Lord gives wisdom,
     and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.
   He holds victory in store for the upright,
     he is a shield to those whose walk is blameless,
   for he guards the course of the just
     and protects the way of his faithful ones.
   Then you will understand what is right and just
     and fair - every good path.

Yikes!  Don't you hate (Love!!!) it when the Lord takes out His gentle 2x4 and
gives you a couple of whacks?  This has not fully resolved itself yet.  But I'm 
going places I haven't been before, as the Lord leads me.

Perhaps soon I'll be joining in the voices saying the Holy Spirit has revealed
to me that the Bible is God's Perfect Word.  Who'da thunk it?  Certainly not me.

Praise Him!!

Paul

    Paul,
    
    "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be
    established." 2 Cor. 13:1 (Deut. 19:15)
    
    It sounds as if the Lord is really speaking to you.  It's interesting,
    because even though you admit to not fully "subscribing" to the belief
    in an inerrant Bible, it is clear that you are ready to be taught by
    the Lord.  I would *much* rather deal with someone in such a state than
    with someone in the converse.
    
    Mark L.

    Paul,
    
    drip, drip, goes my eyes
    deep sigh from chest
    squeak, squeak goes the voice
    when the Spirit brings sweet rest
    
    Praise God, for His mercy
    Praise God, for His love
    Praise God, for a people
    who turns their eyes above
    
    My God is alive
    and God's Word is true
    He lives within me
    and He lives within you
    
    Nancy
    
    :-) :-)

 While poking around my apartment recently I came across a bunch of tape
sets that I had ordered from Grace to You (John MacCarthur) several years
ago, which I had completely forgotten about.  One in particular leapt out
at me..called "Is the Bible Reliable".  Its 12 tapes dealing with science
and scripture, prophecy, devine inspiration, inspiration and revelation..
absolutely a blessing finding these tapes.  I've listened to 9 of the 12
and may go back and listen to a couple again.  

He states at the outset that the series is not designed to prove the Bible
to anyone..though it may help in bringing someone to Christ.  But it does
serve to bolster the faith of those who are nagged with doubts or questions
about the authenticity of the Bible.  He presents historical data, scientific
data, etc..



I'd be willing to loan these out to anyone local to New England, and perhaps
beyond, if they were interested in hearing these..




Jim

 Listening to one of these tapes on the way home tonight..McCarthur is talking 
 about 3 prophecies from I believe Zachariah, Ezekiel and Nahum.  He quotes a 
 mathemetician who likened the probability of these prophecies being fulfilled
 (which they were) to covering the state of Texas 35 feet deep in silver dollars
 marking one with an X and giving a blind man one chance to find it.





 Jim

Back in May I shared about what the Lord was doing in my life regarding my
approach to Scripture. (Reply .303)  He's been continuing to work on me in this
area.  He has impressed that on me even more firmly in the past month.  Through
several "cooincidences," through a word to other people and through vision, He 
has communicated in no uncertain terms that he wants me to depend upon and be
nourished by His Word.  In the vision I had, Christ was seated at a campfire by
himself.  As I approached, he leaned over and ladled some rich-smelling stew out
of a pot on the fire, and handed it to me, all without saying anything.  As I 
went to eat it, I saw that the plate was filled with pages of Scripture!

He still hasn't told me it's perfect, :-) but He has told me very clearly that 
He wants me to utterly depend upon it.

Praise Him!

Paul

    Paul,
      neat vision. I would call it a win! What would it take to make the
      Word perfect? - reading? study? dependence? - What? Paul, there is
      no proof for that which you seek other than the text itself.
      If you continue in the path you taking, you will become a very powerful
      advocate for the Word. For this only God can be praised.
    
     PDM_fight_the_good_fight_Paul

I'm not seeking proof that the Bible is perfect.  In a very real sense, it 
doesn't matter to me whether it is perfect or not.  For the most part in my 
Christian walk, (and in other areas of my life), I have given up striving after 
"why," when the answer to the question of "why" won't change the "what" of my 
response.  Not to say that I'm not interested, only that I don't make questions 
of "why" an issue or a focus of energy when "what" is already clear.

In this case, the Lord has shown me as strongly as He has ever shown me anything
that He wants me to depend on His Word and take my nourishment from it.  So I 
will, as best I can, in submission to Him.  He hasn't seen fit at this point to 
tell me WHY I should depend on it.  He hasn't told me that I should depend on it
because it is perfect.  He hasn't told me I should depend upon it because of
some specific effect that dependence will have on my life.  He hasn't told me
anything beyond:  "Depend on My Word."  

"What" I have to do is clear.  "Why" won't change the "what" at all.  If I were
to become totally convinced that the Bible was perfect, or if I were to become
totally convinced that it is NOT perfect, it wouldn't change what I've been
called to do: Depend on His Word.  So I'm not too concerned about "why."  For me
to actively seek proof that the Bible is perfect is something of a waste of my 
energy, since the answer is of no benefit to me except to satisfy my curiousity 
as to why He's told me what He has.  If it's important for me to know that the 
Bible is perfect, I'm sure He'll tell me.  In the mean time I'll work on what 
He has already told me.

Paul

    Paul,
      Very well put. Paul it is more important for some to live by "What"
    the Bible teaches rather than question its origin. More importantly
    though is the fact that it is read and adhered to by a confessing
    believer than pooh-pah'ed as just good phylosophy. When personal
    choices are made as to what parts will be adhered to and which will
    not, that is when the whole becomes questionable. - But you already
    know that, please never mind my prattle.
    
      PDM_8^)
    
    

    [This may not belong in this topic, but the note on a vision sorta made
    something pop into my head.  Mods, feel free to move this, if there is
    a more appropriate place for it.]
    
    I normally read the scriptures at night before going to bed (or
    sometimes in bed).  About a month ago, I had this weird dream.  I don't
    remember all the details, but the fact that I still remember it (I
    don't normally remember dreams unless I wake up immediately, then it
    usually fades) is strange.  In my dream I walked up to one of those
    metal drums used for a trash container.  In this drum was Jesus.  I
    walked up to the drum and pulled him out.  That's it, that's all I
    remember...pretty weird, eh?
    
    A very simple meaning just popped into my mind, as I begin to remember
    that the drum was in a street of a city (probably a big city).  That
    meaning is that as a society, we have litterally thrown God into the
    dumpster (not litterally, as in my dream, but you know what I mean).  By
    picking Jesus up out of the trash container, I guess that means that I
    should be bolder in proclaiming His word, and teaching about Him (or
    something like that).  Perhaps it shows that I haven't been picking up
    my Bible nearly as much as I should?  Any comments?
    
    I'm no psychology major or dream interpreter, but I think there is some
    significance to this dream.  If for no other reason than the fact that
    not once, ever, has Jesus appeared in any of my dreams.  Never.
    
    Okay, you can call in the guys with the white uniforms now...
    
    -steve

    I wonder why you would have thought Jesus needed you to save him from
    the drum ?

    Be careful not to develop a messiah syndrome. I've seen many Christians
    innocently develop an attitude in which they felt the need to save 
    people. Jesus is the one who saves us. Spreading the good news of His
    salvation means sharing it in a spirit of love. The faith people
    receive will not be from us, but from Jesus.


    Jim

Asked out of complete innocence, not really knowing you at all:

Is it possible that you have relegated Jesus to the trash bin in your own life?
Or if not to the trash, to a confined space that doesn't allow Him to be fully
Himself in your life?  Could it perhaps be a call to *you* to "let Jesus out?"

Paul

I saw a bumper sticker today that said, "Question Authority."  With the abuses
in power, it seems like a good thing to do.  Jesus also dealt with people
who had honest doubts.  Consider Thomas whom Jesus allowed to touch his
side because Thomas would not believe unless he had proof.  (That's
where we get the phrase, "Doubting Thomas.")  Consider also the man who 
said, "Lord I believe, help thou my unbelief."

But not all questions are sincere queries for data; there is a design to
them.  Consider the very first question in the Bible. 

Genesis 3:1  Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field
which the lord god had made. And he said unto the woman, yea, hath god said,
ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Do you think the serpent's motivation was to ask for clarification?  On the 
contrary, the serpent was asking to confuse the truth and replace it with a 
lie.  The plan *from the beginning!* is to confuse what is known; what is 
defined, what the Truth is.  And lies are particularly deceptive when they 
contain elements of the truth in them.

So you see, not all questions are the same, even if the same question
is asked by different people.

Questions about the Bible may come naturally.  Questioning the Bible's
authority is in the serpent's domain.  Examine the questions you ask,
and the motivation behind asking it even before searching for an answer,
if you ever intended to search for one.

Mark

    .315
    
    Mark, excellent note.  I think I'll use this in one of my family
    devotionals...its even good to translate into family relationships? 
    Ask yourself what motivates before asking a question.
    
    For instance;
    
    "Matthew, do you like batman?"
    
    "He's okay, but not my favorite."
    
    "Can I have your batman comicbook?"
    
    "Okay, I guess you can have it."
    
    Later on find out that the batman comic had some pages torn out and
    Clayton wanted to cover up that he'd confiscated this comic book
    without permission out of Matthew's collection.
    
    Seemed innocent at first though. :-)
    

Response to "Question Authority"

"If Authority answers, will you listen?"

Not appropriate in all cases, but certainly appropriate when applied to THE
Authority.

Paul

    Some interesting insights from Chuck Missler's seminar that I thought
    I'd share...
    
    A Rabbi once told him that the Bible is such an intricate and complex
    work, that when Messiah comes he will even translate the spaces.  Most
    people know by now the mathematical relationships in the Hebrew
    characters.  Chuck didn't think much of what the Rabbi said to him
    until he started to research some of the in-depth analysis some folks
    have done on the Bible.  That's when Matthew 5:18 leaped off the page
    at us.
    
    For instance, if you directly translate the word "Torah," from the
    Hebrew language, it's actually spelled "TORH."  Upon analyzing the
    Hebrew in the Pentateuch, some interesting things were discovered.  If
    you start from Genesis 1, count 49 Hebrew characters, you get a "T." 
    Count 49 more, you get the "O."  Repeat 2 more times you get "TORH." 
    The same applies to Exodus 1.  When you get to Leviticus and do this,
    you get gibberish.  However, if you count every 7th Hebrew character,
    you get "YHWH", which is God's name (for those not familiar).  Now the
    real interesting part.  In Numbers and Deuteronomy, you get "HROT" in
    their first chapters by counting every 49th character.  In the first 2
    books of the Pentateuch, the TORH points to YHWH, in the last 2, the
    TORH points back to YHWH.  The direct translation of TORH is
    "instruction."  It's telling us that the Word points to God!
    
    Another interesting fact:  the very first Hebrew letter of the Bible in
    Genesis 1:1 is a character that looks like the English "U", but is
    laying on its side with the open end to the left.  Hebrew is
    read/written right-to-left.  Hebrew sages have written thousands of
    years ago that this means that man can only know what is to the left of
    that character and all knowledge and information before that first
    character is out of our grasp.
    
    Final tidbit to chew on:  every phrase about God in the Bible where you 
    find "first and last" or "Alpha and Omega" is translated from the Alph
    and Tau (spelling?) Hebrew characters except for one.  In the Messianic
    prophecy of Zechariah 12:10, the original Hebrew for the phrase "...they
    will look upon Me whom they have pierced..." has the Alph and Tau in it
    but it is not translated into English.
    
    Along with Matthew 5:18, it makes me wonder what other golden nuggets
    are in God's infallible Word.
    
    Mike

>    Along with Matthew 5:18, it makes me wonder what other golden nuggets
>    are in God's infallible Word.
    
    Though God is never mentioned in the book of Esther, the name YHWH is
    intricately woven into several passages.
    
    Mark L.

    There is a passage in Isaiah (I think it's 42) that begins "Behold My
    servant...".  Starting after servant, count 7 words (in Hebrew) and
    take the first letter, continue 4 times - you find "yud, shin, vav,
    ayin" which is Yeshua.
    
    I was shown this last year, but i forget which chapter now.  I'll look
    it up and post it...
    
    Steve

Matthew 5:18  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot
or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

 Re .318 & .320  Gee, those guys that wrote the book musta spent a long
 time planning all that out before writing it down, eh?



Jim

   !           <<< Note 53.322 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Acts 4:12" >>>
   !                -< And they didn't even have computers! >-



  ! Re .318 & .320  Gee, those guys that wrote the book musta spent a long
  ! time planning all that out before writing it down, eh?
    
    	yea, it was like they were inspired or something,...
    

    which reminds me, the Bible would be a great test for an AI pattern
    searcher.  

Where did the 49 and the 7 come from?  I know 49 is seven sevens, but
still...  Did someone try every other letter, then every third, then...?

Paul

    it came from a monk (or Jewish equivalent) who was *really* bored one
    day, and starting counting things...
    :-)
    
    or theory #2
    the scribe who was copying the manuscripts got really bored and
    started noticing things...
    
    :-):-);-)

    The 49 is actually attributed to the number of days from Passover to
    the Festival of Weeks.  The Festival of Weeks commemorates the giving
    of the Torah on Mt. Sinai (I think that's the right mountain).
    
    The 7 is attributed to the number of days from Sabbath to Sabbath and
    is considered a divine number.

The principal author of the sacred books is God himself, who inspired the
human authors, or hagiographers, in their literary work and

	"by supernatural power so moved and impelled them to
	 write -- he so assisted them when writing -- that the
	 things which he ordered, and those only, they first
	 rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write
	 down, and finally expressed in apt words and with
	 infallible truth."

			-- Leo XIII, Encyclical "Providentissimus Deus"
				     ("The Most Provident God"), 1893

    We seem to be skating around an issue here, which in my mind is "man's
    interpretation or understanding" of the Bible.  All biblical scholars
    do not agree on what it says (e.g. pre-trib, post-trib discussions). 
    If the Bible was without error, how could you have diverse opinions of
    what the meaning was?  While I believe what others have said regarding
    the need to take all parts and not just the selective parts which
    better fit me, I recognize that all men do not agree on what is said.
    Remember it is the inspired Word of God, but men(all of whom are
    imperfect, except for Jesus) did the recording.  Since the scribes are
    imperfect, should we expect their work to be without flaw?

>    If the Bible was without error, how could you have diverse opinions of
>    what the meaning was?  While I believe what others have said regarding
    
    How can you possibly blame the views of fallible men on the infallible
    Bible?  Doesn't make sense.
    
    God didn't tell us everything in His Word.  He made it clear for things
    we should know, and some mysteries for us to rely on the Holy Spirit to
    figure out.
    
    Daniel 12 says in the last days, knowledge will increase.  As we
    approach the Day of the Lord, more of these mysteries will be revealed
    to us.
    
    Mike

>2) Biblical inerrancy is, in itself, an extra-biblical axiom: that is, it is
>an idea which one has to start with on faith, and which one cannot prove, even
>from Scripture.
    
    The testimony of God's Word is prophecy.  With the 400+ Biblical
    prophecies that have fulfilled thus far against astronomical odds, I'd say 
    that's proof enough alone that it's inerrant.  Furthermore, we know God
    is inerrant and the Bible tells us it is His inspired word.  Finally,
    when you sealed with His Holy Spirit upon salvation, the words come
    alive and people's lives are changed.  What more proof do you want?
    
    Frankly, I'm more than a little disgusted by the tone of many in this
    topic.  You shouldn't be disrespecting God's Word like that.
    
    Mike

    An interesting passage I recently considered -- it is speaking of the
    direction that David gave to Solomon for the building of the temple.
    
    1 Chronicles 28:12 And the pattern of all that he had by the spirit, of
        the courts of the house of the Lord, and of all the chambers round
        about, of th e treasuries of the house of God, and of the
        treasuries of the dedicated things;
    
    1 Chronicles 28:19 All this, said David, the Lord made me understand in
        writing by his hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern.
    
    I found it especially interesting that David says the Lord made him
    understand *in writing*.
    
    Mark L.

    re: .18
    
    Mike - do you really mean superseded?  How do you square that with his own
    words in Matt 5:17?
    
    Fulfilled - not superseded.  Moreover, keep in mind that the commands
    reffered to earlier are the specific commands required of the Jewish
    people; commands which Gentile believers in the Jewish Messiah are not
    required to observe (Acts 15).  That's why those things are acceptable
    among Gentile believers.
    
    Steve

RE:                     <<< Note 461.19 by SIERAS::MCCLUSKY >>>
                           -< Who were the editors? >-

  >    Remember it is the inspired Word of God, but men(all of whom are
  >  imperfect, except for Jesus) did the recording.  Since the scribes are
  >  imperfect, should we expect their work to be without flaw?



     One needs to understand the process the scribes went through as they
 copied documents.  It was not just a simple matter of copying something down.
 There were rigourous edits/re-edits and checks on the edits/re-edits.  


 If we can believe God created the universe, then we can certainly believe 
 that He is able to preserve His Word (which by the way has survived numerous
 attempts to wipe it from existance).




Jim

>    Mike - do you really mean superseded?  How do you square that with his own
>    words in Matt 5:17?
    
    Fulfilled probably would've been a better word, but I kind of had God's
    grace over the Law in mind (Romans - under grace, not law).

    Notes regarding inerrancy moved to this topic.
    
    Nancy
    Co-mod CHRISTIAN

    re: .330  - Communication is a two-way process. If I do not understand
    what you are saying then we both have a problem.  You are not
    transmitting the information in a way that I can understand it.  It is
    not all my fault that the communication is faulty, nor is it all your
    fault.  My point is that if it were perfect, then we would all
    understand completely and be in agreement about all things contained
    therein.  This is not the case.  How do we explain this in light of the
    inerrancy?  I suggest, that it is partly the scribes (an earlier note
    stated that it was not just writing it down, no that is true, for a
    long time it was committed to memory and then written - the evaluation
    and recording came a long time after the first written text) and partly
    our problem, since this is a two way street.
    
    I would welcome a good explanation of why we do not all agree on every
    point, such as the pre/post-tribulation example I suggested earlier. 
    It would help me in the question of inerrancy.  I doubt that both views
    are correct.

Daryl,

    In a person to person interchange, I would agree with your description
    of the dynamics.  But to imply that either God didn't make Himself plain
    or that He was unable to keep His word from being perverted is more of
    an insinuation against the power and integrity of God than the Bible.
    The problem is with us and not with God.  There are many references 
    in Scripture as to why we don't understand or completely agree on 
    every point of doctrine.  The common thread is that we are yet carnal 
    and in this mortality we are not capable of understanding all the 
    things of God.  Paul, to the church at Corinth, and John, in his 
    first epistle, speak plainly of growing in spiritual understanding.  
    We see darkly because we're spiritually immature and we defend our 
    opinions to the death because of pride.  Of course, that's only an 
    opinion.

    1 Corinthians 13:9-12
    (9)  For we know in art, and we prophesy in part 
    (10) But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in 
         part shall be done away. 
    (11) When I was a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; 
         but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
    (12) For now we see though a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now 
         I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known

Isaiah 55:8-9
    (8)  For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my 
         ways, saith the Lord.
    (9)  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my thoughts 
         than your thoughts.

1 Corinthians 1:19-23 (actually all of chapters 1, 2, and 3)
    (19) For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and 
         will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
    (20) Where is the wise?  where is the scribe?  where is the disputer 
         of this world?  hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
    (21) For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not 
         God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them 
         that believe.
    (22) For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
    (23) But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, 
         and unto the Greeks foolishness;

1 Corinthians 3:3
    (3)  For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, 
         and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

    

    This note will appear out of context and rightfully so...  It was in
    response to the supposing different views of Peter and Paul and how
    that added to the lack of inerrancy.  Thought it all won't be in
    context... the idea of infallible men writing the Bible is addressed.
    
    -------------------------
    
    Intellectual reasoning of the scriptures profits very little.  It does
    profit the intellect, but does nothing for spirit of man.
    
    The obvious discrepancies that you speak about are seamless to me. 
    I've read the book of Acts in its entirety as a collective study
    approximately one year ago.
    
    IMHO, both Peter and Paul were right.  Not everyone can teach children,
    not everyone can teach senior saints... and not everyone can teach the
    manifestation of Christ in Judaism.  Peter was GREAT at this.  Paul was
    not.  Paul's transformation was like night and day to the Jews.  He
    became a fanatic to them with teachings that took the church's control
    away.  Many Jews believed in Christ, but weren't baptized, many Jews
    believed in Christ, but held onto the legalism of the Law... it was
    Christ + the Law that saved in their reasoning.  Why?  Because they
    wanted the *control* of the people left in tact.  
    
    I see Peter's role in leading the Jews into Grace without lawlessness
    [in the sense of chaos] as being a calling that Paul himself desired. 
    But Paul's calling was not to Jerusalem, but to the Gentiles.  Paul
    *loved* the Jews so much that he disobeyed the Spirit to go to
    Jerusalem, where he ended up suffering.
    
    The fallacy of the humanity of Peter and Paul, does not discredit the
    inerrancy of the word of God.  As a matter of fact, it heightens the
    credibility of the Bible as being a book of Truth, as it doesn't
    whitewash over the sinfulness of *any* man.
    
    I praise God that despite my sinfulness I can still do things for Him
    that are pure.  When I teach my Sunday School Class, when I hold the
    hand of a Sr. Saint and aid a disabled person.  God still works through
    me, though I'm not a clean vessel... just a surrendered one.
    
    And that is why Peter and Paul though fallible, could infallibly write
    the word of God.... *surrender*.
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy
    
    

    
                                                                           
    <But to imply that either God didn't make Himself plain or that He was 
    <unable to keep His word from being perverted is more of an insinuation 
    <against the power and integrity of God than the Bible. The problem is with 
    <us and not with God.>
    
    Please re-read my comments.  I did not suggest that "God" didn't make
    himself clear.  My point is that the people (men, "scribes", recorders
    of the inspired Word of God) did not record the Word, so that we all
    agree on its meaning.  I am referring to the inerrancy of the Bible and
    suggesting that the men who wrote and those of us who read are not 
    communicating 100%, otherwise there would not be a divergence of
    opinion as is manifested in the example of the tribulation.
    
    Maybe I don't understand the discussion.  I tried to say that I have
    bet my life on the truth of the Bible and my understanding of it and
    what others have helped me understand.  But, I would not wager that
    every single word is absolutely correct.  If each and every word is 
    without error, why do we have these differences of understanding?  Men
    were writing for other men to understand and that does not always
    occur, but someday God will reveal all to us.  Am I missing something?  
    
       
     

    just as you can have different views of the same event from different
    people, one can get different things from the Truth. Not that all are
    necessarily correct.
    
    I don't know that it would be possible for someone to write something
    such that everyone who read it got exactly the same thing from it (tho
    I suppose God could if He wanted:-) I think He wrote the Bible kinda
    like the parables - if it were perfectly clear on everything, we
    wouldn't have to work at it - besides I know many people who really
    enjoy debating what it all means, so ...;-)
    I think if it were clear on everything, it would have to anticipate
    every (and answer every) question about its meaning.
    
    woa its's getting late for me 
    my brain is frying - hope this makes sense in the morning... :-)
    
    
    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..................

    Daryl,
    
    My apologies if I misunderstood.  I may have presumed a position which
    you did not intend.  It would help me to understand where you and
    others who deny inerrancy are coming from if you could answer a
    multiple choice question.  Do you believe that the Bible is a
    collection of books that:
    
    	A)	Are authored by men to mankind about God.
    	B)	Are authored by God, through men, to mankind about Himself.
    	C)	Are authored by (fill in your own if neither of these
    		works for you)
    
    Thanks.
    

Re 53.329 and .341

    I think there is a slight problem with terminology. When you talk about
    editors and scribes, I think you're talking about the folks who came
    after the initial writers to make copies of the original manuscripts.
    Very few would argue for an inerrant 1994 Bible (or even an inerrant
    1611 ;-), but evangelicals do argue for an inerrant *original*.

    Given that the original autographs were what was inspired, and
    therefore inerrant, your real question (I think) is why there are so
    many different interpretations of the meaning of what is likely that
    original text. This is not an inerrancy question. Two different people
    can read the exact same sentence and come away with different
    understandings of what that sentence means. It doesn't mean that the
    sentence is wrong, it's just an indication of what perceptions folks
    bring to the interpretation table.

    A simple example will illustrate my point. Here's the sentence:

	"My son needs to wear corrective vision equipment."

    What does that mean? My son wears glasses? My son wears contact lenses?
    My son wears neither, but he should? Is the boy who lives with me my
    son? Is he my biological son? Adopted? Step-child? Why does he need to
    wear this equipment - to survive? To do well in school? To drive?

    I don't need to belabor this (further). I assure you that my sentence
    is 100% true, accurate, inerrant - when understood in the way I
    intended it. I had no intention of being misleading, vague, or
    inaccurate. I just wanted to convey one basic thought. However, even
    though the sentence is inerrant, you can see how many questions abound,
    the answers to which could result in quite varying interpretations of
    what my sentence really means.

    When it comes to the Bible, the problems are multiplied millions of
    times because of the thousands of sentences that it contains. The goal
    of the honest student is to understand what it all means as God
    intended it when He inspired it. This means getting to know Him as well
    as possible (e.g. if you knew me you'd know that the boy who lives with
    me is my biological son, and that he's not old enough to drive - that
    eliminates some of the questions right there). It also means following
    proper hermeneutical principles: knowing the culture of the period,
    seeing how other parts of the Bible shed light on the passage under
    consideration, understanding the vocabulary that's used, etc.

    Bottom line: the Bible, in its original form, is truly without error.
    This in no way implies that we can't misunderstand it, but it should
    give us tremendous incentive to seriously study it so that we can
    "rightly divide" the word that God has given us.

	BD�

    Thanks Barry, your description of my thoughts is excellent.  I said
    that I accepted the entire Bible, but I had my doubts about the book as
    it exists today, because men have written it.
    
    Kent, I am probably on "B", as I said it," Remember it is the inspired
    Word of God, but men(all of whom are imperfect, except for Jesus) did the 
    recording."  I believe Barry's effort is the clarification needed.  I
    have never said you could ignore any part of the Bible, but I can't
    ignore that there are imperfections in the way men have written the
    book.
    
    Thanks again Barry.

    Wow - I don't think any of my replies ever got a "eureka". Thanks :-)
    
    I would add, however, that although our current versions aren't
    guaranteed to be inerrant, the science of textual criticism has come a
    long way towards getting today's Bible very close to what was likely
    the original text (which, again, was inerrant). Moreover, the areas
    that are still iffy don't affect any doctrines that I'm aware of.
    
    	BD�