Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Is there any book, any chaptern, any verse, any word (any
scratch mark) in the Bible that someone (who doesn't accept
inerrancy) considers totally true and from God?  If so, why?
If not, why not?

re Note 820.1 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> Is there any book, any chaptern, any verse, any word (any
> scratch mark) in the Bible that someone (who doesn't accept
> inerrancy) considers totally true and from God?  If so, why?
> If not, why not?
  
        Collis,

        I've said this before and I'll say it again -- I believe that
        God is TRUE  -- everything else is a non-issue in comparison.

        Bob

  >I believe that God is TRUE  -- everything else is a non-issue 
  >in comparison.

Please explain.  Does this mean that what God *says* is
true?  Or is this a non-issue?  Does this mean that what
God *reveals* is true?  Or is this a non-issue?  Does this
mean what the prophets of God *write* is true?  Or is this
a non-issue?

Collis

    The word "egypt" crops up a few times and I beleive it is true. Why?
    I've been there!
    
    Seriously. I do not believe that any part of the bible is "from God"
    in the sense that God caused the actual words to be written as they
    are written. I would accept that a very large part of the bible is
    written by sincere believers who - out of love, awe, fear of God -
    wrote what they wrote as they wrote it. (In this sense, the words
    are "inspired" by God or, even, "God-breathed").
    
    I further believe that the bible texts are "true" as the writers
    saw it. In relating the myths of the past, the writers took the
    current spoken legends of their culture and committed them to
    (old-fashioned) paper. Some of these myths were written down more
    than once by different authors in different cultures. That does not
    make them less true from the point of view of the author, even though
    we - as critical readers - can see differences in the stories. For
    this reason, I cannot accept (for example) the "Moses as sole author
    of the Pentateuch" doctrine. Neither can I accept bible-critics who,
    confronted with two distinctly different (for example) Noah stories,
    say "either a is true or b is true or neither is true but they cannot
    both be true" because they are judging from thier point of view and not
    that of the respective authors.
    
    Further, I have extreme difficulty - which is why I am in this
    conference - in understanding the Christian religion in terms of the
    recorded life of Jesus. I understand it better in terms of the inter-
    pretive theology of Paul and the history of the early church.
    
    If I may give an example of where my difficulty lies:  Jesus is the
    pivotal figure between the Old and New Covenants (which explains why
    Christians have the OT as part of their Canon).  Jesus, however, no
    matter how I read it, was a man who was a Jew, preaching Judaism to
    the Jews. His expressed intention was to not change the law. There
    are a few sentences, and a couple of chapters, of the Gospels which
    have been editied in later (evidenced by comparison of surviving
    duplicate manuscripts or fragments) which give a slightly less 
    vigorous picture of a defender of Jewish Law.  Given this, and given
    that the Jewish Law - from the earliest days up to the present day -
    calls for the individual to atone for his sins. The sacrifice was to
    be brought by the sinner.  However, Christian thoelogy maintains that
    God offered his son to atone for the sins of the people.
    
    This is a 180 degree turn-about (that the offened and not the offender)
    that I just cannot find a foothold in Christianity.
    
    It also seems "strange" to me that, if I were to "see the light" and
    find a path on the Christian road - which would be a liberal path
    (since, as I have shown above, I do not accept the words to be "of
    God"), I would be made to feel unwelcome by a large proportion of
    my "brother/sister" Christians: namely those who interpret the bible
    differently.  It is a strange society.  I continue to look for the
    key but I am not sure that, even if I find it, I will turn it. My
    own form of love seems to me to be *at least* as good.
    
    Greetings, Derek. 
       

re Note 820.3 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON:

>   >I believe that God is TRUE  -- everything else is a non-issue 
>   >in comparison.
> 
> Please explain.  Does this mean that what God *says* is
> true?  Or is this a non-issue?  Does this mean that what
> God *reveals* is true?  Or is this a non-issue?  Does this
> mean what the prophets of God *write* is true?  Or is this
> a non-issue?
  
        It means that have no perception or understanding of ANYTHING
        without the involvement of my limited human mind, with all
        its biases.

        I trust in God.

        Nothing that I perceive or understand is absolutely
        trustworthy.

        Bob

>    that the Jewish Law - from the earliest days up to the present day -
>    calls for the individual to atone for his sins. The sacrifice was to
>    be brought by the sinner.  However, Christian thoelogy maintains that
>    God offered his son to atone for the sins of the people.

The paradigm shift is prefigured in OT prophecies calling for a sacrifice
of a contrite heart rather than rams and goats.

In the OT atonement sacrifices, a victim, an unblemished animal from the herd,
was sacrificed on behalf of the people, in a morning and evening sacrifice.
See Exodus 29:38-43 and the first chapter of Leviticus.  Orthodox Jews still
seek to reestablish the temple sacrifice in Jerusalem.

In the ultimate atonement sacrifice, Christ, a perfectly unblemished victim,
offers himself for all mankind.  In the ultimate act of Christian worship,
the Holy Eucharist, instituted by Christ the night before he was crucified,
the benefits of the sacrifice of Christ are made present for the faithful,
who repent of their sins, offer their sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving,
and unite themselves, their souls and bodies, with Christ and His one
sufficient sacrifice once offered on the Cross and now continually offered
for us by Jesus to the Father in heaven.

/john

Re: Note 820.4             
VNABRW::BUTTON "Today is the first day of the rest " 57 lines  10-JAN-1994 10:35
    
>>    Further, I have extreme difficulty - which is why I am in this
>>    conference - in understanding the Christian religion in terms of the
>>    recorded life of Jesus. I understand it better in terms of the inter-
>>    pretive theology of Paul and the history of the early church.
  
Are you referring to the Gospels?
  
>>    If I may give an example of where my difficulty lies:  Jesus is the
>>    pivotal figure between the Old and New Covenants (which explains why
>>    Christians have the OT as part of their Canon).  Jesus, however, no
>>    matter how I read it, was a man who was a Jew, preaching Judaism to
>>    the Jews. His expressed intention was to not change the law. There
>>    are a few sentences, and a couple of chapters, of the Gospels which
>>    have been editied in later (evidenced by comparison of surviving
>>    duplicate manuscripts or fragments) which give a slightly less 
>>    vigorous picture of a defender of Jewish Law.  Given this, and given
>>    that the Jewish Law - from the earliest days up to the present day -
>>    calls for the individual to atone for his sins. The sacrifice was to
>>    be brought by the sinner.  However, Christian thoelogy maintains that
>>    God offered his son to atone for the sins of the people.
    
>>    This is a 180 degree turn-about (that the offended and not the offender)
>>    that I just cannot find a foothold in Christianity.
    
The law was established by God to reveal our sin to us.  Paul tells us in Romans
4 I believe that where there is no law, sin is not imputed.  Jesus did not
come to change the law, and he did not, but remember, Paul explains again in
Romans 3 and 4 that justification before God ALWAYS has come by faith.  He uses
Abraham as the perfect example.  "For Abraham believed and it was credited to 
him for righteousness".  Also see Isaiah 1 where God is exhorting the nation
of Israel.  He says he find no pleasure in the blood of bulls and goats.  His
ONLY interest was in their repentance of sin.  Habakkuk writes that without 
faith it is impossible to please God.  This is echoed by the writer of Hebrews
I believe.  You will find most of the writings of the New Testament are an
explanation of the writings of the Old Testament.  What has changed though, is
that at one time, the sacrifice had to be made at the temple for the atoning 
of a person.  One stipulation is that although God desired mercy over sacrifice,
there is also the teaching of God that, "without the shedding of blood, there is
no remission of sins."  In a nutshell.

1. Belief and faith was always the only way to bring righteousness.
2. The sacrifice of the OT covered the sins of the nation.
3. The law is established to show us how sinful we are.
4. The sacrifice under the Mosaic law was a picture of what the Messiah must do.

>>    It also seems "strange" to me that, if I were to "see the light" and
>>    find a path on the Christian road - which would be a liberal path
>>    (since, as I have shown above, I do not accept the words to be "of
>>    God"), I would be made to feel unwelcome by a large proportion of
>>    my "brother/sister" Christians: namely those who interpret the bible
>>    differently.  

	Derek, you have set a paradigm for yourself here.  Paul the apostle 
was bent on persecuting the church to the final drop of his blood and to the
glory of God.  You do not know for sure what path you will lead.  
        Untrue on the last statement.  My personal opinion is that one should
never feel unwelcome in any respects.  However, I am a firm believer in 
accountability ond when one sets an idea on a foundation, it is expected that
the same person be able to defend their point of view to the hilt.  This means,
no touchy feely doctrines allowed, must have substance over symbolism.

>>  It is a strange society.  I continue to look for the
>>    key but I am not sure that, even if I find it, I will turn it. My
>>    own form of love seems to me to be *at least* as good.
   
Remember Derek, we are born into sin, we are enemies of the most high.  This
is a condition that cannot be helped.  Pure agape love is yielding our very
lives to the Most High!!  

-Jack     

    To directly address the topic, one must ask themselves what portion of
    scripture would hold more validity than another.  Particularly since
    God has been acknowledged by all of us as one that can easily act out
    of the ordinary.  Why would one portion of scripture be accepted as
    truth where another be as accepted as false?  Also keep in mind, that
    our standards play absolutely no part in the decision.  Remember, our
    wisdom falls on shaky ground.  We have already addressed the questions
    of things like,  Why would God send a person to hell?  He is a good
    God, therefore, he would not do this!  Remember, you are judging by
    your own standards, shaky ground, right?
    
    -Jack

	Without using the Bible, can the Bible be proven to be inerrant?


Glen

Re:  .4

Hi Derek,

Are you aware of the Old Testament references that God will
redeem his people?

Are you aware that in Genesis 12 when Abram should have walked
through the animal halves in order to pledge his allegiance
to God that God put Abram to sleep and walked through the
animal halves himself?  The sacrifice of Jesus was NOT the
first time God took upon Himself that which man should have
done.

Are you aware that Jesus himself knew that He came to die
and expressed this to His disciples?

Can you see that the sacrifice that God instituted in the
Old Testament was imperfect and incomplete and never-ending
and that this is not an eternal solution?

The problem that you seem to be pointing out is that God
Himself offered the sacrifice instead of the people.  I
understand that this is different than you might expect; I
don't understand why this would invalidate (in your mind)
the gospel (including the atonement).

Collis

Re:  .5

Thank you, Bob.

I understand (and to some extent agree) that we can know
nothing.  Feel free to comment on any areas that you believe
God breathed and are convinced that it is true (whether it
is actually true or not).

Collis

Re:  .4  - more

BTW, a 180-degree turn would seem to me to be more like
requiring a sacrifice for the payment of sin and then
simply saying that sin requires no sacrifice whatsoever.

Recognizing that the people were incapable of providing
an acceptable sacrifice and providing it Himself seems
to me to be a very logical step, not a 180 degree turn.

Collis

	re 820:7 Jack Martin

	Thank you for a very full and  concerned reply. I wish to make
	a couple of comments.
	
	>you will find that most of the writings of the New Testament
	>are explanations of the Old Testament.

	In principle I agree with this. As I said in my note, I have
	little difficulty in understanding Christianity from Paul's
	perspective. And most of the NT is written by Paul and the bulk
	of his writing is explanationatory vis a vis the OT.

	However, I hold his explanations to be faulty on many occasions,
	and I see them as re-interpratations in the light of his own
	agenda. (You may remember an earlier discussion, started by me,
	on the exgesis of part of his Galations letters, for example).
	I do not "condemn" him for this, but you will understand that I,
	holding this view, cannot commit myself to a Pauline Christianity.

	Jesus, as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels, is most certainly not
	the Jesus as interpreted by Paul (who showed absolutely no interest
	in the life of Jesus, solely in his death. [One would be very
	hard put to find 10 Jesus-quotes in the whole of Paul's writings])
	The Jesus of the Synoptics had no intention to die on the cross
	for the redemption of mankind. I believe that he was aware that,
	if he continued to "rub up the authorities in the wrong way", 
	there was a danger of his being executed, but I cannot - from
	my understanding of his teachings - believe that this was part
	of a "salvation plan".

	Since Qumran, we also know that some, at least, of Jesus' teachings
	were a part of the Essenes law. (That is not a hidden statement
	that Jesus was an Essene a la Eisenmann: merely that he was aware
	of their teachings and used the same themes freely). This would
	seem to me to - at best - weaken the Pauline claim of the singularity
	of Jesus' teachings which have become one of the anchors of
	Christian dogma.

	We also know, with a probability bordering on certainty, that those
	rare references in the Synoptics to Jesus foretelling his crucifixion,
	are later additions.

	I have read the bible from end to end several times (mostly omitting
	Revelations, I'll admit, for I hold it to be a work of fancy) and
	have found no prophecies in the Old Testament which tell of the
	coming of (specifically) Jesus nor of an eventual redemption of
	the sins of mankind by the crucifixion.  There are, of course
	numerous references which, if one is looking for support for a
	specific agenda, can be taken as such. They do not overwhelm me
	with enlightenment as they apparently did Paul and many Christians
	then and now. (Nostradamus also has his "apostles": I do not count
	myself as one of them).

	You may be right, Jack, that I have set up a paradigm for myself.
	I accept that! On the other hand, I am not a prophet. In your 
	terms (I am risking an assumption here :-) ) I might argue that
	I am blessed with the brain God gave me in the culture in which He
	set me. If I get it wrong, He is to blame.

	Greetings Derek.
	 

	Re: .10

	Hi John.

	>The problem that you seem to be pointing out is that God
	>Himself offered the sacrifice instead of the people.  I
	>understand that this is different than you might expect; I
	>don't understand why this would invalidate (in your mind) [sic]
	>the gospel (including atonement).

	It is not necessary for you to understand this: it is not my
	position and I am at a loss to comprehend how you could draw
	such a conclusion. In fact, in my .4, I spent 30% of the note
	showing that I accept the truth of the bible - from the point
	of view of its authors. I made no reference - explicit or
	implicit - to the invalidation of the gospels.

	I did, however make it clear that, in the light of my under-
	standing of the scripture, I question their applicability to me.
	That in no way invalidates them.

	>Are you aware... [3 times]

	Yes to first: God will redeem his people. There were conditions,
	however which, if my reading of the biblical history is anywhere
	near correct, were not fulfilled.

	Yes to second: Jesus was not the first sacrifice made by God.
	But there is a question of degree, don't you think?  It is
	interesting to recall that, when things got too far out of
	hand, God simply wiped out the whole mess and started again.
	(Noah/Sodom). No question of His making a sacrifice here
	(unless you would argue on the lines that He sacrificed His
	only begotten Earth) and things were not nearly as bad then as
	in the times of Jesus.

	Yes to third: but I think you already know that those texts are
	- to a level of probability bordering on certainty - later
	additions.

	>Can you see that the sacrifices that God instituted in the
	>Old Testament were imperfect and complete and never-ending 
	>and that this is not an eternal solution?

	No, I can't see that - in terms of the OT culture.

	However, let's assume that this is the case. What would that
	prove?
	- God intituted something less than perfect.  This is, in and
	 of itself, a repudiation of the perfection of God.
	- God, the unchanging, the ever-present, omnipotent God of
	 Israel and all mankind, did a patchwork job on sacrificial
	 laws.
	Ok: I buy it. But you will certainly understand me when I say that
	I am out now of the frying pan and in the fire. I now understand
	why God had to make the sacrifice, but now I do not know why I 
	should worship such a God.

	Re .12

	>BTW a 180 degree turn would seem to me to be more like
	>requiring a sacrifice for the payment of sin and then
	>simply saying that sin requires no payment whatsoever.

	OK: I would see your version as 360 degrees, but maybe you're
	using a 24-hour clock and I a 12-hour. What's a couple of hours
	in all eternity?

	BUT: It is a far cry from the sinner making the offering for
	atonement and the (Pauline theology) the sinned against making
	the offering. What is absolutely clear to me is that it was no part
	of Jesus' agenda. (I think Mark H put it very succinctly in 22.283
	with "the sacrifice is to God for God from God")

	>Recognizing that the people were incapable of providing
	>an acceptable sacrifice and providing it Himself seems
	>to me to be a very logical step, not a 180 degree turn.

	Let's replace recognizing with assuming - for there is no record
	that this is so - then I would ask you, earnestly, to explain
	your chain of logic which leads from the situation of a people
	unable to provide an acceptable sacrifice and culminated with the
	barborous murder of His "truly beloved son" - Not on the altar of
	the Temple, please note, but on the cross of the emporer of an
	occupying power.

	If your logic is watertight, John, you can congratulate yourself
	on having found a new covert --- oops convert. Albeit, a rather
	more liberal one than you may wish.

	--------------------------------------------------

	Given all of this - and I now return to the basenote question -
	it must be clear why I cannot, cannot possibly, regard the bible
	as inerrant and why I have trouble "hooking in" to Christianity.

	Greetings, Derek.

>Reply and offer to John

Call him Collis.  Call me John.

/john

	I really got that botched up, didn't I?

	To be on the safe side, I extend my sincerest apologies to both of you.
	
	I will do a self-analysis this evening to see if there is a deep-rooted
	explanation for the cross-up.

	Greetings, Derek.

	Hi Derek:

>>	However, I hold his explanations to be faulty on many occasions,
>>	and I see them as re-interpratations in the light of his own
>>	agenda. 

Did Paul have his own agenda?  Don't forget Paul was going to Damascus to kill
Christians.  Didn't Jesus himself say Why dost thou persecute me? And Jesus
also told him he must go to preach the gospel and suffer in his name.  I highly
doubt that a man as God conscious as Paul not to mention being an apostle and 
filled with the Holy Spirit would dare push his own program.

>>        (You may remember an earlier discussion, started by me>,
>>	on the exgesis of part of his Galations letters, for example).
>>	I do not "condemn" him for this, but you will understand that I,
>>	holding this view, cannot commit myself to a Pauline Christianity.

I would hope not.  Remember the Corinthian Church was split into factions, one
of them following Paul.  Paul exhorted them for this.  If however you are 
referring to the doctrines he preached on, I believe it to be in full harmony
with the gospels.

>>	Jesus, as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels, is most certainly not
>>	the Jesus as interpreted by Paul (who showed absolutely no interest
>>	in the life of Jesus, solely in his death. [One would be very
>>	hard put to find 10 Jesus-quotes in the whole of Paul's writings])

If you read commentaries on Paul, you will notice each church or individual 
he wrote to was an attempt to address a problem of some sort.
Romans: Justification by the law
Corinthians: Immorality in the church, proper use of the gifts
Galatians: Judaizers
and so on...

It would stand to reason that Pauls intent was to grow each church in
spirituality.  The life and times of Jesus were not paramount to the purposes
of the Pauline Epistles.


>>	The Jesus of the Synoptics had no intention to die on the cross
>>	for the redemption of mankind. I believe that he was aware that,
>>	if he continued to "rub up the authorities in the wrong way", 
>>	there was a danger of his being executed, but I cannot - from
>>	my understanding of his teachings - believe that this was part
>>	of a "salvation plan".

I would encourage you to read Matthew closely.  There are many occasions 
where Jesus tells the apostles that he must be delivered and rise on the 
third day.  Some short clips.

1. Peter: Oh Lord, this will not happen to you    Matthew 16.
   Jesus' reply: Get thee behind me Satan for thou art an offense to me!

2. Pharisees: If thou art the Christ, show us a sign.
   Jesus':  An evil and adulterous nation seeks a sign.  But no sign will be
            given unto you except the sign of Jonah, for as Jonah spent three
            days in the belly of a fish, so too will the son of man spend three
            days in the earth.  Some place in Matthew.

3. Jesus: Behold, we shall go up to Jerusalem; and the son of man shall be
          betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall
          condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock,
          and to scourge, and to crucify him; and the third day he shall rise
          again.  Matthew 20: 18,19.

This is just a few of many many examples in the synoptic gospels.  You may 
also recall that when Judas dipped his bread with Jesus, Jesus told him, 
"What thou hast prepared to do, do quickly."  Yes, Jesus had every intention
to yield his life to the will of the Father for...you got it...the salvation
of Jack Martin and Derek Button and anybody else who desires eternal life!!
 
>>	We also know, with a probability bordering on certainty, that those
>>	rare references in the Synoptics to Jesus foretelling his crucifixion,
>>	are later additions.

The references I pointed out are in the original manuscripts.

>>	I have read the bible from end to end several times (mostly omitting
>>	Revelations, I'll admit, for I hold it to be a work of fancy) and
>>	have found no prophecies in the Old Testament which tell of the
>>	coming of (specifically) Jesus nor of an eventual redemption of
>>	the sins of mankind by the crucifixion. 

There are approximately 27 or so prophesies fitting the description of the 
Messiah and what he was to do.  Do you recall Psalm 22?  King David was not
crucified and crucifiction was not practiced in his day.  Psalm 22 is pure 
prophecy.  Check it out...it will amaze you how parellel it is to the
incident at Calvary!!

>>        There are, of course
>>	numerous references which, if one is looking for support for a
>>	specific agenda, can be taken as such. They do not overwhelm me

Derek, the Bible was written in 4 continents over a period of 3500 years give
or take.  The puzzle simply fits too well together!!

	You may be right, Jack, that I have set up a paradigm for myself.
	I accept that! On the other hand, I am not a prophet. In your 
	terms (I am risking an assumption here :-) ) 

Only because Paul himself had every intention of glorifying God by persecuting
the church.  I am not a prophet either but I will say that when somebody says
they will always be a liberal...watch out!!!! :-)  Ever hear of Josh 
McDowell?  The man was a Suma Cum Laude law graduate who went out to prove
Christianity was a hoax!!  In his effort, he came to the conclusion that 
Jesus was the only way.  Wrote a book called Evidence that Demands a Verdict.
I call it the bible of apologetics.

Take care,

-Jack
	 

I wish I had the time to confront in detail all the
points you make.  From my perspective, many of them
are simply flat-out wrong including the points that
Jack mentions:  

 - some wrong theology sections were later additions to the
   Bible (since I studied manuscript evidence and still have 
   a few books on manuscript evidence here at my desk, you
   can't possibly hope to have me believe this, can you?)
 - synoptic gospels don't deal with Jesus' upcoming resurrection
   (you sure have a lot of explaining away to do to deny the
   obvious meaning of the text)

  >There were conditions, however which, if my reading of the biblical 
  >history is anywhere near correct, were not fulfilled.

God has made conditional promises and God has made unconditional
promises.  It was the unconditional promises that I was referring
to.

   >But there is a question of degree, don't you think?

Yes swore by himself that He would keep was covenant with Abram.
He died on a cross to bear our sins.  Yes, there is a difference
in degree.

God did indeed wipe out almost all of the earth.  However, the promise
of the sacrifice is in Gen 3 - even before this event.  So there
was no question about the sacrifice even after this particular
judgment of God.

  >Yes to third: but I think you already know that those texts are
  >- to a level of probability bordering on certainty - later
  >additions.

I would hope you know that the opposite is true, but apparently
you don't.  Since we obviously have disagreements here, please feel
free to share any facts you might have that support your position.
The book, "A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament" provides
word by word analysis  (where necessary) of the entire New Testament
by those who are incredibly interested in *knowing* what the original
texts actually stated.

  >- God instituted something less than perfect. 

God instituted something that was symbolic.  The OT sacrifices were
never intended to take away sin.  They were to make people aware of
their sin, provide a way of seeking repentance and showing the need
for a sacrifice to pay for their sins. 

  >I now understand why God had to make the sacrifice, but now I do not 
  >know why I should worship such a God.

You should worship God as He is - perfect, just, loving.  The reasons
that you ascribe to Him for His actions are not consistent with His
character and therefore are wrong.  Adjust your reasoning.  :-)

  >I would see your version as 360 degrees, but maybe you're
  >using a 24-hour clock and I a 12-hour.

You're still operating on the assumption that the Law was supposed to
actually do something about sin.  NO!  It was supposed to show the
*need* for something to be done about sin.  After this is shown, what
is more natural than to actually *DO* something about sin.  This is not
a change in course at all; it is the next logical step!

The logic is airtight.  However, not all accept it.  That is the issue.

Collis

    Re.17
    
    Jack,
    
    I've read parts of Josh McDowell's works.  In fact, you had mentioned
    his work (among others) when I suggested to you that your source
    material may be just a little incorrect and you did not take kindly to
    my comment.
    
    Anyway, I wanted to tell you in that note string that I cannot take
    Josh McDowell's writings seriously.  Given your reference to his
    work though, I can now see more clearly just how you have formed your 
    own beliefs and opinions.  
    
    If you remember the original note string, I'd be happy to continue
    there.  It was the one I mentioned "Autobiography Of A Yogi" in, and
    you countered with your Josh McDowell reference.
    
    Cindy                                           

    Cindy,
    
    Yes, I remember your sincere but somewhat smug remark well!! :-)
    Really, I do respect you!  Josh McDowell pretty much presented an air
    tight argument on apologetics, including the nature and person of Jesus
    Christ.  You seem to be making an attempt at discrediting the author
    here.  
    
    It all boils down to this Cindy.  Jesus has to be one of three
    things...Lord, Liar, or Lunatic.  If indeed he is a liar or lunatic,
    I'm deluded anyway and this is all for not.  If he is Lord however,
    then the doctrine Jesus spoke of..."No one cometh unto the Father but
    by me", is completely incompatible with Eastern religion.  
    
    So Cindy, you are now accountable.  What is Jesus to you?  Of which of
    the three categories does he fall under.  I'd be interested to hear!
    
    -Jack

re: Note 820.20 by Jack

>    It all boils down to this Cindy.  Jesus has to be one of three
>    things...Lord, Liar, or Lunatic.  

To me that sounds like a limited, human perception wrestling with the nature
of God.  I don't see the three as necessarily being mutually exclusive.

Peace,

Jim

    Gee,
    
    I remember that Triad before to one of my replies.
    
    Lord, Liar, or Lunatic.
    
    Patricia

    I happen to agree with it...
    
    For a man to refer to Himself as the Son of God, the Messiah, imho he'd
    have to be one of the three.  After all, today when someone refers to
    themself as Jesus or the Messiah, we think he's a lunatic!
    
    Nancy

re Note 820.23 by JULIET::MORALES_NA:

>     For a man to refer to Himself as the Son of God, the Messiah, imho he'd
>     have to be one of the three.  After all, today when someone refers to
>     themself as Jesus or the Messiah, we think he's a lunatic!
  
        I believe I am a Son of God.

        And there have been times in my life when I felt that the
        anointing of God was upon my efforts.

        (I'm sure that I'm occasionally a liar.  As far as lunatic,
        I'll have to leave that to others to decide.)

        Bob

    .24
    
    I was waiting for someone to pull in on the old generic "sons of God"!
    
    :-) :-)  Unsurprisingly predictable.  But we all do know the
    difference, now don't we. :-)
    
    Nancy

Re: Note 820.21            
TFH::KIRK "a simple song"                            11 lines  11-JAN-1994 15:10

@@>    It all boils down to this Cindy.  Jesus has to be one of three
@@>    things...Lord, Liar, or Lunatic.  

>>To me that sounds like a limited, human perception wrestling with the nature
>>of God.  I don't see the three as necessarily being mutually exclusive.

Jim:

Once again a symbolic response with no meat whatsoever.  It is agreed that our
finite minds are limited to certain parameters and God can certainly overcome
these.  We know however, that Jesus communicated on our level or a level that
one could understand.  I am trying to ponder any other possibilities here as
to what Jesus could be other that God, a deceiver, or deluded.  If he was being
a touchy feeley get into your emotions type of Messiah, would this open up a
new category?  I mean, our ability for critical thinking only goes so far!!

Personally, you are avoiding the question and you know it!!  You know as well
as I that Jesus was either truthful, a liar, or self deluded.  I'll bet you
don't dare pick one either because you will have to actually come to grips
with an actual choice,  No one can serve two masters Jim!!!

-Jack

    I know the difference.
    
    Bob is a son of God.
    
    Nancy is not.  
    
    Richard is a son of God
    
    Patricia is not.
    
    Jack is a son of God
    
    Cindy is not.
    
    Sounds simple to me.

    
    Jack,
    
    I really was only looking for the other basenote so that we could take
    the discussion there.
    
    That I may be making an attempt at discrediting the author...well, it's
    been done more than once here by members of the conservative camp. 
    Let's just say I'm not impressed, nor am I in agreement with what Josh 
    McDowell has to say, even though you apparently are.
    
    As for your last question (your mind does take off in interesting ways
    sometimes...), I would really *hate* to reduce Jesus Christ to a mere
    multiple choice answer.  So I'm not going to respond beyond this.
    
    Now, if you would please tell me where the other note was, we can take
    our discussion back there.
    
    Cindy

    The "Lord, liar or lunatic" line is the predictable one.  There's
    even a string here with that as its title.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

    Yeah, so whats wrong with it...it's a sensible premise to make?
    
    Face it, you don't want to answer it!!
    
    Your friend always!!!

    Cindy:
    
    The string is 796.43.  I'm almost tempted to start a string on Evidence 
    by McDowell and we can pull it apart piece by piece.  I would be
    interested to know what historical facts you disagree with!!!
    
    -Jack

    Re.30
    
    Jack,
    
    >Face it, you don't want to answer it!!
    
    I find it common in your approach, Jack, to make broad 
    assumptions and accusations about other people's motives,
    actions, and thoughts.
    
    Perhaps you should try a radical concept - asking real
    questions and truly listening to the replies.  Then, building
    upon that, some productive exchanges can begin to take place.
    
    For example, the phrase above could be modified to read something
    like this:
    
    	"Is there a reason you don't wish to answer the question?"
    
    This leaves room for an answer.  The statement/accusation that
    you wrote leaves only about enough room for hitting the 'next
    unseen' key, knowing that further exchanges with you would be
    totally useless and an unproductive use of time.
    
    Back to this comment - knowing Richard as I do, I can safely
    say that his reply has nothing to do with not wanting to answer
    the original question.
    
    >Your friend always!!!
    
    Richard, being a good friend of mine, would never make such a
    broad assumption about me.  However, perhaps your definition of
    a friend is different from mine/ours.
    
    Cindy

    
    Thank you, Jack.  Oh, I'm sure the historical facts are probably in
    order and for the most part, correct.  It's the conclusions he draws
    from these facts that are what I usually do not agree with.
    
    Cindy

    .27
    
    :-) :-)
    
    I like that response... as a matter of fact, I wrote it down before
    you entered it. :-) :-)  I hate myself sometimes as I'm sure most of
    you do too. :-) :-) :-)
    
    And will not, no Nancy don't write this, STOP... Sons is a generic term
    for both sexes in reference to those who are born again!
    
    Nancy I told you not to say that... now look at what you've done and
    gone... another can of worms.

    Ohhh Cindy...Did I tweek your nose a little...
    
    Now relax...take a deep breath...
    
    Now...very quietly...very softly...very succinctly.......
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Do we wish to put on our thinking caps today and answer mean ole Jacks 
    little itty bitty question...
    
    OK seriously, sorry if I offended you, it was put forth as a challenge,
    not a criticism.  I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, but I honestly
    believe you will not address the issue because you cannot.  You know it
    is a logical, well rooted question to ask.  You choose to avoid it
    because it challenges your belief system.  Hey, I'm not knocking you. 
    I'd do the same.
    
    As far as friendship goes, sometimes love must be tough!!!

-Jack
    

    Re.35
    
    Jack,
    
    Well, no, you didn't.            
    
    But there - you are doing it again.  I was completely calm, logical,
    rational, collected, with no 'emotion' whatsoever entering the picture 
    when I wrote the earlier reply.  
    
    I wrote it to be as helpful as possible in trying to help you improve 
    your noting communication skills.  However, you replied with your usual
    incorrect interpretation in mind, and threw in some patronizing comments 
    for good measure.  Ah well.
    
    I, too, can recommend a few good communication books for you.
    
    Cindy

    
    As for answering the question...well, I wouldn't want to challenge your
    deep-rooted beliefs about me, so we'll just leave it at that.
    
    A good friend of mine once said that it's best to 'walk soft and try
    not to disturb the natives'.  [(;^)]
    
    Cindy

    .37
    
    :-) :-)
    
    My Pastor always uses the verse I believe in Proverbs which says agree
    with your adversary quickly.  In other words, somethings just aren't
    worth arguing over.
    
    Nancy

	Hi Jack!

	Thanks again for a full and interesting reply.

	I will have some difficulty keeping you and Collis apart today
	(it was john and Collis yesterday) because Collis argues that
	prophesy cannot be made after the event (not in those words,
	but to that effect). You argue that words contained in Matthew
	- who wrote well after the death of Jesus - can be seen as
	prophesy because he is reporting what Jesus said.

	So now I will be seen to stand in both camps for I showed
	Collis that such was possible.

	I offer the following: is it not possible that Matthew was
	influenced in his writings by his environment, his beliefs
	and his audience?  I do not say that this is so. Neither is it
	an up-front assumption but a recognition of the facts as known
	and the admittance of one possible conclusion.
	
	This, quite apart from the fact that 2 of your 3 Matthew quotes
	would not be recognized by me as prophesy even if they had six-feet
	neon lights round them. The third is ok given my previous
	condition.

	You catch me without a Bible (I don't usually bring it to the
	office) but, if Ps.22 is the one that begins "My God, My God,
	why hast thou forsaken me?" I recall 30-odd verses without the
	word "Cross" occuring. Suffering, yes, and very reminiscent of
	the Cricifixion story, yes. But do you not think that it is 
	more reasonable to believe that the gospel story "leaned on"
	this for theological reasons than that this was prophecy?

	Especially in Matthew, there is the classical example of what
	I mean: the Virgin birth. There can be no doubt that Matthew
	was thinking of the Isiah passage when he wrote this. But he
	was Septaugint-blinded which left him - and the resulting dogma -
	out on a limb. Add to this that the passage in Isiah is a
	prophesy only if you really really really want it to be and
	the example is perfect. This knowledge does NOT demand the
	'definate conclusion' that Mary was not a virgin. It does demand
	that one takes a closer look at Matthew's agenda before drawing
	any conclusions.

	I hope that this helps you to see where I'm coming from.

	Greetings, Derek.

    RE: .35
    
    Your style ain't winning any friends or converts. I think *you* need to
    relax , Jack.
    
    Marc H.

    
    
    -1
    
     Style be damned! Can you offer an answer or not??
    
    
    David_John_Wayne :-)

    RE: .41
    
    The "question" is not a question, but rather an attempt to intimidate
    the reader. It does little, if anything to advance your conversion of
    people....all it does is build walls around people. Can't you see that?
    
    Marc H.

    I would hope all of you by now would realize I am not the type of noter
    who sits at the keyboard, redfaced with anger thinking to myself..."why
    that paumpous....oohhhhh...I'll get that Cindy...I'll get her if its
    the last thing I do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
    
    Not so folks and I'm sorry I left the perception you see it that way.
    Cindy, I've never thought bad of you and I don't have all the answers.
    I guess the term "I don't agree" to me is very inadequate in these
    matters and I guess I expect too much of people.  Challenging questions
    call for rich and meaningful answers, not ridicule of the question.
    Without patronizing, let me end this with one bit of constructive
    advice....Don't go to law school, you'll be eaten alive!
    
    As far as signing my note, "your friend", my motive was honorable.  I
    sensed we were getting into healthy debate and since we don't have the
    benefits of face to face communication, I wanted people to be aware
    that strong debate doesn't always preclude malice.  
    
    Cindy, as far as communication goes, I deal with customers on a daily 
    basis, am well liked amongst my peers, and am a sensitive individual.
    I cry sometimes when Little House is on and I did cry when Old Yeller
    died.  On the other hand, I cried when Nixon resigned too! :-)
    
    At the same time, I tend to be honest with my feelings and as most of
    you know, political correctness is an abomidable philosophy in my mind
    and has no room in academia or the work place.  It deprives people of
    truth and sincerity.  I'm not touchy feeley when it comes to matters of
    gender, race, domestic issues, religion especially, etc.  I believe
    this is the area I am perceived to need help in.  This would involve a
    complete change of mindset and the only way it could possibly happen is
    if you parachute me into Cambridge, Mass. and force me to live amongst
    the Harvard elite for a three year brainwashing session.  This means no
    food or sleep at regular intervals and 200 pictures of Robert Reisch
    and Hillary Clinton in my cell.  I'm inclined to doubt this is going to
    happen!!
 
    On that note, you have a nice day!!!!
    
    Your friend always,
    
    -Jack

    Marc:
    
    No I don't see that.  How could a simple question like that intimidate
    people?

    Jack,
    
    Let me answer the question.  again.   I got pounded on this one in the
    original Lord, Liar, Lunatic string.
    
    If you believe that God wrote the Bible. and the statement  "Nobody
    get's to the father except thru Jesus" is a literal statement, 
    Then you are perhaps forced to believe that Christianity is the only
    legitimate religion.
    
    I first of all do not believe that Jesus ever made that statement.
    
    Another interpretation may be that one must behave like Jesus, Love
    like Jesus taught.  Another interpretation is that Jesus in the
    incarnation of God made available to all human beings.  This is the
    same as Paul's Risen Christ.  Paul's risen Christ is not the historic
    Jesus of the Gospels.  The risen Christ is a life force, neither male
    nor female, Christian or Jew that is available directly to each of us. 
    We can be in Christ and Christ can be in us.  This is much different
    than a humanlike  mediator.  THere are many interpretations.  Your
    answer is no more valid than anyone else's.
    
    Patricia

    RE: .44
    
    Well, Jack....thats the why the replies went after Jim Kirks reply.
    
    As far as Harvard goes.....I live in Mass, and avoid the peoples
    republic of cambridge as much as I can!
    
    Marc H.

    Patricia:
    
    Thanks for the answer.  Let me bring a few things to the table.  First,
    you said let me answer the question again.  This is the first time I've
    seen the answer.  
    
    Secondly, Jesus did make that claim, mainly in John 14:6 but it is
    throughout all the gospels.  This does in fact put the context of the
    gospels in harmony with Pauls epistles.  I addressed this somewhaere
    else but the gospels theme of the life and times of Jesus are directed
    at different groups for different reasons.  Paul was addressing each of
    the churches to settle various problems or issues within each church.
    You will also recall the account of Pauls conversion in Acts.  The
    author of Acts is Luke so Luke having traveled on the three missionary
    journeys with Paul no doubt believed what Paul believed.  This is one
    of many ties between Pauls preaching and that of the gospels.  
    
    Thirdly, since Jesus was sinless, it stands to reason that we cannot
    fully mirror Christ, therefore, we need an advocate with the Father.
    1st John 2:1,2 clearly states this (John by the way wrote the gospel
    and Revelation, not just the epistles).  Remember, love is the fruit,
    faith in the work of Christ is the trunk!!
    
    But, the bottom line on this exchange Patricia, was participants
    unwillingness to address the question.  I once again admire you for at
    least taking a stand on what you believe and not shirking the issue.
    
    Respectfully,
    
    -Jack

    Marc:
    
    :-) :-) :-)...I do too...like the plague!!!  :-)

    Jack,
    
    Well given your trashing of my answer, I understand why others did not
    answer.
    
    Do you realize how many assumptions are contained in your answer?
    
    Would you be surprised if I told you that I believed few of your
    assumptions?
    
    Patricia

re:  Note 820.26 by Jack

>Once again a symbolic response with no meat whatsoever.

Perhaps it is an honest response to a symbolic, specious question.
Perhaps you are on a vegetarian diet.

>Personally, you are avoiding the question and you know it!!  You know as well
>as I that Jesus was either truthful, a liar, or self deluded.  I'll bet you
>don't dare pick one either because you will have to actually come to grips
>with an actual choice,  No one can serve two masters Jim!!!

Jack, this is running very closely to a personal attack.  Who are you to tell 
me what I am doing?  Who are you to tell me what I know and what I don't?
Who are you to tell me what I do or don't dare to do?  You are quite right, on 
one point, Jack.  One cannot well serve two masters, I serve God (with God's
help), not you.

Be at Peace,

Jim

  >...Collis argues that prophesy cannot be made after the 
  >event...

The argument is more that future prophesy about the past
cannot be made after the event.  In other words, if I prophesy
something about the future, I cannot claim fulfillment of
the prophesy by noting that it happened 10 years ago.  This
is what the JEDP theorists believe happened; in fact claim
that this is what MUST have happened.  Of course, such
prophecy is not prophecy at all but a recording of the event
in a dishonest way.

Collis

    
Jack, here is a reply...a reflection on an earlier note...

>    Ohhh Cindy...Did I tweek your nose a little...

Taken literally, since I've never seen you in person, no, I do not believe you
have done this.


>    Now relax...take a deep breath...
>    Now...very quietly...very softly...very succinctly.......
    
You assumed, incorrectly, that I was being (defensive, emotional, attacking,
    whatever - pick one) and your reply here came from your incorrect 
    assumption. 
    
    
>    Do we wish to put on our thinking caps today and answer mean ole Jacks 
>    little itty bitty question...

Do you usually interact with adults (including Digital customers) in this
way by using such phrases?  


>    OK seriously, sorry if I offended you, 

No offense taken.


>it was put forth as a challenge, not a criticism.  

Ok, that's fine.


>I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, 

You are correct - your assumption is wrong.


>but I honestly believe you will not address the issue because you cannot.  

Your belief stated...you are using this wrong belief as the frame of
reference for the remainder of your statements.  

You are partially correct in that I cannot address the issue, however
not for the reasons you believe and consequently project upon me.  

You also seemed to have skipped over my response where I stated that I find
it very difficult to reduce Jesus Christ to a multiple question choice.


>You know it is a logical, well rooted question to ask.  

I did not find it to be so.  (Well-rooted should be hyphenated, by the way.)


>You choose to avoid it because it challenges your belief system.  

Well, no.  (See the prior two answers for a hint as to why I am not responding 
to it.)


>Hey, I'm not knocking you.  I'd do the same.

Another statement based on the false assumption you established earlier.
    

>    As far as friendship goes, sometimes love must be tough!!!

    That is your belief.  It is not mine.  However this does give me
    insight into some of your replies.


Regarding your comment about law school - I have replied to your above 
responses in a logical, rational, and straightforward way, and in such a 
way that I believe would be quite acceptable in a law school....unless
they, too, tend to get into non-rational, non-logical, and highly assumptive 
debates.  Having never attended one, I would not know these things firsthand.

Cindy

Patricia:

Since I believe in accountability, I appended the two notes together 
    to investigate the claim!



Re: Note 820.49            The Bible: Totally Inerrant or Not?              49 of 52
AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web"                     11 lines  12-JAN-1994 12:34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>    Jack,
    
>>    Well given your trashing of my answer, I understand why others did not
>>    answer.
    
Note:      By the way, a difference of opinion doesn't constitute a trashing of
    an answer.  
    
>>    Do you realize how many assumptions are contained in your answer?
    
>>    Would you be surprised if I told you that I believed few of your
>>    assumptions?
    
>>    Patricia

I'm curious as to which ones you don't believe, especially since there's
only one!!

================================================================================
Note 820.47            The Bible: Totally Inerrant or Not?              47 of 52
AIMHI::JMARTIN                                       30 lines  12-JAN-1994 10:53
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Patricia:
    
>>    Thanks for the answer.  Let me bring a few things to the table.  First,
>>    you said let me answer the question again.  This is the first time I've
>>    seen the answer.  
  
Fact
-------------------------------  
>>    Secondly, Jesus did make that claim, mainly in John 14:6 but it is
>>    throughout all the gospels.

Fact  
-------------------------
     
>>    This does in fact put the context of the
>>    gospels in harmony with Pauls epistles. 

Assumption
-------------------------

>>  I addressed this somewhaere
>>   else but the gospels theme of the life and times of Jesus are directed
>>   at different groups for different reasons.  Paul was addressing each of
>>   the churches to settle various problems or issues within each church.

Fact
-------------------------------------
    You will also recall the account of Pauls conversion in Acts.  The
    author of Acts is Luke so Luke having traveled on the three missionary
    journeys with Paul no doubt believed what Paul believed.  This is one
    of many ties between Pauls preaching and that of the gospels.  
Fact
--------------------------------------------
    
>>    Thirdly, since Jesus was sinless, it stands to reason that we cannot
>>    fully mirror Christ, therefore, we need an advocate with the Father.
>>    1st John 2:1,2 clearly states this (John by the way wrote the gospel
>>    and Revelation, not just the epistles).  Remember, love is the fruit,
>>    faith in the work of Christ is the trunk!!
Fact
--------------------------------------------
  
>>      But, the bottom line on this exchange Patricia, was participants
>>    unwillingness to address the question.  I once again admire you for at
>>    least taking a stand on what you believe and not shirking the issue.
  
Definite Fact
-------------------------------------------  
>>    Respectfully,
    
>>    -Jack

Absolute Fact
------------------------------------------

Rgds.,

-Jack

    Jim:
    
    I have always respected you as a fellow noter.  No personal attack
    meant, simply a challenge to think critically.
    
    Same with you Cindy.  Just looking for accountability from those who
    talk the talk!!
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

    >Do you realize how many assumptions are contained in your answer?
    
    one.
    
    I guess you do not know how many assumptions are in your answer. 
    Assumptions about authorship of the books of the Bible, the time of
    authorship, the purpose of the books, the literal exactness of the
    books.  
    
    Jack, I will be accountable for my assumptions, you can be accountable for
    yours.  Recognize how significant those assumptions are for each of our
    understanding.
    
    I choose to not continue this discussion as it can go nowhere.
    
    Patricia 

    Patricia:
    
    I assume George Washington was the first president.
    I assume WW2 began in the late 30's.
    I assume Calvin Coolidge was known as silent Cal.
    I assume...
    
    My faith in authorship, times, and reasons are founded on the authority
    of biblical historians, much like information on American history.  All
    historical study is assumed true based on a source of authority.  
    
    OK, let's talk about something else!!!
    
    -Jack

    The big difference is that most Historians will agree with your
    assumptions about American History because the can be validated by
    multiple source.   Most Historians will disagree with you assumptions about
    Biblical History particularly those assumptions which cannot be
    validated by any other source except the Bible.  To believe the Bible
    is accurate or is the literal Word of God is a huge assumption and a
    faith statement pure and simple.  Those who share your faith in the
    Bible will agree with you.  Those who don't will disagree.
    
    
    

    Lokks like the ole chicken and egg argument.  If it isn't inerrant,
    then the whole foundation of what you believe, including love thy
    neighbor, can be erroneous.
    
    End result - No hope!!!
    
    -Jack

    
    I continue to be in awe, Jack, of the things you read/project into
    notes, assume they are correct, 'logically' deduce your own conclusion
    from it, and continue on to make a statement about your conclusion that 
    has no bearing whatsoever on the note that you are replying to.
    
    [Still trying to figure out how you made the jump from the note where 
    I asked for a notes pointer, only to end up with a multiple choice
    question that you eventually became obsessed with getting answered.] 
    
    Cindy
                                                                      

Re: .20 Jack

>    It all boils down to this Cindy.  Jesus has to be one of three
>    things...Lord, Liar, or Lunatic

... or he was misunderstood, or he was misquoted, or he didn't exist.
(This was debated to death - we thought! - in note 97.)

Re: .31 Jack

>    The string is 796.43.  I'm almost tempted to start a string on Evidence 
>    by McDowell and we can pull it apart piece by piece.  I would be
>    interested to know what historical facts you disagree with!!!
    
Sounds like fun.  I started a couple of notes on Josh McDowell in the
GRIM::RELIGION conference:

	187	Evidence That Demands a Verdict
	547	Isaac Asimov vs. Josh McDowell (vs. Richard Friedman)

Both note strings are incomplete and to a large extent are monologues on
my part, but feel free to jump in.

Re: .58 Jack

>    Lokks like the ole chicken and egg argument.  If it isn't inerrant,
>    then the whole foundation of what you believe, including love thy
>    neighbor, can be erroneous.
>    
>    End result - No hope!!!
    
Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

				-- Bob

    
    Oh - thanks, Bob!  I'll have a read through them over there.
    
    Cindy

Sure Cindy, it all started in .17 when I was having good dialogue with Derek
Button.  It tied in well with the topic of this string.  I offered a rebuttal
to Derek, provided scripture, and provided a resource from a historian to
back my claim.  

The reason I was so insistent with you was because you poo poo'd Josh McDowell
as a academic authority and biblical historian.  You then refused to give 
even a line of support for your disagreements.  This is what prompted me
to tell you to keep away from law school.
    
    See below.


================================================================================
Note 820.17            The Bible: Totally Inerrant or Not?              17 of 61
AIMHI::JMARTIN                                      113 lines  11-JAN-1994 11:21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Hi Derek:

>>	You may be right, Jack, that I have set up a paradigm for myself.
>>	I accept that! On the other hand, I am not a prophet. In your 
>>	terms (I am risking an assumption here :-) ) 

>>Only because Paul himself had every intention of glorifying God by persecuting
>>the church.  I am not a prophet either but I will say that when somebody says
>>they will always be a liberal...watch out!!!! :-)  Ever hear of Josh 
>>McDowell?  The man was a Suma Cum Laude law graduate who went out to prove
>>Christianity was a hoax!!  In his effort, he came to the conclusion that 
>>Jesus was the only way.  Wrote a book called Evidence that Demands a Verdict.
>>I call it the bible of apologetics.

	Strictly an opinion, reasonable and sound in context.  
	 



================================================================================
Note 820.20            The Bible: Totally Inerrant or Not?              20 of 61
AIMHI::JMARTIN                                       18 lines  11-JAN-1994 14:53
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>    Cindy,
    
>>    Yes, I remember your sincere but somewhat smug remark well!! :-)
      
   Notice the smiley face here!!

>>    Really, I do respect you!  Josh McDowell pretty much presented an air
>>    tight argument on apologetics, including the nature and person of Jesus
>>    Christ.  You seem to be making an attempt at discrediting the author
>>    here.  

            Regardless of your point of view, a sound opinion to make!

    
>>    It all boils down to this Cindy.  Jesus has to be one of three
>>    things...Lord, Liar, or Lunatic.  If indeed he is a liar or lunatic,
>>    I'm deluded anyway and this is all for not.  If he is Lord however,
>>    then the doctrine Jesus spoke of..."No one cometh unto the Father but
>>    by me", is completely incompatible with Eastern religion.  

            Regardless of your point of view, a sound opinion to make!
            Heck, I even entertained the notion I could be wrong.  What
    more could I give you?
    
>>    So Cindy, you are now accountable.  What is Jesus to you?  Of which of
>>    the three categories does he fall under.  I'd be interested to hear!

	    Offered as a challenge in order for you to perhaps reflect on
          where you might stand.  Harmless, reasonable, and challenging.

   Cindy, I didn't think the challenge above was really that pushy or difficult.
   



        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 820.59            The Bible: Totally Inerrant or Not?              59 of 61
TNPUBS::PAINTER "Planet Crayon"                      12 lines  12-JAN-1994 17:34
                         -< tracing thought patterns >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
>>    I continue to be in awe, Jack, of the things you read/project into
>>    notes, assume they are correct, 'logically' deduce your own conclusion
>>    from it, and continue on to make a statement about your conclusion that 
>>    has no bearing whatsoever on the note that you are replying to.
  
This is a run on sentence and is improper protocol within the English language.
It is also improper to end a sentence with a preposition.  

Incidentally, if I project improperly, the one to whom I am answering may not
be conveying intent clearly.  Conclusions are usually supported by scripture 
or documentation by an authority of the subject.  I explained above how the 
progression began.  I exchanged views with Derek.  You came into the fold and
poo poo'd my references.  
  
>>    [Still trying to figure out how you made the jump from the note where 
>>    I asked for a notes pointer, only to end up with a multiple choice
>>    question that you eventually became obsessed with getting answered.] 
    
A proper noun should be put into the beginning of the sentence.  If I recall,
you asked for the pointer after I asked the question.  I believe I provided
a pointer a few replies back.
  

Warmest regards,

-Jack
    

    Bob:
    
    Valid points.  He could've been misunderstood, misquoted, or didn't
    exist.  
    
    Misquoted - Would've called for a conspiracy between the apostles or
    the writers of the gospels would've had to have been complete idiots as
    Jesus quotes numerous things.  This would have called for a conspiracy
    of idiocy.  Dr. Luke doesn't strike me as an idiot.
    
    Didn't exist - Now I will bring in an assumption.  I assume as
    Christians, we all believe he existed.  Otherwise, there is no
    Christian Perspective.
    
    Sorry, I'm not proficient at notes and didn't realize they had a note
    on this subject until now.  Next time, perhaps somebody could provide a
    pointer if I'm annoying you.
    
    Respectfully,
    
    -Jack

	Re: .51 Collis.

	>The arguement is more that future prophecy about the past
	>cannot be made after the event. In other words, if I prophecy
	>something about the future, I cannot claim fulfillment of
	>the prophecy by noting that it happened 10 years ago.

	Let me try to illustrate what is meant.

		  a		b	      c		  d
		--^-------------^-------------^-----------^--
		a: Prophet. His prophecy of a future event.
		b: The future event. Alternative 1
		c: Biographer of the Prophet. This biographer is honest.
		d: The future event. Alternative 2

	You would surely agree that this is a possible scenario (if it
	helps you, feel free to think of it outside of the Biblical
	framework) regardless of wich event alternative you choose.
	
	>This is what the JEDP theorists believe happened; in fact claim
	>that this is what MUST have happened.

	No! This is what *some* adherents to the theory have concluded.
	Others have concluded what I have illustrated above. There will be
	others who have drawn other conclusions. The only conclusion which
	is an essential consequence of acceptance of JEDP is that Moses
	did not write (the whole of) the Pentateuch. Any other conclusion
	would require an assumption.

	Please stop fogging the issue, Collis, it helps no-one.

	Greetings, Derek.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bob,
    
    I guess I would appreciate that dialogue here in this conference.  
    
    I find the trilogy of misunderstood, misquoted, or did not exist a much
    more believable set of alternatives than Lord, Lunatic, or Liar.
    
    I am intrigued by the Did not exist alternative.  I Will start
    a new string on that.  If the Jesus did not exist historically, would
    the Christian Religion be invalidated?
    
    
    Patricia

    
    Re.62
    
    Jack,
    
    Then your comment about "Autobiography of A Yogi"...have you actually
    read (part or all) of the book?
    
    For that matter, regarding your comments on Eastern religions, have you
    ever actually read any material that was written by any of the great
    scholars of those religions (Swami Vivekananda, for example?)  Or is
    has your view of Eastern religions primarily been formed by reading
    the works of Christians making observations on Eastern religions?
    
    >You then refused to give even a line of support for your disagreements. 
    
    I never 'refused' to give you anything.  I simply 'couldn't give it in
    the form that you were requesting', because my encounter with Josh 
    McDowell's writings (aside from flipping through one of his works in a 
    bookstore several years ago) was from several excerpts in one of the 
    former CHRISTIAN conferences about 5 years ago or so.  I am not one
    of those people who can remember exact passages 5 years after the fact.
    Anyway, at that time, I formed my opinion on his works, and I wasn't 
    impressed.  And at the same time, since I don't seek to change your
    mind about him - since obviously you think very highly about him - then
    I saw no need to enter into a 'law school-type' debate with you.
    
    However, I shall go read the topics in RELIGION and see what is there.
    Perhaps I can be more specific at a later time.
    
    Cindy

    You mean less threatening!!!

    
    Jack,
    
    Assuming that Re.67 was in reply to .66...
    
    Was that an absolute pronouncement, a statement of your opinion, or a
    question that I am to answer?     
    
    Cindy

    Cindy:
    
    My views on Eastern Religion, admittedly, do come from experts in the 
    Christian field.  Walter Martin, Tim LaHaye, Josh McDowell to name a 
    few.  These individuals are not recently off the boat.  They are a
    resource for individuals such as myself.  They do not write books to
    knock down Eastern Religion but their intent is to reveal the
    inconsistencies or Eastern Religion with doctrines of Christianity.
    
    Like you Cindy, I get no inspiration from your source as you do not get
    any from mine.  This is the bottom line and I do respect your position.
    What baffles me more than anything is your motive for proclaiming to be
    or identifying yourself as a Christian when you APPEAR (Notice I use
    the word appear so as to not accuse you of anything), to disbelieve
    alot of what pure Christianity stands for?  Do you believe Christ is
    the only way?  Do you believe the Bible to be the Word of God? Do you
    believe Christ's death and resurrection atones for our sin?  My
    objective and honest observation is that you do not.  This is an
    observation mind you, not an accusation.  Perhaps you can set me
    straight.
    
    By the way, I realize you are well versed and accurate in English
    syntax and grammer.  I was picking on you mostly to get you back for
    correcting me so much.  
    
    -Jack

Re: .63 Jack

>    Valid points.  He could've been misunderstood, misquoted, or didn't
>    exist.  
>    
>    Misquoted - Would've called for a conspiracy between the apostles or
>    the writers of the gospels would've had to have been complete idiots as
>    Jesus quotes numerous things.  This would have called for a conspiracy
>    of idiocy.  Dr. Luke doesn't strike me as an idiot.
    
When I said "misquoted" I didn't necessarily mean that he was deliberately
misquoted.  The misquotes might have been accidental, due to the passage of
time.  Is there any evidence that Luke ever actually saw Jesus?  His gospel
may have been based on conversations with people who claimed to have seen
and heard Jesus.

>    Didn't exist - Now I will bring in an assumption.  I assume as
>    Christians, we all believe he existed.  Otherwise, there is no
>    Christian Perspective.
    
Apparently at least some Christians are willing to entertain this idea -
see Patricia's new note!

				-- Bob

    Re.69
    
    Jack,
        
>    My views on Eastern Religion, admittedly, do come from experts in the 
>    Christian field.  Walter Martin, Tim LaHaye, Josh McDowell to name a 
>    few.  These individuals are not recently off the boat.  They are a
>    resource for individuals such as myself.  They do not write books to
>    knock down Eastern Religion but their intent is to reveal the
>    inconsistencies or Eastern Religion with doctrines of Christianity.
 
    Wouldn't it be best to go to the source occasionally and read some for 
    yourself?  For example, I've actually encountered  *totally incorrect*
    references to verses in the Gita by one of these Christian authors.  
    The incorrect verse was entered in the CHRISTIAN conference by someone 
    also reads the sorts of books that you do.  I do not any longer remember 
    the note, book, nor verse, however I do remember the person I replied to.
    
    However, even when I quoted the correct verse, still this person stood
    by his book, and not the truth.  (I had searched many Gita translations
    that I have just to make sure that they all said the same thing.) 
       
    I would be equally as critical of someone in another religion doing the
    same thing - not reading the original scripture, and instead just
    reading comments on the scripture by someone in their same religion.
    
    However, there is one excellent book I can recommend, and that is,
    "Christianity, and Paths To Dialogue with Hinduism, Buddhism, and
    Islam", by Hans Kung, in conjunction with other scholars.  Hans Kung is
    a Catholic priest, and is one of the most respected Christian theologians 
    today.
    
    
>    Like you Cindy, I get no inspiration from your source as you do not get
>    any from mine.  This is the bottom line and I do respect your position.
 
    But...did you read the book, "Autobiography Of A Yogi"?  That was my 
    question.
       
    
>    What baffles me more than anything is your motive for proclaiming to be
>    or identifying yourself as a Christian.....perhaps you can set me
>    straight. 
    
    The crux of the problem, at last.  Jack, I do NOT identify myself as a
    Christian...not even as a Unitarian Christian.  I've stated that many
    times, both here and in the CHRISTIAN conference.
    
    Now do you see how even this one incorrect assumption you had about me 
    has colored just about all your replies to my notes?
    
    I was raised, baptized and confirmed a Christian, however.
    
    
>    when you APPEAR (Notice I use
>    the word appear so as to not accuse you of anything), to disbelieve
>    alot of what pure Christianity stands for?  Do you believe Christ is
>    the only way?  Do you believe the Bible to be the Word of God? Do you
>    believe Christ's death and resurrection atones for our sin?  My
>    objective and honest observation is that you do not.  This is an
>    observation mind you, not an accusation.
    
    Some real questions.  Yes, I can answer these.  Later on though.  Time
    does not permit now.  However, since you now know I do not consider
    myself a Christian, perhaps answering these questions is no longer
    necessary.  Your call.
    
    
>    By the way, I realize you are well versed and accurate in English
>    syntax and grammer.  I was picking on you mostly to get you back for
>    correcting me so much.  
 
    Yes, I realize that.  (Btw, helpfully...well-versed should have a
    hyphen.  (;^)  Hey...it's my job, you know.
       
    Cindy

  >c: Biographer of the Prophet. This biographer is honest.

The biographer may be honest about the prophecy, but he is
certainly dishonest in writing as if he were the prophet.

The God I know doesn't lie.  Does yours?

Collis

    
    Actually, Collis, Sufis (the mystical branch of Islam) have this saying
    that goes, "Sufis lie."
    
    The reason behind that, I've heard, is that Sufis believe that anything
    that is written or spoken is not the complete Truth.  It can, at best,
    only be incomplete.  So at any level, except for the highest that is
    beyond speech and writing (in other words, direct realization of God), 
    it is all ultimately a lie.
    
    A bit of Sufi trivia for today.
    
    Cindy
    
    PS. I didn't enter this for debate purposes...just passing it along as
        some information....

Re:  .73

I would agree that nothing is "complete" Truth in one
sense.  In another sense, I disagree.

Something can be completely true in that what is said
is indeed only truth.  However, it may not be completely
true in that all the inneundo's of what the truth is
are not expressed.

Collis

re:  Note 820.69 by Jack

>    What baffles me more than anything is your motive for proclaiming to be
>    or identifying yourself as a Christian when you APPEAR (Notice I use
>    the word appear so as to not accuse you of anything), to disbelieve
>    alot of what pure Christianity stands for?  
                  ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
This sounds like an oxymoron to me, who defines what "pure" Christianity is?
(And if the answer is "God defines it" or "the Bible defines it", who does 
the translating?)

Perhaps this should be in the "I have the correct handle on God and you
don't!" topic.   .-) 

Peace,

Jim

    Yes, perhaps it should.
    
    Pure Christianity is Jesus focused.
    Acting christian is honorable, but is completely different from the 
    purpose of why Jesus came, namely, to seek and save that which was
    lost!!!!
    
    -Jack

    re: 820.72 Collis.
    
    Good morning (from my point of view).
    
    > c: Biographer of the Prophet. This biographer is honest.
    
    >>The biographer may be honest about the prophecy, but he is
    >>certainly dishonest in writing as if he were the prophet.
    
    What can one say? Collis, I really do not want to "convert" you. I
    wanted only to show you how I think and why I think that way. It is
    not necessary for you - vis � vis me - to defend your position and,
    in all honesty, this reply come across to me as a last-ditch defence.
    
    My biographer above is not writing as if he were the prophet. I did
    not use "Autobiographer" (although I might have done if the time-scales
    had been defined as very short).
    
    If your argument is intended to say that the prophecies of the Bible
    all appear to be written by the prophet personally (it didn't say
    that, but I recognize that it could be intended), OK.  But there is
    sufficient evidence to show that it was a very common practice in
    the Judaic, Syriac and Hellenistic worlds of the time, that writers
    used the name of a revered person for authorship of their work. This
    was not, in any way, seen as lying: on the contrary, it was regarded
    as a mark of high esteem. (This is not *just* scholarly theory, there
    are surviving documents which support this). I guess that it was a sort
    of spin-off effect of the general illiteracy and the use of scribes.
    
    Even today, an author may write of past events - even using the first
    person for literary effect. No one would dream of calling the author
    a liar!
    
    Greetings, Derek.

I recognize that this was sometimes done in the past.

I reject the belief that it was done in Biblical writings
for two main reasons:

 - God is the author and He is the author of truth.
   Regardless of the feelings of society at the time,
   It is a lie to claim to be that which you are not.
   God's standards are not bound to society standards;
   they far transcend society standards.  Therefore,
   claims to be an author are claims to be an author.

 - All Biblical references to these writings assume (and
   sometimes declarer explicitly) that the claimed author
   is the actual author.

Given both of these reasons, theories which deny the
authorship claimed are wrong or the Bible is wrong.

Furthermore, the evidence there is NO historical evidence
that the claimed authors are not the true authors.  The
writings themselves, writings that refer to those writings,
the traditions passed down, the tremendous care given to
these writings, the lack of *any* knowledge of *anybody*
writing these writings other than the claimed authors all
lead to the same historical conclususion.  By the way,
the words used, the details provided and some of the
descriptions also argue for original authorship.  That
is the evidence on one side.

The evidence on the other side?
 the people:
 - people who believe that prophecies were not possible and
   so devised theories to explain fulfillment of prophecies
 - people who believe the Bible is not true

 the evidence:
 - word usage
 - some terms used (may not have been used at the original
   time - very few instances)
 - a few unusual prophecies (very few instances)

Points 2 and 3 can be easily attributed to minor redaction
of the original work.  Point 1 is entirely theoretical - and
there is a *lot* of word usage which suggests *not* splitting
up the works which is very poorly accounted for.

Collis

    re Note 820.78 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON
    
    The reading I've done indicates that in addition to word usage, etc.
    the scholors examining original (or at least ancient) Biblical writings
    employed information beyond the text itself. For example, a large part
    of the conclusions drawn is based upon knowledge of the ancient tribes,
    their cultures, and how they interacted. Historical, sociological and
    theological knowledge were(are) used in consort with linguistics when
    examining ancient writings.
    
    Eric

Eric,

I'm sorry, I did not mean to imply that the culture
or historical setting of the people was ignored - not
in the least.  I have been perhaps too narrow in my
statements.

JEDP are seperated not only by word usage (a main
criteria), but also by topic (P is about Priestly,
for example).  The word usage was in contrast to word
meaning.  I don't want to suggest that JEDP scholars
put blinders on.  I do suggest that those working on
these theory have already assumed errors in the Bible.
I also clearly state that historical evidence has
no support for their redactors and late-date authors.

Collis

    re Note 820.80 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON

    > I'm sorry, I did not mean to imply that the culture
    > or historical setting of the people was ignored - not
    > in the least.  I have been perhaps too narrow in my
    > statements.

    Fair enough.

    > I do suggest that those working on these theory have already assumed
    > errors in the Bible.

    What I have read indicates that the questions regarding Mosaic
    authorship were raised by pious people who, through their study of the
    Biblical text, were troubled by what they read and what they assumed to
    be true (i.e. Mosaic authorship). The errors are not with the Bible per
    se (or its message), but in our literal interpretations and
    unquestioning allegiance to tradition. 

    I have *never* read a proponent of the JEDP theory conclude that the
    Biblical writers were liars, or that the Bible is bunk, or of no more
    valuable than Aesop's fables. Yet this is how some noter's have cast the
    JEDP theorists and those who agree with it. Some of the mysticism is
    removed, and for some this would crush their entire faith system.

    From where I sit, asserting that the the JEDP theory is worthless
    because it is proposed by people of a particular mind, holds as much
    (or as little) water as the assertion that the conclusions made by
    folks such as yourself are bogus due to their pre-existing beliefs.

    > I also clearly state that historical evidence has no support for their
    > redactors and late-date authors.
      
    This was not what I thought. I will look into this for my own
    edification.

    Eric                                         

  >I have *never* read a proponent of the JEDP theory conclude that 
  >the Biblical writers were liars, or that the Bible is bunk, or of 
  >no more valuable than Aesop's fables.

*THIS* is the problem.  They *DON'T* recognize the valuelessness
of the Bible given their own assumptions.

If they did, I'd say that they were consistent and have far
fewer problems with their claims.  But, they attempt to claim
the Bible is something it cannot be - totally wrong in its
claims about itself and quite valuable in its claims about
God.  This is nonsense.

Collis

    .82
    
    To me, it's not a problem.  I don't recognize the valuelessness of
    the Bible when it is ascribed to JEDP theory either.
    
    Richard
    

re Note 820.82 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON:

>   >I have *never* read a proponent of the JEDP theory conclude that 
>   >the Biblical writers were liars, or that the Bible is bunk, or of 
>   >no more valuable than Aesop's fables.
> 
> *THIS* is the problem.  They *DON'T* recognize the valuelessness
> of the Bible given their own assumptions.
  
        Collis,

        You have indeed convinced me that they (the proponents of
        JEDP theory) don't recognize the valuelessness to YOU of the
        Bible given their own assumptions.

        Perhaps the Bible is valueless to THEM given YOUR assumptions
        -- so what?  Would that mean that YOU were wrong?

        Bob

    re Note 820.82 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON 

    > *THIS* is the problem.  They *DON'T* recognize the valuelessness
    > of the Bible given their own assumptions.

    Yet, I lean toward the JEDP conclusions and the Bible as value -
    perhaps even more value - to me. You say their assumptions* make
    the Bible valueless, but I am telling you that this is not the case for
    me. I understand that it undermines the value that you assign to the
    Bible, but I don't think there is a conspiracy afoot to debase
    Judao-Christian religions.
    
    What is nonsense to one man is logic to another... and it seems the
    street runs both ways.
    
    Eric

	Good morning.

	Collis: Further discussion of JEDP seems to me to be pointless.
	You continuously sweep my claims aside, replace them with your
	fixed set of "assumption" claims and continue to discuss from
	this false viewpoint.  It would not be so bad if were able to
	avoid exactly that of which you constantly - and falsely - 
	accuse the JEDP protagonists; but you start from an inerrancy
	assumption and refuse even to consider that there *may* be
	alternatives.

	It is a pity: I would love you to have the pleasure, if only you
	could (allow yourself to) read the separated JEDP texts, to see
	how beautifully they flow - as opposed to the somewhat stumbling
	style of the *mixed* texts. The alternative views of early Jewish
	history from the stance of differnt author adds, in my view, a
	whole new dimension of beauty and interest to the Old Testament.

	You are probably doomed not to have this experience, just as	
	creationists miss so much in the beauty of evolution.

	Collis, in reply .10, in response to your earlier statement:

	>Recognizing that the people were incapable of providing 
	>an acceptable sacrifice and providing it Himself seems
	>to me to be a very logical step, not a 108 degree turn,

	I asked you to: "earnestly, explain your chain of logic which
	leads from the situation of a people unable to provide an
	acceptable sacrifice and culminated with the barborous murder of
	His 'truly beloved son' - Not on the altar of the Temple, but on
	the cross of an occupying power."  (Note: I addressed this to
	John Covert, but later corrected it: maybe you missed the correction).

	Do you have any intention of illuminating us?

	Greetings, Derek.

	On Sunday, I had occasion to speak for a while with our local
	Catholic priest as I drove him from one parish to another (in
	Austria, some priests read Mass at three or more churches on
	Sundays.

	I asked him of his interpretation of the God-breathed passage.
	For a whole red-phase of a traffic light, he thought about it
	and then, after making clear that he was not speaking of the
	dogmatic belief, told me that:

	In the post-Homeric period right up to the late 4th century
	BC it was customary among pagans - who had their gods and idols
	and their stories of God-presence, dreams of God-spoken instructions
	etc. - for them to write a note, an appeal, a request, on a piece
	of parchment and to pin it to a statue of the appropriate God.
	There lore assumed that the God "visited" his statue from time
	to time and either granted or denied the request. A request that
	was granted was said to be God-breathed in exactly the same
	terminology as used in Timothy. The priest said that he has no
	doubt that the biblical use of the word has its origins in post-
	Homeric paganism but that this does nothing to reduce its meaning
	in Timothy.

	Asked if he believed that Paul wrote Timothy he said: "No, there
	is too much evidence against it. But does it matter?"

	Greetings, Derek.

  >I asked you to: "earnestly, explain your chain of logic which
  >leads from the situation of a people unable to provide an
  >acceptable sacrifice and culminated with the barborous murder of
  >His 'truly beloved son'.

Let me try again.

God knew before the foundation of the world that His Son,
Jesus would have to be sacrificed for our sins.  Therefore,
he instituted a type of sacrifice amongst His chosen people,
the Jews, to teach them that a sacrifice was needed to
cleanse them from their sins.  After this teaching, was
it not obvious that God would then actually provide the
sacrifice?

If you start with the presumption that God didn't know what
He was going to do when He instituted the sacrificial laws,
then indeed things may seem out of whack.  But this assumption
makes no sense when you consider the nature of God.

Collis

To all,

I've presented each step of the logic that shows the
valuelessness of the Bible given the JEDP assumptions.

Please don't bother telling me you disagree - I know that
already.

Please *do* dissect the logic and point out the flaws;
this way we can both grow.  Of course, if you can't find
flaws, feel free to change your opinions.  :-)

Collis

Re:  priestly view

Indeed, seminaries graduate thousands of students a year
with similar views.  I find this quite sad.  Fortunately,
there are still a lot of people around who actually
believe what the prophets of God have told us.

Collis

	Thanks Collis for a prompt reply.

	I fear, however that, in your haste, you failed to provide the
	chain of reasoning I asked for.

	>God knew before the foundation of the world that His Son,
	>Jesus would have to be sacrificed for our sins.

	Well Ok. This is a prejudicial assumption, but let it pass -
	we've talked enough about assumptions already.

	>Therefore, he instituted a type of sacrifice amongst His chosen
	>people, the Jews, to teach them that a sacrifice was needed to
	>cleanse them of thier sins.

	As far as I understand the nature of sacrifice in the Jewish
	faith: The cleansing - return to righteousness - was achieved by
	the sinner making good his sin to the sinned upon. The sacrifice
	served as a report to God that it was done and to thank him for
	the opportunity. (This is coarsely expressed, but I'm sure that
	we have Jewish noters who can improve upon it).

	Your reply also raises the eternal question: Why did God create
	something which, by the very nature of its creation, would - by
	your reasoning - lead inevitably to sin, the need for sacrifice
	and - to continue your reasoning - the inevitable destruction of
	His son?  Your reasoning opens more holes than is fills.

	>After this teaching, was it not obvious that God would then
	>actually provide the sacrifice?

	No!

	I see no logic in this no matter how I free my mind from
	assumptions and prejudice. I cannot even see logic in this if
	I try to lock up my mind with the prejudicial assumption that
	God knows everything in advance.  You must admit, Collis, that
	when one considers how difficult I find it - to understand this
	reasoning - God has created some pretty stupid creatures.

	Further: If, by your faith, "God would actually provide the 
	sacrifice" means Jesus; who had been providing the pidgeons,
	doves, sheep etc. that the Jews had been sacrificing? Not God?
	Another God? 

	Finally, your reasoning goes nowhere near to explaining the
	barborous nature of Jesus' death on a Roman cross.

	BTW: Sacrifices to God were supposed to be unblemished. Can you
	explain why God allowed the Romans to whip Jesus, set a crown
	of thorns on his head and then drive nails through his hands and
	feet? One would think - wouldn't one? - that especially in this
	one very special case where the sacrifice was the ultimate, the
	most important in the history of the world and - yes AND - Gods
	*very own* sacrifice, that He would have taken very special care
	of it.  Wouldn't you think?

	As I said: You raise more questions than you give answers.

	Greetings, Derek.

    
    
    
     Perhaps the next logical topic to branch off from this discussion
    should be " Faith "..
    
    
    David

re Note 820.91 by VNABRW::BUTTON:

> 	BTW: Sacrifices to God were supposed to be unblemished. Can you
> 	explain why God allowed the Romans to whip Jesus, set a crown
> 	of thorns on his head and then drive nails through his hands and
> 	feet? One would think - wouldn't one? - that especially in this
> 	one very special case where the sacrifice was the ultimate, the
> 	most important in the history of the world and - yes AND - Gods
> 	*very own* sacrifice, that He would have taken very special care
> 	of it.  Wouldn't you think?
  
        I think that a possible answer to this is simple:  the
        whipping, thorns, etc. were all a part of the sacrificial act
        itself, and thus don't constitute a "blemishing" of the
        victim prior to the sacrifice.

        Some believe that Jesus' entire life was an indivisible part
        of the sacrificial act.

        Bob

    RE: .91
    
    You do raise some important ideas. I , to, find  that I just can't
    understand the "logic" behind Christs death as a way to atone for
    our sins.
    
    I can understand other reasons for his death that are , in my way of
    thinking, as or more powerful for us. Rising from the dead was and is
    extremely important for Christians.
    
    I remember when I would ask the same questions to the Sisters who taught
    me at Sunday School...the answer , after the logic failed to sway me was
    always the same: "Its a Divine Mystery" which we will understand when
    we die and go to Heaven.
    
    Marc H.

 I believe "unblemished" refers to the fact that Jesus was without sin..





Jim

     >>God knew before the foundation of the world that His Son,
     >>Jesus would have to be sacrificed for our sins.

  >Well Ok. This is a prejudicial assumption, but let it pass -
  >we've talked enough about assumptions already.

This is stated in the Bible - but I don't know where offhand so I can't
provide a reference.

	>Therefore, he instituted a type of sacrifice amongst His chosen
	>people, the Jews, to teach them that a sacrifice was needed to
	>cleanse them of thier sins.

  >As far as I understand the nature of sacrifice in the Jewish
  >faith: The cleansing - return to righteousness - was achieved by
  >the sinner making good his sin to the sinned upon.

All sin is against God.

  >The sacrifice served as a report to God that it was done and to thank him for
  >the opportunity.

The sacrificial system was not simply a report; it was the means that
God instituted for formal forgiveness of sins.  Now, in actuality, sacrificing
a "perfect" animal could not and did not redeem the person from sin.  However,
God chose this way to instruct His people that a blood sacrifice was necessary
to pay for sin.  The actual payment of Jesus' sacrifice was to come later.

  >Your reply also raises the eternal question: Why did God create
  >something which, by the very nature of its creation, would - by
  >your reasoning - lead inevitably to sin, the need for sacrifice
  >and - to continue your reasoning - the inevitable destruction of
  >His son?

It is your assumption that the creation of people would lead inevitably to
sin.  Scripture does not state this.  The fact that God had pre-knowledge
of this does not mean that Adam and Eve did not have a choice - they did.

Secondly, it may well be better in the end for God to be surrounded
by perfected people who worship and adore Him even at the cost of
those who reject Him being cast off as well as the sacrifice of His one
and only Son on a cross.

However, my reply did not intend to address this question as it was
not the issue under discussion.

     >>After this teaching, was it not obvious that God would then
     >>actually provide the sacrifice?

  >No!

Let's see.  God sets up a system that teaches the people that a sacrifice
is needed for sin.  Then, when His people are aware that their sacrifices are 
inadequate, God Himself provides the perfect sacrifice as He foretold (The 
Old Testament is full of quotes saying that God will save His people).
Jesus claims He came to die.  John the Baptist proclaimed Jesus to be
the "Lamb of God" at his baptism.  The prophets explain exactly what the
sacrifice means after it is made.  And this doesn't make sense?

You've lost me.

  >Further: If, by your faith, "God would actually provide the 
  >sacrifice" means Jesus; who had been providing the pigeons,
  >doves, sheep etc. that the Jews had been sacrificing? Not God?
  >Another God? 

I'm lost again about the relevancy of this question.  But, since God
provides everything and there is nothing that is that God has not
provided, then God did indeed provide pigeons, doves, sheep, etc.

  >Finally, your reasoning goes nowhere near to explaining the
  >barborous nature of Jesus' death on a Roman cross.

Jesus was being punished for the sins of the entire world.  Does
not this death seem appropriate?  If not, why?  How would you
punish someone for all the sins of the entire world?

Collis

	Re: 820.96 Collis

	>All sin is against God.

	I made no contrary claim. But God insisted on atonement with
	the offended human person.

	>The sacrificial system was not simply a report.

	Neither did I say so. I included "AND to thank Him..."

	>Now, in actuality, sacrificing a "perfect" animal could not and
	>did not redeem the person from sin.

	Neither did I say so.

	>However, God chose this way to instruct His people that a blood
	>sacrifice was necessary to pay for sin.

	Your understanding of this is contrary to mine AND, I am sure,
	contrary to that of the Jews: with whom, after all, the Covenant
	was sealed.

	>It is your assumption that the creation of people would lead
	>inevitably to sin.

	No, Collis! No!

	It is the *inevitable* conclusion of your prejudicial assumption.
	I quote you: God knew before the foundation of the world that His
	son, Jesus would have to be sacrificed for our sins. End of quote. 
	That this is an assumption on your part is also confirmed by you.
	I Quote: Scripture does not state this. End of quote.

	Personally, I do not hold this view. I am, however, prepared to
	consider its possibility: for the sake of reasonable discussion.

	>The fact that God had pre-knowledge of this does not mean that
	>Adam and Eve did not have a choice - they did.

	This sounds like a stacked deck to me. Adam and Eve were fully
	eqiippied with thinking gear and - Adam at least - was granted
	sufficient fantasy to think up thirty-five trillion names for
	creatures. It seems reasonable to conclude that they were able
	to figure: "God must *want* us to sin, or he wouldn't tempt us.
	He *knows* that we could resist, so we don't need to prove it."
	Seriously, Collis: what sort of choice do you believe they *really*
	had, given an all-knowing, all-powerful God?

	>You've lost me.

	Don't blame me if you're lost, Collis. I am not trying to show
	you "the way".

	>Jesus was being punished for the sins of the entire world. Does
	>not this death seem appropriate?

	No!

	>If not, why? How would you punish someone for the sons of the
	>entire world?

	I can't imagine why anyone should think that the brutal death of
	a beloved son could be appropriate. It is beyond my comprehension.
	This will, of course, *prove* that it is "of God" for some, because
	"His ways are mysterious".

	[I considered entering a "scenario" played out between me and my
	son, David, here: but I got sick as I began to frame the words].

	Sorry, Collis: I propose we conclude the discussion. Your "logic"
	is simply not getting through to me. I can truly say that I enjoyed
	the discussion, and I have learned much of where you are coming
	from. We have probably bored others to tears, but crying is
	suposed to be good for the soul, too; so we've all gained a little.

	Greetings, Derek.

	Re: .93. Bob

	>...the whipping, thorns, etc. were all part of the sacrificial act
	>itself, and thus don't constitute a "blemishing" of the
	>victim prior to the sacrifice.

	I hear what you're saying, but it feels a bit like shoe-horning to me,
	because it does not conform with the definition of unblemished of the
	Old Covenant. Also, the Gospel of John (I think) points out - as if
	to justify "unblemished" - that Jesus' legs were not broken. Either the
	reference is superfluous (if your explanation is correct) or the reference
	was not intended as some scholars think; but that it was simply a reference 
	to the practice of ensuring a speedy death.

	Re: .94 Marc_H

	>I can understand other reasons for his death that are, in my way of
	>thinking, as or more powerful for us. Rising from the dead was and is
	>very important for Christians.

	This has the merit that it is logical: to rise, one must first die.
	But it raises more problems: The rising is then set as the key, pre-
	ordained part of the story. It follows that, if the resurrection was
	pre-ordained, so was the death - and the manner of death, since nothing
	could be left to chance. It is the *manner* of death which is my primary
	issue with the whole story.

	Thanks for your contibutions.

	Greetings, Derek.

Well, I don't know why you can't see this.  But, it is
Biblical: 

  "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its
  wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the
  foolishness of what was preached to save those who
  believe.  Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look
  for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified:  a stumbling
  block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those 
  whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the
  power of God and the wisdom of God."  I Cor 1

I'll pray that God calls you to Himself and allow you to
understand the foolishness of the gospel.

Collis

    Hi Derek:
    
    An inspiring passage I thought of when reading your reply.
    
    "And the law is not of faith: but the man that doeth them shall live in
    them.  Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a
    curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangs from a
    tree:  That the blessing of Abraham might come on the gentiles through
    Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through
    faith."   Galatians 3: 12-14
    
    Based on this passage and reference from Paul, I agree with you that
    the manner of death was predetermined by God in the beginning.  Since
    anything or anybody hanging on a tree is cursed, what better way of
    illustrating how Jesus became a curse for us?!!
    
    I also find it interesting how Paul, a Pharisee of all Pharisees refers
    to the law as a curse..Why?  Because where there is no law, sin is not
    imputed.  As I stated in other replies, the law was made to show us how
    sinful we are.  Jesus had to hang from a tree to become a curse for us
    so that the Gentiles would have access to the Father and not just the
    Jews through the Mosaic law.  It was imperative that he do this.
    
    As far as being unblemished, you would think that the priests would
    sacrifice the most beautiful lambs they had, correct?  Anything else
    would be an insult to God.  Let's look at what it says about the
    Messiah, 700 years B.C.
    
    ""For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, and as a root out
    of a dry ground: he has no form nor prestige; and when we shall see
    him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.  He is despised and
    rejected of men; a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and we hid
    as it were our faces from him; he was despised and we esteemed him
    not."  Isaiah 53:2-3.  If you read a few verses later, it says he was
    bruised for our iniquities and by his stripes we were healed.
    
    Prophecy is accurate and paints a gruesome picture.  As we can see,
    Jesus was poor, not of high stature, not great looking, just a simple
    carpenter's son.  We also see that his scourging was necessary to
    fulfill prophecy and as part of shedding his blood for Derek Button.
    But was he unblemished..?  Absolutely.  Peter writes that there was no
    sin found in Him, neither was there any guile from his mouth!!
    
    I praise God that he has revealed the nature of His Son to us!!
    
    God Bless,
    
    -Jack

    
    RE:  820.45
    
    > Then you are perhaps forced to believe that Christianity is
    > the only legitimate religion.
    
    I don't understand why you're so heavy into this idea of oppression 
    Patricia.  You seem extremely preoccupied and biased by it.  Nobody 
    forced any of us to believe what we believe.  Where do you get this 
    notion?  Salvation is a gift freely given and freely received.  You 
    can't be forced into it.  It doesn't work that way.
    
    If the Bible is as you say not inerrant and some parts are true and
    some parts aren't true or relevant then you or whoever you're listening
    to would need to be inerrant to make those distinctions.  I don't care
    how much of a theologian anyone gets to be, none of us can meet that
    criteria.
    
    It's funny that classic Christianity gets trashed because it has
    assumptions or axioms which we believe.  That is true of all religions,
    even atheism which believes there is no God.  Can they prove it
    conclusively?  Nope.  Yet their reasons for their belief are accepted
    because they are "scientific".  Since neither can be proven I would
    propose that a case can be made for accepting a Christian's belief in
    the Bible as God's Word as at least a practical assumption on the
    part of those who believe:
    
            1)  The reliability of the biblical documents.
                    - The O.T. was unusually well preserved and backed
                      up by the Dead Sea Scrolls.
                    - The N.T. has 5,000 Greek manuscripts and 8,000 Latin
                      manuscripts - no other literary work can compare:
                      7 copies of Plato's writing, 5 of Aristotle's, and
                      643 of Homer's.
                    - It's Quality is unparalleled.
    
            2)  The historical accuracy of the Bible.
    
                    - Archeology has revealed places and names from the O.T. 
                      & has confirmed it's biblical and geographical accuracy.
    
            3)  Fulfilled prophecy.
    
                    - Some 300 O.T. prophecies were fulfilled in the life
                      of Jesus Christ.
                    - There is no way to engineer the fulfillment of
                      prophecies that dealt with everything from Jesus's
                      birth, death, and resurrection.
    
            4)  The impact of the Bible.
    
                    - The writing of the Bible involved more than 40
    		      authors from all walks of life over a span of more 
    		      than 1,500 years.  We're talking more diversity than 
    		      DEC will ever know.
                    - The individual writings from one unified book with
                      one continuous theme...a testimony of it's unique
                      inspiration.
                    - It's always been a best-seller.
                    - It's been banned, burned, subjected to destructive
                      criticism, and yet it remains.
                    - It's unique in it's message; it claims to be the
                      very words of Creator God.
                    - It's unique in it's power to change a person's life.
                      As millions throughout the course of time with
    		      testify.
         
    Jill

    	re: .101 Jill Kinsella.
    
    	Among other things, you claim that over 300 prophecies of the
    	Old Testament were fulfilled in the new. I seriously doubt
    	this!
    
    	I would dearly love to see a full list, but I appreciate that
    	this would be an enormous task.
    
    	But if you could illustrate your point by giving, say, 30
    	examples (10%) or 10 examples (3.3%) I would be satisfied.
    	Take your time, I'm away for a while.
        
    	Greetings, Derek.

re: Note 820.101 by Jill "Why be politically correct when you can be right?"

> - It's unique in it's message; it claims to be the very words of Creator God.

The Bible is not unique in this claim. In fact I think the Koran makes an even 
stronger claim as to its origin than the Bible.

> - It's unique in it's power to change a person's life.

It is not unique in this claim.  Many books, (The Alcoholics Anonymous Big 
Book for one) have changed and saved millions of person's lives in a very 
powerful and real way.

This is not meant to diminish the Bible in any way.  The Bible is a remarkable 
collection of books with a remarkable message and heritage.

Peace,

Jim

    Prophecies Concerning Our Lord's Birth       Prophecy Fulfilled
    1. Born of the Seed of Woman - Genesis 3:15  Matthew 1:20, Galatians 4:4
    2. Born of a Virgin - Isaiah 7:14            Matthew 1:18-25, Luke 1:26-35
    3. Son of God - Psalms 2:7                   Matthew 3:17
               I Chronicles 17:11-14             Matthew 16:16
              II Samuel 7:12-16                  Mark 9:7, Luke 9:35, 22:70, 
                                                 Acts 13:30-33, John 1:34,49
    4. Seed of Abraham - Genesis 12:2-3          Matthew 1:1
                         Genesis 22:18           Galatians 3:16
    5. Son of Issac - Genesis 21:12              Luke 3:23,34, Matthew 1:2
    6. Son of Jacob - Numbers 24:17              Luke 3:23,34
                      Genesis 35:10-12           Matthew 1:2, Luke 1:33
    7. Tribe of Judah - Genesis 49:10            Luke 3:23,33
                        Micah 5:2                Matthew 1:2, Hebrews 7:14
    8. Family Line of Jesse - Isaiah 11:1        Luke 3:23,32
                              Isaiah 11:10       Matthew 1:6
    9. House of David - Jeremiah 23:5            Luke 3:23,31
                     II Samuel 7:12-16           Matthew 1:1,9:27,15:22
                     Psalms 132:11               20:30-31,21:9,15,22:41-46,
                                                 Mark 9:10,10:47-48, 
                                                 Luke 18:38-39, 
                                                 Acts 13:22-23, Revelation 22:16
   10. Born at Bethlehem - Micah 5:2             Matthew 2:1,4-8, John 7:42, 
                                                 Luke 2:4-7
   11. Time of Birth - Daniel 9:25,              Luke 2:1-7
                      Genesis 49:10
   12. Presented with Gifts - Psalms 72:10-15    Matthew 2:1,11
                        Isaiah 60:6
   13. Herod Kills Children - Jeremiah 31:15     Matthew 2:16

   Prophecies Concerning Our Lord's Nature       Prophecy Fulfilled
   14. His Pre-Existence - Micah 5:2,            Colossians 1:17,
                   Isaiah 9:6-7,41:4,            John 1:1-2,8:58,17:5,24,
                                                      44:6,48:12,         
                                                 Revelation 1:17,2:8,22:13
                   Psalms 102:25,
                   Proverbs 8:22-23
   15. He Shall Be Called Lord - Psalms 110:1,   Luke 2:11, Matthew 22:43-45
                                Jeremiah 23:6
   16. Shall Be Immanuel - Isaiah 7:14           Matthew 1:23, Luke 7:16
           (God With Us)

   17. Shall Be a Prophet - Deuteronomy 18:18    Matthew 21:11, Luke 7:16,
                                                 John 4:19,6:14,7:40
   18. Priest - Psalms 110:4                     Hebrews 3:1,5:5-6
   19. Judge - Isaiah 33:22                      John 5:30, II Timothy 4:1
   20. King - Psalms 2:6,                        Matthew 27:37,21:5,
            Zechariah 9:9,                       John 18:33-38
            Jeremiah 23:5
   21. Special Anointment of - Isaiah 11:2,42:1,  Matthew 3:16-17,12:17-21,
          Holy Spirit        1:1-2, Psalms 45:7   Mark 1:10-11, Luke 4:15-21,43
                                                  John 1:32
   22. His Zeal for God - Psalms 69:9             John 2:15-17

   Prophecies Concerning Our Lord's Ministry      Prophecy Fulfilled
   23. Preceded by Messenger - Isaiah 40:3,       Matthew 3:1-3,11:10,
                               Malachi 3:1        John 1:23, Luke 1:17
   24. Ministry to Begin in - Isaiah 9:1          Matthew 4:12-17
             Galilee
   25. Ministry of Miracles - Isaiah 35:5-6,      Matthew 9:32-35,11:4-6, 
                                     32:3-4       Mark 7:33-35, 
                                                  John 5:5-9, 9:6-11,11:43-47
   26. Teacher of Parables - Psalms 78:2          Matthew 13:34
   27. He Was to Enter The - Malachi 3:1          Matthew 21:12
             Temple
   28. Triumphal Entry into - Daniel 9:20-27      Mark 11:1-11
          Jerusalem
   29. He Was to Enter - Zechariah 9:9            Luke 19:35-37, Matthew 21:6-11
        Jerusalem on Donkey
   30. "Stone of Stumbling" to - Psalms 118:22,   I Peter 2:7, Romans 9:32-33
                  Jews       Isaiah 8:14,28:16
   31. "Light" to Gentiles - Isaiah 60:3, 49:6    Acts 13:47-48, 26:23, 28:28

   Prophecies Concerning Events After His Burial   Prophecy Fulfilled
   32. Resurrection - Psalms 16:10,30:3,          Acts 2:31,13:33,
                           41:10,118:17,          Luke 24:46, Mark 16:6,
                            Hosea 6:2             Matthew 28:6
   33. Ascension - Psalms 68:18                   Acts 1:9
   34. Seated at the Right Hand - Psalms 110:1    Hebrews 1:3, Mark 16:19,
              of God                              Acts 2:34-35

   Prophecies Concerning His Crucifixion Events    Prophecy Fulfilled

   35. Betrayed by a Friend - Psalms 41:9,55:12-14  Matthew 10:4,26:49-50, 
                                                    John 13:21
   36. Sold for 30 Pieces of - Zechariah 11:12      Matthew 26:15,27:3
          Silver
   37. Money to Be Thrown in - Zechariah 11:13      Matthew 27:5
          God's House

   38. Price Give for Potter's - Zechariah 11:13    Matthew 27:7
          Field
   39. Forsaken by His - Zechariah 13:7             Mark 14:50,27,
           Disciples                                Matthew 26:31
   40. Accused by False - Psalms 35:11              Matthew 26:59-60
          Witnesses
   41. Dumb Before Accusers - Isaiah 53:7           Matthew 27:12
   42. Wounded and Bruised - Isaiah 53:5,           Matthew 27:26
                          Zechariah 13:6
   43. Smitten and Spit Upon - Isaiah 50:6,         Matthew 26:67,
                                 Micah 5:1          Luke 22:63
   44. Mocked - Psalms 22:7-8                       Matthew 27:31
   45. Fell Under the Cross - Psalms 109:24-25      John 19:17, Luke 23:26, 
                                                    Matthew 27:31-32
   46. Hands and Feet Pierced - Psalms 22:16,       Luke 23:33, John 20:25
                             Zechariah 12:10
   47. Crucified with Thieves - Isaiah 53:12        Matthew 27:38, Mark 15:27-28
   48. Made Intercession for - Isaiah 53:12         Luke 23:34
          His Persecutors
   49. Rejected by His Own - Isaiah 53:3,           John 7:5,48,1:11,
              People   Psalms 69:8,118:22           Matthew 21:42-43
   50. Hated Without a Cause - Psalms 69:4,         John 15:25
                              Isaiah 49:7
   51. Friends Stood Afar Off - Psalms 38:11        Luke 23:49, Mark 15:40, 
                                                    Matthew 27:55-56
   52. People Shook Their Heads - Psalms 109:25,22:7  Matthew 27:39
   53. Stared Upon - Psalms 22:17                   Luke 23:35
   54. Garments Parted and - Psalms 22:18           John 19:23-24
            Lots Cast
   55. To Suffer Thirst - Psalms 69:21,22:15        John 19:28
   56. Gall and Vinegar - Psalms 69:21              Matthew 27:34,
         Offered to Him                             John 19:28-29
   57. His Forsaken Cry - Psalms 22:1               Matthew 27:46
   58. Committed Himself to God - Psalms 31:5       Luke 23:46
   59. Bones Not Broken - Psalms 34:20              John 19:33
   60. Heart Broken - Psalms 22:14                  John 19:34
   61. His Side Pierced - Zechariah 12:10           John 19:34
   62. Darkness Over The Land - Amos 8:9            Matthew 27:45
   63. Buried in Rich Man's - Isaiah 53:9           Matthew 27:57-60
               Tomb

    There are 269 more, all fulfilled by Jesus Christ.

In article <820.101-940303-174002@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, [email protected] (Why be politically correct when you can be right?) writes:
|>Title: The Bible: Totally Inerrant or Not?
|>Reply Title: It's a reasonable assumption...
|>
|>    
|>    RE:  820.45
|>    
|>    > Then you are perhaps forced to believe that Christianity is
|>    > the only legitimate religion.
|>    
|>    I don't understand why you're so heavy into this idea of oppression 
|>    Patricia.  You seem extremely preoccupied and biased by it.  Nobody 
|>    forced any of us to believe what we believe.  Where do you get this 
|>    notion?  Salvation is a gift freely given and freely received.  You 
|>    can't be forced into it.  It doesn't work that way.
|>    
|>    If the Bible is as you say not inerrant and some parts are true and
|>    some parts aren't true or relevant then you or whoever you're listening
|>    to would need to be inerrant to make those distinctions.  I don't care
|>    how much of a theologian anyone gets to be, none of us can meet that
|>    criteria.
|>    
|>    It's funny that classic Christianity gets trashed because it has
|>    assumptions or axioms which we believe.  That is true of all religions,
|>    even atheism which believes there is no God.  Can they prove it
|>    conclusively?  Nope.  Yet their reasons for their belief are accepted
|>    because they are "scientific".  Since neither can be proven I would
|>    propose that a case can be made for accepting a Christian's belief in
|>    the Bible as God's Word as at least a practical assumption on the
|>    part of those who believe:
|>    
|>            1)  The reliability of the biblical documents.
|>                    - The O.T. was unusually well preserved and backed
|>                      up by the Dead Sea Scrolls.
|>                    - The N.T. has 5,000 Greek manuscripts and 8,000 Latin
|>                      manuscripts - no other literary work can compare:
|>                      7 copies of Plato's writing, 5 of Aristotle's, and
|>                      643 of Homer's.
|>                    - It's Quality is unparalleled.
|>    
|>            2)  The historical accuracy of the Bible.
|>    
|>                    - Archeology has revealed places and names from the O.T. 
|>                      & has confirmed it's biblical and geographical accuracy.
|>    
|>            3)  Fulfilled prophecy.
|>    
|>                    - Some 300 O.T. prophecies were fulfilled in the life
|>                      of Jesus Christ.
|>                    - There is no way to engineer the fulfillment of
|>                      prophecies that dealt with everything from Jesus's
|>                      birth, death, and resurrection.
|>    
|>            4)  The impact of the Bible.
|>    
|>                    - The writing of the Bible involved more than 40
|>    		      authors from all walks of life over a span of more 
|>    		      than 1,500 years.  We're talking more diversity than 
|>    		      DEC will ever know.
|>                    - The individual writings from one unified book with
|>                      one continuous theme...a testimony of it's unique
|>                      inspiration.
|>                    - It's always been a best-seller.
|>                    - It's been banned, burned, subjected to destructive
|>                      criticism, and yet it remains.
|>                    - It's unique in it's message; it claims to be the
|>                      very words of Creator God.
|>                    - It's unique in it's power to change a person's life.
|>                      As millions throughout the course of time with
|>    		      testify.
|>         
|>    Jill
|>

  Hi Jill,

  I'm sorta new to this newsgroup but I'd just like to 
say "Praise God for your faith and testimony". Each day I 
live, I live for the Lord. Each step I take, I take for the
Lord. I may stumble, (and who hasn't), but the Lord's Grace
and TENACIOUS Faithfulness are there to help pick me up
and get me back in that marathon race. But let me live and
walk by Faith thru deeds and not merely Faith thru words.

  Maranantha,

  Bob.

[posted by Notes-News gateway]

re Note 820.101 by CSC32::KINSELLA:

>     RE:  820.45
>     
>     > Then you are perhaps forced to believe that Christianity is
>     > the only legitimate religion.
>     
>     I don't understand why you're so heavy into this idea of oppression 
>     Patricia.  You seem extremely preoccupied and biased by it.  

        Perhaps Patricia is feeling it?

        If somebody feels oppressed, or feels empathy for the
        oppression of others, it isn't a "heavy idea".

        It's a feeling.

        Now, neglecting the remote possibility that Patricia is
        suffering from clinical paranoia,  I would take her claim of
        oppression as valid.  This doesn't mean that I would
        necessarily accept any claims she makes as to who is to blame
        or who can or must correct it.

        Sometimes oppression is just in the situation.

        Bob

  >...and that nobody but them understands such a plan.

Don't you, yourself, think that this is what the Bible
teaches, Patricia?  If not, what do you think the Bible
teaches concerning salvation?  (verses helpful if it
is not traditional theology).

Collis

re Note 820.109 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN:

>     I have felt oppressed in here.
>     
>     I have felt oppressed when my own my beliefs and my faith have been put
>     down.  Not just a challenge to something I believe.  That is
>     a legitamite part of dialogue.  But things have been directly stated to
>     me that I have interpreted as meaning you are evil because you hold
>     that belief, you are influenced by demonic spirits not the holy spirit,
  
        It may be that the conservatives feel oppression in here at
        times, too, except that they express their feeling in
        different language (what's PC for them may not be what's PC
        for you :-).  This would certainly be an explanation why from
        time to time a conservative will write that this conference
        rejects traditional Christianity, or the presentation
        thereof, when in fact no such conference position has ever
        been taken.

        As I wrote above, the "fact" of oppression may be true yet
        the blame may be nobody's or everybody's or just very hard to
        determine.

        Bob

    Bob,
    
    If the fact of oppression may be true, regardless of who is the subject
    of the oppression or what is the cause, let's all of commit ourselves to
    eliminating it.  Let us all experiment and see if we can eliminate 
    oppression in the small faith community here.

    I think we're mistaking oppression for the expression of Truth.. and
    I'll concede Truth with a capital T by perceptions of each opposing
    view.
    
    I do not feel oppressed by your Universalism Patricia... I feel
    saddened and grieved by it... there is a difference.  But all comes
    down the inerrancy point of view, doesn't it?
    
    As long as that basic tenet of faith is at odds, we will be at odds
    with our beliefs.
    
    I will say it again, if I am wrong it won't matter by your belief
    system... but if I am right and the Bible is *true* then the peril is
    that your belief system won't cut it.  
    
    My Belief System is not the inerrancy of the Bible, but that there is
    only *one* way to life eternal in heaven and that is through Jesus
    Christ and no other.  I believe that to say you believe in Jesus, but
    hold other gods or beliefs at the same level is not embracing
    salvation, but playing the insurance game of having "all the bases
    covered".  
    
    I am most willing to accept our differences Patricia... but because my
    belief system says that peril comes to those who reject Christ's
    salvation ALONE, I am commanded by God to uphold this Truth.
    
    BTW, I happen to agree with much of what you write... we do digress
    when it comes to interpreting the Bible, but your heart of care and
    your search for peace does show through.
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy

    Nancy,
    
    Oppression is not a feeling, it is an act.  If there is anything in my
    Universalism that is oppressive, then I am the first who would like to
    know it.  If my expression of when I have felt oppressed are an
    overreaction, then that too I would like to know.
    
    Nancy, I would like to specifically request that you ponder Romans 2
    and reflect and decide for yourself whether there is guidance for you
    there.  Your noting to me feels very much like you are judging my
    qualifications as a Spiritual person  specifically against the thoughts
    expressed in Romans 2.  Since you claim that all the Bible including
    this passage is the word of God, I sincerely request that you listen to
    those words.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Patricia

    Patricia:
    
    As an outside observer, I don't think Nancy is judging you by what she
    explained in .112.  What you may be feeling, in all honesty, is the
    conviction of the holy spirit.
    
    Ron

    (.114 and others)
    
    Would that the matter could be viewed from both sides, that neither
    side were reluctant to embrace the others' paradigm(s).
    
    Unfortunately, when I'm told by someone my faith saddens them, I get
    this weird feeling I'm the object of condescending pity.  All I want
    to do is say, "Spare me!"
    
    Look, Patricia has retracted her position of calling herself a
    Christian.  No one needs to be concerned about her contaminating
    Christianity with her non-traditional concepts.  I'd say, unless you
    just plain want to run her out of this conference, just leave her
    alone.
    
    Richard
    

    Richard,
    
    Patricia isn't the only one with feelings.  

    .116
    
    Never said otherwise.
    
    Did I step on your toes, again??  I apologize.
    
    Sincerely,
    Richard
    

    My toes are not stepped on Richard....
    
    If I come into this conference with a point of view that others think
    is ludicrous and tell me so... I have choices:
    
    1. Leave Hurt
    2. Leave unhurt but go where I'm wanted
    3. Learn
    4. Accept differences no matter how intricate they are and keep on
    being who I am.
    5. Any combination of the above
    
    
    

    .118
    
    Would that it were so simple and two dimensional.
    
    Tell me you've never witnessed a "true believer" make Christianity
    so undesireable that it has forever closed the door on the matter for
    the seeker.  Tell me that the "true believer" won't have to account
    for that.  Tell me it's not their fault.
    
    Tell me that a lot of "true believers" have greater finesse than a bull
    in a china shop.
    
    Then tell me why I should believe identically to you.
    
    Richard
    

    .119
    
    Mr. Christie,
    
    You do not have to believe as I do.... that is your God-given choice.
    

Note 820.120  Nancy Morales,

You don't have to stop calling me Richard.
    
>    You do not have to believe as I do....

Give me a good reason to believe as you do, Nancy.

Richard

    Richard,
    
    I cannot give *you* any reason to believe as I do... I've said all I
    need say on this subject for now...  You know my convictions..
    
    sobeit

    .122  Nancy,
    
    If not me, can you give *anyone* a reason to embrace the beliefs you
    embrace?
    
    Richard
    

Re:  .123

Is now the time we're supposed to say you don't need
reasons, you need conviction?

No, that would be doing just what creates feelings of
oppression.  So, despite the open door, I'll not walk
through it.  :-)

Collis

    .124 JACKSON
    
    Are you saying you and Nancy can answer for each other?
    
    I was really quite serious, Collis.
    
    If you want someone to believe what you believe, I would hope you
    would have a good reason for wanting that.
    
    Nancy hasn't offerred anything enticing, desirable, or even intriguing
    for me (or anyone) to *want* to believe what she believes.  Frankly,
    neither have you.  And I am probably just as guilty of this as anyone.
    I don't know.
    
    Pax,
    Richard
    

    
    RE: .102 & .104
    
    Hi Derek, I think John's information should cover that for you.  I
    think he cited about 20% of the fulfilled prophecies.
    
    Thanks Brother John for the help.  It would have taken me a little
    longer.  I really appreciate you.
    
    RE: .106  Thanks Bob for the encouragement.  It is greatly appreciated.
      

    
    RE: .103
    
    Hi Jim, I'm going to have to pull out some notes on what Mohammed
    claimed.  I believe he claimed that the Koran was a continuing and 
    final revelation of God, but not that it did not do away with the 
    O.T. scriptures nor did he claim to preclude Jesus although they 
    do deny His diety.  I would be interested in some quotes from the 
    Koran on it's claims of authorship since you stated that there were 
    in fact stronger claims than those of the Bible.  I agree that there 
    are many good books that have some life changing ability, actually 
    doesn't the Alcoholics Anonymous Big Book use Biblical scripture and 
    concepts?  Perhaps therein lies it's power.  I mean seriously I'm 
    sure we can all list some books that have had some effect on our 
    lives, but nothing compares to the testimonies of the Bible's
    throughout the centuries.
    
    However, none of that should negate my proposal that Christians have
    enough evidence that people should at least respect there use of the
    Bible as a valid basis for their beliefs about life.  
    
    Jill

    Richard,
    
    You take the cake and eat it too ... :-) :-)
    
    I'm not surprised for many rejected Jesus in his day and many will
    reject him the days to come.
    
    I don't have anything you should want... other than Christ.
    
    Richard you don't know me well enough for your assessment of my
    Christianity to mean much.  You don't see me stand in front of a class
    of precious, but broken young women, you don't see me in their homes or
    at when I bring them into my home.
    
    You don't see me visiting aids patients from families of the kids in my
    class... or holding an HIV+ child as they found out what HIV is...
    
    No, Richard I can't expect this forum to allow for you or anyone else
    to know who I really am or what Jesus has done in my life.
    
    goodnight,
    Nancy

    
    Patricia, I'm not saying that you've never felt oppressed.  BTW...the
    dictionary shows oppression as an act as well as a feeling.  Believe
    me, from noting in here I know what oppression is.  There have been
    times when I've been beaten over the head by noters without any mercy. 
    It's one of the reasons you don't see me as often.  I'm all for
    eliminating oppression, maybe you can make a show of good faith by 
    not slapping labels on me and other like Fundamentalists?  I find
    labels oppressive especially faulty ones.
    
    You said you wanted to know if you overreact.  Well...I think you do.
    I'm not sure you're always aware of it though.  What I am talking about
    is that you seem to take the role of the victim in a great many of your
    replies not because someone has said you're damned because of your
    beliefs but because someone didn't agree with you them or because
    they've asked you to defend some broad statement that you made or 
    because their beliefs are seem very limiting in your mind.   You
    act as if it's only Christian's words who hurt and ignore the many
    times you've hurt others with your words.  It seems like it's just your
    automatic attitude and response to Christians; whether fundamentalist,
    evangelical, or any of the other labels of classic or traditional
    Christians which I would define as people who accept the following 4
    axioms:  1) God exists, 2) God reveals Himself to us, 3) The Bible is
    God's Word, and 4) Jesus Christ is God's Son and as a result have
    entered into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ accepting His
    redemption at the cross.
     
    Patricia, I can not apologize for recognizing the Bible as God's Word.
    I will not deny it's authorship or power in any way.  God is the
    Creator. I believe God revealed Himself and His desires to us first
    through the prophets, then through His Son, and now through His Word
    guided by His Spirit.  I think He asks all of us to meet Him on His
    terms, not ours. I believe His terms are clearly laid out in His Word
    as well as the consequence of accepting and rejecting them.  I have no
    control over that nor can I judge your heart.  Nor would I want that
    responsibility. I have enough to do with releasing all areas of my own
    life over to God. Now you have what you believe to be your own truth,
    it doesn't matter a hill of beans if you don't agree with me.  But I do
    think we all need to keep searching in order to be certain that we agree
    with God.  I do see your beliefs changing and I do admire that you are
    still searching.
    
    Jill
     

Note 820.128  JULIET::MORALES_NA
    
>    You take the cake and eat it too ... :-) :-)

Ahh...humor.
    
>    I'm not surprised for many rejected Jesus in his day and many will
>    reject him the days to come.

Neither am I.  Actually, the largest number didn't reject, but rather,
failed to recognize the Christ.
    
>    I don't have anything you should want... other than Christ.

I already have Christ.  And Christ has me.
    
>    Richard you don't know me well enough for your assessment of my
>    Christianity to mean much.

Neither do you any of us.

We all would do well to remember that it's a two-way street.

The peace of Jesus,
Richard

    I think it would be accurate to say that every one of us has felt like
    we've been trespassed against in this conference (and others) at one
    time or another.  I know I have.
    
    May God forgive our trepasses as we forgive those who trespass against
    us.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

re: Note 820.127 by Jill "Why be politically correct when you can be right?" 

Hi Jill,

I entered what I did in my note .103 in response to you saying theat the Bible 
is *unique* in various ways.  Yes, it is a very special library of books, but 
it is not unique.

As far as the Koran's claim of Godly issue, I am given to understand that the 
entire work was dictated to Mohammed *directly and purposfully* from Allah/God.
(As opposed to people choosing to write a letter and having that letter 
canonized later.)  Sort of like the ten commandments, *directly dictated by 
God*.

I never said that it did away with O.T. scripture or claim to preclude Jesus, 
I'm confused as to why you raise that point.  I certainly didn't.  As far as 
quotes from the Koran, I haven't any.  I've talked to several Muslims I know 
at work, and that is what I've been given to believe.  (I'm not even sure the 
Koran exists in English.  Apparently it is felt that any translation would 
dilute the message.)

Regarding the AA Big Book.  Yes, there is material borrowed from the Bible.  
There is a lot borrowed from many other sacred and secular sources.  I know 
that many people do not like its "blend", thay are afraid that Christianity is
diluted when mixed with non-Biblical material.  And many believe that its 
power is not solely located in the Christian borrowings.
    
> but nothing compares to the testimonies of the Bible's throughout the 
> centuries.

Yes, the Bible has a longer track record than the AA Big Book.  (How well did 
the Bible do in it's first 50 years or so of existance? .-)  It was only one 
example I suggested regarding the Bible's "uniqueness".  I am sure that many 
other sacred writing, say from more Eastern religions have records rivaling or 
perhaps even exceeding the Bible's.  (Cindy, do you have any input on that?)
    
>    However, none of that should negate my proposal that Christians have
>    enough evidence that people should at least respect there use of the
>    Bible as a valid basis for their beliefs about life.  
    
I agree, and I do not see anyone here (even our athiest friends) who do not 
respect the Bible for what it says as a basis for living a goodly life.
Even non-Christians can agree with "do unto others as you would have them do 
unto you."

Peace,

Jim

    Re.132 
           
    Definitely, Jim.
    
    In Hinduism/India, there is the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, and the 
    Vedas and the Upanishads, just for starters.  The latter two works are
    like the pure philosophy/religion/science - like theoretical text books, 
    almost. The Ramayana and the Mahabharata are the stories of the philosophy/
    religion/science put into practice in real life.  These works are
    absolutely incredible.  
    
    You may have heard of the Bhagavad Gita - that is actually only one 
    chapter of the larger Mahabharata story where Krishna has a dialogue
    counsel with Arjuna on the battlefield.  
    
    There's no 'one book' of the Hindu religion, rather it's a combination of
    primarily the four major works (and subworks) in the paragraph above.  
    
    The Bible is a truly great work.  However, compared to these other
    equally great works, I do not find it to be all that unique.
    
    A comment about the Koran - English translations do exist, however only 
    the original language can be used for any sort of real religious study and
    use, since according to what I know also, it was indeed dictated by God
    to Mohammed in that language.  
    
    God probably saw what happened with the Bible and Christianity and didn't 
    want the same problems related to translation to happen in Islam as well.  
    (;^) 
    
    Cindy
                                                 

re:  Note 820.133 by Cindy "Planet Crayon" 

Thanks for the info, Cindy.

Peace & ((hugs))

Jim

    re Note 820.134 by TFH::KIRK

    > Peace & ((hugs))
               ^^^^^------|
                          |
    hey, hEY, HEY! We'll have none of that touchy-feely stuff here. We've
    got Digital Standards to adhere to... Try that hugging stuff again and
    you'll hear from personnel!
    
     	:^) :^) :^).....

    Ahh, what the heck... go ahead.

    	Eric

    
    Ok.
    
    Hugs, Eric.
    
    And you too, Jim.  (;^)
         
    Cindy

    
    Hi Jim and Cindy, (RE: .132 & .133)
    
    Well, I guess it's true that Mohammed did claim to be the final
    messenger of God.  Although, what proof do we have.  His say so.
    I mean we have eyewitness testimony that Jesus performed miracles
    and rose from the dead and why He did it.  I feel confident that
    He was sent by the Father.  I studied some about Islam in my Intro
    to Religious Studies class and I don't remember there being anything
    supernatural about Mohammed.  Nothing that couldn't have been
    accomplished by a human.  I mean alot of people have claimed to be
    God.  I seemed to remember someone in Waco, TX last year making that
    claim.  But what have they done they would show us anything but a
    human nature.  Now you may choose not to accept the eyewitness
    testimonies of the Bible, that's your perogative.  But I believe
    that anyone who doesn't believes that God could inspire men over
    hundreds of years to write His truth and then bind it into one book
    doesn't know the same God I do.  The God I know is all-powerful and
    fully capable of doing that.  I wanted to pull my notes on Islam, but
    haven't been home this week.  I'm watching my sister's kids.
     
    As for the Big Book, it doesn't have as wide an impact as the Bible.
    It's doesn't apply to every human being.  The Bible does.  Whether you
    choose to apply it is another story.  So I don't care if it stays
    around for 2000 years...it still won't match the Bible.  And actually
    the program did originate with a strong Christian background and was
    much more specific about who God was.  It's been diluted and thus it
    is not as powerful for those who use their teddy bear or a doorknob
    as their "higher power" as it is for those who find the True, Living
    God.
    
    And last, I've had parts of the Bhagavad Gita, the Tao Te Ching, and
    other spiritual books read to me and browsed through them on my own
    and sure they all have some truths in them, just not The Truth.  And
    since Krishna is only one of many gods and since most eastern religions
    believe in a cyclical timeline and the concepts of creation is usually
    rejected, I don't believe it's the same as saying "this book is the
    ownership manual to life written by the Creator of life."  Also,
    unlike Christ, I don't believe Buddha, for example, ever claimed to
    be God.  He was diefied by his followers after his death.  I know
    where believing in The Truth of the Word of God is going to take me.
    I'm not into the adventure of seemly endless lifetimes of trying to
    get to what???  To lose my identity completely and be merged with the
    One that is All?  What kind of incentive is that?  Cindy, maybe you
    can explain it to me.  Seems like a lot of work.
    
    Actually, is there any other religion in the world beside Christianity
    that isn't works-oriented?  Is Christianity the only one based on 
    God's grace?
    
    Jill
          

    Re.137
    
    Jill,
    
    With that note, I'm not even sure where to begin to address much
    of what you wrote.  Doing so would take many, many hours.
    
    However, I can address your last point and say that all religions 
    have grace in them.  And Christianity is not totally grace-based, given
    that somewhere in the writings, someone wrote that "faith without works
    is dead".  (Think it was Jesus, actually.)
    
    About merging with 'all that is' - that is what happens in Christianity
    as well.  Giving up our individuated egos and letting 'Thy will be done, 
    not mine'.  That's merging with God, or all that is.  That's what
    Christ meant when he said, "I and my Father are One."
    
    The 'Big Book' - were you referring to the Koran?
    
    Cindy
          

RE:             <<< Note 820.138 by TNPUBS::PAINTER "Planet Crayon" >>>
                           -< a very limited answer >-

       
   > However, I can address your last point and say that all religions 
   > have grace in them.  And Christianity is not totally grace-based, given
   > that somewhere in the writings, someone wrote that "faith without works
   > is dead".  (Think it was Jesus, actually.)
    
      "it is by grace you are saved through faith and not of works lest any
       man should boast" Eph 2:8,9.  You can't work your way to Heaven and brag
       your way in.   Grace as used in this passage and in others means "God's
       unmerited favor"  A gift we do not deserve (see Romans 6:23..the word
       "gift" in that passage has the same root as "grace").

       James wrote "faith without works is dead"...meaning that after our 
       salvation, if our lives don't reflect it, if we go back to our lives
       of sin and rebellion, if our actions don't speak as loud as our words
       we had better take a look at our standing with God.  Our works should
       reflect our faith in Christ that brought about our salvation.
    
       Faith--->salvation--->works


   

        Jim          

    "Faith without works is dead," is in James.  Jesus never told anyone
    to that "works" are wrong.  I prefer my burger with the "works." 8-)
    
    Paul had a different slant, but as I recall he was dealing with Mosaic
    law.
    
    The Spirit, according to Jesus in John's Gospel (3.8), is a bit like
    the wind.  You know not where it comes from, nor where it will go.
    
    Richard
    

 James 2:20 to be exact.  

    
    Agreed, Jim.
    
    Cindy

re: Note 820.137 by Jill "Why be politically correct when you can be right?" 

>                            -< Nothing compares... >-

Opinion.

>    Well, I guess it's true that Mohammed did claim to be the final
>    messenger of God.  Although, what proof do we have.  His say so.

What proof do we have that Paul was an apostle.........?  His say so.
Note the similarity............................................^

No, Mohammed was no more supernatural than Paul.  Another similarity.

>Now you may choose not to accept the eyewitness testimonies of the Bible, 
>that's your perogative.  

Now, you may choose not to accept the revelations made to Mohammed, that's
your perogative.  Do you see?

>As for the Big Book, it doesn't have as wide an impact as the Bible.

I never said it did, yet it Has Had an Impact on many people, and in that 
aspect the Bible is not so unique.  (Perhaps it has the *greatest* aspect, a 
Titan amongst others, but it isn't �unique�.)

>    It's doesn't apply to every human being.  

No, it's focus is more limited.  So what?  It's principles have been expanded 
to a much wider audience (AA, Al-Anon, ACoA, OA, FA, NA...the list goes on.)  
One might say that it's focus is aimed at certain sins that can be life 
threatening.  But I'll bet you *anyone* can benefit from such programs.

>Whether you choose to apply it is another story.  

Are you implying that you think I *haven't* chosen the Bible?

I have.  Yet I also understand that many people, not so different from myself, 
have chosen other faiths, and I am not the one to say that they are thus 
doomed to an eternity in hell.

>So I don't care if it stays around for 2000 years...
>it still won't match the Bible.

Fine.  I never said that,  (Are you sure it was me you've been replying to? 
.-)  No, I doubt the AA Big Book will ever match the Bible.  However as a
class, the Bible is not unique. 

>   And actually the program did originate with a strong Christian 
>   background and was much more specific about who God was.  

True, although the founders accepted that there are good, faithful people who
don't share the Christian faith.  Are you as generous? 

>It's been diluted and thus it is not as powerful for those who use their 
>teddy bear or a doorknob as their "higher power" as it is for those who 
>find the True, Living God.

I �knew� you were going to say that.  .-)
Again, I never said it was.  However, it has saved many such lives.
(BTW, program people who use a lightbulb as their higher power seldom cling to 
that for very long.  As they work out their faith they change and grow.)

>    And last, I've had parts of the Bhagavad Gita, the Tao Te Ching, and
>    other spiritual books read to me and browsed through them on my own
>    and sure they all have some truths in them, just not The Truth.  

And vice versa for many, many people.  

>"this book is the ownership manual to life written by the Creator of life."  

What verse in the Bible says this?

>He was diefied by his followers after his death.  I know
>    where believing in The Truth of the Word of God is going to take me.

I think you have Faith, not knowledge.  (And Faith is a Very Good Thing, 
that's a compliment.)

All I have been saying is that the Bible is not so �unique� as some might 
think.   Yes, it is a very holy book.  Maybe the holiest.  Yes, it is the book
of faith that I cling to.  All's I'm saying is I acknowledge there are
different faiths in the world, each with different sacred writings.  The Bible
is very good, just not unique. 

It appears to me that some people need to defend the Bible.  Some do it by 
disparage all others.
    
Peace,

Jim

    >What verse claims this?
    
    2Timothy 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
    profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
    in righteousness:
     17  That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all
    good works.
    
    
    Verse 17 also explains the works portion of faith without works is
    dead.  When a person is saved the result will be works of
    righteousness... God declares that our works will be tried by fire,
    whether they be pure or of wood, hay and stubble and the Christian
    himself will not be burned, but his works will be burned that are not
    done pure of heart.....
    
    If I pinch my sister... the reaction is she's gonna cry and pinch me
    back... that pinch caused something to happen..
    
    Salvation is the very same way... it creates a reaction of works.

    880.144 is apparently responding to 880.143.  Correct me if I'm
    mistaken.
    
    Richard
    

    Yes and No... it's referencing many notes...

Darn, I was trying to correct a typo in a previous entry and lost the file.

Anyway, in brief, I believe the Bible invites a faith that is *sufficient* for 
salvation, which is, I think, what Timothy is talking about, but as far as 
being any kind of "owner's manual" it leaves a lot out.  And it still doesn't 
make the Bible unique.

Anyway, this has gone off on quite a tangent as of late, I don't want to 
derail it any further.

Peace,

Jim

 What, in your opinion, would make the Bible unique...





Jim

re: Note 820.148 by Jim "Friend will you be ready" 

> What, in your opinion, would make the Bible unique...

Jim, I think you're addressing me...my answer is

I *never* said it wasn't unique.  Simply that it isn't unique in a few 
specified ways Jill claimed it was.  I know it's hard to keep these 
conversational trails unentangled, seeing that this particular thread 
dates back 50 replies or so.

Peace,

Jim

 Re .149



 sorry...what, in your opinion, makes the Bible unique?

    Jim,
    
    I don't believe the conversation is derailed at all by discussing II
    Timothy 3:16 and 17...
    
    Those verses refer exactly what inerrancy means...
    
    Inspired of God
    and is profitable for:
    
    *doctrine
    *reproof
    *correction
    *instruction in righteousness
    
    I'd say that is pertty manualistic to me... :-)
    
    And is very unique to be from God himself [inspired]
    

    Actually I think Timothy should be deleted from the Bible.  It was
    canonized under false qualifications.  It was canonized because it was
    assumed to be written by Paul and now most scholars believe it to be a
    written by someone else.  My conclusion then is that Timothy is a fake.
    
    Not only not innerrant, but not worthy to be contained in the cannon?
    
    Does anyone agree?  
    
    Patricia

  >Does anyone agree? 

Not me.

  Not me

    (.152 Patricia Flanagan)
    
    While I see some validity in what you're saying, Patricia, I
    would much rather dump the Revelation of St. John the Divine.
    
    The one verse we keep hearing over and over from the letter
    to Timothy most assuredly wasn't referring to the canon.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    .152
    
    Dear Patricia,
    
    I am going to try to calmly and kindly tell you that you are full of
    prunes. :-) :-)  I am humored by the attempt at invalidating the Bible
    though.
    
    Okay... I get it, I get it... some aliens who were spying on the world
    at the time of the Bible being written revealed themselves to someone
    who is now more enlightened then others about the authenticity of the
    books of the Bible..
    
    Alright now that my funny bone has been tickled, a serious question,
    
    Where do you get *this* information and what makes that person an
    authority?
    
    

    >While I see some validity in what you're saying, Patricia, I
    >would much rather dump the Revelation of St. John the Divine.
    
    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
    
    :-) :-)
    
    While you're at it, why don't you just like snip off one of my fingers
    and two of my toes....
    
    
    >The one verse we keep hearing over and over from the letter
    >to Timothy most assuredly wasn't referring to the canon.
                                                                             
    And how do *you* know this... most assuredly?
    
    

    And while I'm screaming, I'll just screech on over to 158...
    
    :-)

Note 820.157 JULIET::MORALES_NA

>    While you're at it, why don't you just like snip off one of my fingers
>    and two of my toes....
    
The Revelation has somehow become an appendage of yours?
                                                                             
>    And how do *you* know this... most assuredly?

Ever taken a class on the history of the New Testament?
    
<I can almost hear the answer now>

Richard

    .159
    
    You're doing fine having this conversation, please continue.. and just
    how will I respond?

re Note 820.152 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN:

>     Not only not innerrant, but not worthy to be contained in the cannon?
>     
>     Does anyone agree?  

        Who could ever agree now that so much has been built upon
        it!?  To disregard it would be nearly as great an upheaval as
        the Reformation itself.

        Bob

re Note 820.156 by JULIET::MORALES_NA:

>     Okay... I get it, I get it... some aliens who were spying on the world
>     at the time of the Bible being written revealed themselves to someone
>     who is now more enlightened then others about the authenticity of the
>     books of the Bible..
...
>     Where do you get *this* information and what makes that person an
>     authority?

        Patricia's point, Dear Nancy, is that whether you keep
        Timothy or discard it, you are relying upon a human judgment
        (possibly guided by the Holy Spirit -- but how are you to
        know?) in EITHER CASE regarding its authorship and scriptural
        character.

        Even if you reject her suggestion you are still operating on
        her principle!  (unless, of course, you can come up with some
        other principle for accepting Timothy as authentic)

        Bob

    Some (many?) people believe that all Scripture is the word of God. At
    some level of interpretation of what the "word of God" means, I can
    understand this. What I don't understand is the zelot-like belief that
    the *Bible*, unquestionably a human compilation, is perfect in its
    judgments of what to include and what to exclude.

	Eric       

re: Jim H. and Nancy,

Hmmm, I thought I was in a different note when I said this was a tangent, so 
okay, let's go...  .-)

What makes the Bible unique?  Well, it's collection of authors is unique, it's 
particular wording, cultural viewpoints, those are enough to make it unique.

Even then, as Jesus summed up the whole intent of the law and prophets (most 
of the Old Testament), his summation is not unfamiliar to many non-Christian 
faiths.

>    *doctrine
>    *reproof
>    *correction
>    *instruction in righteousness
    
>    I'd say that is pertty manualistic to me... :-)

I think that leaves a lot of things out.  Like should I brush my teeth up and 
down or left to right?  .-)  (A corny example, but a serious statement.  God 
leaves a lot for us to puzzle out for ourselves in the Bible.)
    
>    And is very unique to be from God himself [inspired]

Again, believers of many other faiths will say that their sacred scriptures 
are from God or inspired from God.  That is a claim not unique to Christians.

Yet still, I am not against you in trying to understand the Bible and live a 
Christian life.

Peace,

Jim

    RE: .162
    
    Thats really the heart of the matter. Nicely stated, Bob.
    
    Marc H.

 So, lets assume, as Mr. Kirk asserts, that the authorship of the Bible is
 without question, human, and set it aside as the Word of God.


 On what then, do we base our knowledge of God and His character, and how do
 we connect with Him, and know that it is indeed Him with whom we are 
 connecting?



 Jim

re: Note 820.166 by Jim "Friend will you be ready" 

> So, lets assume, as Mr. Kirk asserts, that the authorship of the Bible is
> without question, human, and set it aside as the Word of God.

Please.  It seems to me lately that the moniker "Mister So-and-so" is intended 
as a method of de-humanizing each other.         ~~~~~~

I have shared with people how I prefer to be addressed, and deviation from 
that preference I will read with the above assumed intent.

Jim, I think you have almost totally missed what I've been saying both in 
this string and in this notesfile.  Anyway, the penmanship of the Bible is 
by humans, inspired to share their honest experience with God.  I have never
said anything less. 

Peace,

Jim 

(can anyone find a single note that I have signed "Mr. Kirk"?  
No?  Then what does that tell you.)

re .166

Personal Experience?

The devices and desires of their own hearts?

/john

re Note 820.166 by CSLALL::HENDERSON:

>  So, lets assume, as Mr. Kirk asserts, that the authorship of the Bible is
>  without question, human, and set it aside as the Word of God.
> 
>  On what then, do we base our knowledge of God and His character, and how do
>  we connect with Him, and know that it is indeed Him with whom we are 
>  connecting?

        A problem with logic of this type is that it plays right into
        the hands of those who say there is no God or that the Bible
        is of totally human origin.

        Basically, it says "I want knowledge of God and His character
        ... therefore the Bible must be written by God."

        Bob

RE:                <<< Note 820.167 by TFH::KIRK "a simple song" >>>
                          -< a little cranky today? >-


>> So, lets assume, as Mr. Kirk asserts, that the authorship of the Bible is
>> without question, human, and set it aside as the Word of God.

>Please.  It seems to me lately that the moniker "Mister So-and-so" is intended 
>as a method of de-humanizing each other.         ~~~~~~

>I have shared with people how I prefer to be addressed, and deviation from 
>that preference I will read with the above assumed intent.

Geesh.  I'll simply say that your assumption and perceived intention of my
addressing you (or anyone) in such a manner is incorrect.


>Jim, I think you have almost totally missed what I've been saying both in 
>this string and in this notesfile.  Anyway, the penmanship of the Bible is 
>by humans, inspired to share their honest experience with God.  I have never
>said anything less. 


 OK.


>(can anyone find a single note that I have signed "Mr. Kirk"?  
>No?  Then what does that tell you.)



 If you knew me, personally...ah forget it.




 Jim

Just for the record, you can call me Mr. Jackson.

I usually answer to, "Hey you" as well.  :-)

Collis

    Actually my question is on our course outline for my New Testament
    class and it is meant to provoke discussion on the history of the
    Canon,and the authority of the Canon.  There will be a panel discussion in
    class regard whether Timothy and Titus should be included or excluded from
    the Canon.  Another discussion is whether Revelations is the Judas of the
    Bible.  The questions are meant to provoke thought on how scholars
    determine authenticity of the letters, how the Bible was canonized and
    how do we as modern day people of Faith relate to those parts of the
    canon that are morally questionable.  
    
    My argument for excluding them is that there is plenty of evidence that
    suggest they are not written by Paul, in Timothy itself there is a line
    saying I am not lieing and If it is true that Timothy is not written by
    Paul, then the author is in fact lieing and to me makes questionable
    the process of including the book in the canon.  I do understand
    however in New Testament times it was acceptable for a student to write
    in the name of a teacher.  If the reason for including Timothy in the
    Canon was its assumed authorship by Paul and that proves false then it
    should be excluded.  This is not an argument that I have fully thought
    through.  I don't really think it matters anyways because Timothy will
    not be taken out of the Canon.  The importance of the exercise is to
    help each believer become clear on what Biblical authority means to
    them.

    re: 168
    
    How about "The law of God, written on the hearts of those spiritually
    discerned".
    
    Patricia

    Too many notes to respond to and so little time. :-) :-)
    
    I'm outta here today half/day!  
    
    1.  We cannot rely on our feelings, they are fickle.  They make
    ourselves god.
    
    2.  I believe Bob F., said the same principle is used in determining
    God or atheism....  I agree.  The principle is our god-given right to
    reject or choose Christ.
    
    

| <<< Note 820.174 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>



| 1.  We cannot rely on our feelings, they are fickle.  They make ourselves god.

	Nancy, this makes perfect sense. We need to follow God in order to have
things turn out the way He wants them to. There are many ways that God talks to
us. Sometimes through the Bible, sometimes through others, sometimes directly
to us. And sometimes just through different types of actions that either we or
others do or have done. There are so many different ways this can happen. I
think on this we agree. I think where we differ is when some would say any of
these things are inerrant. Of all these things, not ONE can be proven inerrant
by other means. And to use the very thing you're trying to prove as proof just
doesn't make sense.



Glen

    .175
    
    That's fine for you Glen, it grieves me, but its fine for you... I do
    wish that you put an IMHO on that last one though. :-)
    
    

| <<< Note 820.176 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| That's fine for you Glen, it grieves me, but its fine for you... I do
| wish that you put an IMHO on that last one though. :-)

	Let's see if it needs one of them Nancy! :-)  Without using the Bible,
prove that it is inerrant.


Glen

We can't even prove it is inerrant to you *with* the
Bible.  :-)

The more relevant question is does the Bible claim to
be true and accurate.

Collis

================================================================================
Note 820.156           The Bible: Totally Inerrant or Not?            156 of 178
JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze"    19 lines  10-MAR-1994 17:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    .152
    
>    Dear Patricia,
    
>    I am going to try to calmly and kindly tell you that you are full of
>    prunes. :-) :-)  I am humored by the attempt at invalidating the Bible
>    though.
    
>    Okay... I get it, I get it... some aliens who were spying on the world
>    at the time of the Bible being written revealed themselves to someone
>    who is now more enlightened then others about the authenticity of the
>    books of the Bible..
    
>    Alright now that my funny bone has been tickled, a serious question,
    
>    Where do you get *this* information and what makes that person an
>    authority?
    
Dear Nancy,
    
    I do not appreciate being told "I am full of Prunes"
    
    I started note 877 on Timothy & Titus to answer your question regarding
    what is my source that Timothy was not written by Paul.
    877.1,2,&3 are three of my sources.  
    
    877.1 contains the introduction to the book of Timothy contained in the
    New Oxford Annotated Bible (NSRV)
    
    Patricia    

    Collis,
    
    RE .178
    
    You made a major point of arguing the value of external authority over
    internal authority.  With respect to the Bible you have changed your
    position.  If the Bible is not innerant then the Bible claiming to be
    innerant means nothing.  I could argue that the Bible does not
    claim to to be innerant but within your paradigm, you cannot hear the
    evidence.  
    
    In the middle of Timothy, the author states, I am not
    lieing?  Does that mean that the author is not being deceptive?  You
    believe Timothy is not lieing because the author states that he is not
    lieing and because you believe the Bible is innerant.  That is what the
    whole theory of paradigms is about. We can get so caught up in our
    paradigm we cannot even see truth when it is clearly self-evident.  
    

re: Note 820.180 by Patricia "honor the web" 

>   If the Bible is not innerant then the Bible claiming to be
>   innerant means nothing.  I could argue that the Bible does not
>   claim to to be innerant but within your paradigm, you cannot hear the
>   evidence.  

FWIW,  That is essentially what G�del's Incompleteness Theorem is about.
Self-referential systems cannot be complete.

Take the self referential statement "This Statement is True."  Let's assume it 
is true.  It claims to be true and is therefore true.  There is no logical 
dilemma.  Let's assume it to be false.  Well, it claims to be true, but that 
is a falsehood, therefore it is false.  There is no logical dilemma.

The statement is simultaneously true and false.  That's a hard concept for 
some people to grasp.  An excellent book on the subject (it won him a Pulitzer 
prize) is Douglas Hoffstaeder's _G�del, Escher, Bach, and Eternal Golden
Braid_.

Cheers,

Jim

    .181
    
    Very interesting....  I've heard this myself.  However, when looking at
    the Bible and the mere fact of the many authors over different
    timeframes and oftimes not geographically close for the era of
    transportation, it is very difficult to believe that it is
    self-validating... in the terms of one writer ...
    
    However, if you are claiming ONE AUTHOR saying inerrancy, then I smile
    widely, cause that ONE AUTHOR could only be God himself, which proves
    inerrancy. :-)

    .180
    
    Patricia,
    
    I apologize for saying you are full of prunes... however, just so's you
    kow that is not a horrible thing.  As I usually only use that when I'm
    fondly saying I disagree.  I use it with my own children all the time,
    and usually end up on the floor tickling them.
    
    Now, I'm sure I won't end up on the floor tickling you, however, please
    be assured it was not meant in strong negative manner.
    
    Honestly,
    Nancy

    Nancy,
    
    apology accepted

re: Note 820.182 by Nancy "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" 

It doesn't matter how many authors there are...

		The following statement is true.

		The previous statement is false.

Cheers,

Jim

    .185
    
    huh? 

re: Note 820.186 by Nancy "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" 

>    .185
    
>    huh? 

Can you be a little more specific?  .-)

Self-reference can exist in one statement, or a whole book of statements.
It is in the nature of language to allow self-reference, thus it is in the 
nature of language to have such ambiguities.  For example, the statement 
about scripture being good for teaching..., does not explicitely reference 
itself, but if one includes it in scripture, then in that bigger picture, 
scripture references itself, and hence opens itself up to such ambiguity. 

In mathematics, one can have, perhaps, more visibly obvious examples of the 
effects of self reference.  There are true statements which are obviously 
true, but can't be proven so, statements which are obviously false, but can't 
be proven so.  There are statements which are both true AND false.  There are 
statements which cannot be proven to be true or false, and one can prove their 
unprovability.  Language, being even more versatile than mathematics, suffers 
more from these shady recesses than mathematics.

Again, I recommend the Hofstaeder book for a more thorough explanation.  I 
think it is a quite readable book.  (Not a lot of hard and dry mathematics.)

Peace,

Jim

    "huh" reads the same forwards or backwards... :-) :-) :-)
    
    I suppose that is truly an inerrant statement.

re .187

The Hofstaedter book is an excellent proof of the existence of God.

(Hofstaedter might not agree.)

/john

re: Note 820.189 by "John R. Covert" 

>      -< Entire book is in the first 14 pages.  Rest is recursive proof. >-

Sort of true. The basic premise is layed out early.  He then explores many of 
the details, applications, and consequences of the theorem (which has been 
rigorously proven, btw)

>The Hofstaedter book is an excellent proof of the existence of God.

I think I can see where you're coming from that.  
Anyway, what better recommendation could a book have?!  .-)

Jim

| <<< Note 820.182 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>



| However, if you are claiming ONE AUTHOR saying inerrancy, then I smile widely,
| cause that ONE AUTHOR could only be God himself, which proves inerrancy. :-)

	Nancy, how does something that COULD be from God = inerrancy? My
question still stands. Without using the Bible as proof, can it be proven
inerrant?


Glen

    RE: Glen,
    
    			If you'll permit me to jump into the middle of
    this.   Without any doubt the Bible was written over many many years
    and longer than the longest recorded lifetime.  If thats true then only
    a supreme being, like God, could have written it.  If God is the
    author, and I believe he was/is, then by Gods very nature it would have
    to be inerrant.
    
    Dave

    .192
    
    Thanks Dave, that was exactly what I meant.

    
    Re.192
    
    Dave,
    
    If that's the case, then why are there passages threatening people
    about what would happen to them if they modified the Biblical text
    (which I truly believe they have through the ages)?  
    
    If it has, is, and always will be inerrant, and God is making sure
    that it is, then there would be, by definition, absolutely no reason 
    to put these passages in.  My view.
    
    Cindy

	Dave, I know the NT has the claim that it was written by man and guided
by the Holy Spirit. But I also thought that the OT was written by man as well.


Glen

    RE: .194  Cindy,
    
    			The Bible also claims that God granted man free
    will so it would make perfect sense for God to place that warning.
    
    
    RE: .195  Glen,
    
    			I really take the Bible as completely written by
    the Holy Spirit using mans hands.  
    
    *NOTE:  I know that the issue will come up claiming that the Bible was
    written by man and claimed by the authors to be Spirit inspired. 
    During these last 15 or so years of study I see a consistancy in the 
    Bible which leads me to believe, without any reservations, that it was
    Spirit inspired.  What few apparent errors there seem to be can usually
    be explained thru diligent study of the orriginal Greek or Hebrew.  So
    for a book written by so many authors to be so consistant seems to me
    to be less believable than to accept Spirit inspiration.  But thats me.
    :-)
    
    Dave

    RE: .196
    
    Makes sense to me , also.
    
    Marc H.

	Dave, when did the HS join the picture? During the writing of the OT or
NT?


Glen

 The Holy Spirit has always been.





 Jim

Dave,

I don't see the Bible as presenting a consistent message.  It's a book
that presents religious beliefs that changed over the years, and it
reflects the different perspectives of its authors.

Not that I expect to change anyone's mind - I just wanted to let you know
that not everyone is amazed by the alleged consistency of the Bible.

				-- Bob

    .200
    
    I'm not surprised.. however, it is not alleged and I'm sure there has
    been posted harmony's of the gospel over and over again, and still to
    no avail to those who *choose* to disbelieve.
    
    

    RE: .198 Glen,
    
    			For me and the Bible supports, that the Holy Spirit
    has been since the conception of time...when ever that was. :-)
    
    
    RE:  .200  Bob,
    
    			I understand Bob, I felt the same way for a long
    time.  It wasn't untill I started really studying the Bible and
    listening to scholors that did a lot of research that I came to relize
    just how consistent the Bible truly is.  Just the basic prophecy is
    enough to convince you of consistency.  But I'll tell you honestly that
    its easy to think "its just too complicated" and let it go without
    really looking at it.  Now before you "take" off on me :-), I am *NOT*
    saying thats what your doing, but many do.  For me it was too important
    a question to leave it to others to interpret for me.
    
    
    Dave

Re: .202 Dave

>    But I'll tell you honestly that
>    its easy to think "its just too complicated" and let it go without
>    really looking at it.

It's certainly a problem for many of us that we don't have time to explore
all the areas of knowledge that we're interested in.  If I have time I'll
post some notes about the different outlooks of different authors of the
Bible - then you'll have the chance to set me straight. ;^)

				-- Bob

Re: .189 John

>The Hofstaedter book is an excellent proof of the existence of God.

That wasn't the impression that I got.  Could you elaborate?  I finished
reading GEB - AEGB a few weeks ago; great stuff!  I got the impression that
Hofstadter himself believes in God, although his God may not be the same as
your God.  But at most I'd think the book just gives an idea of what God
might be like, without trying to prove that God is actually like that.

I loved the little vignettes with Achilles and the Tortoise.  Some
highlights:  Achilles wishing that his wish would not come true.  The
subjunc-TV, which shows you what would have happened in a football game,
for example, if the ball had been round instead of oblong, or if the game
had been baseball instead of football.  "Aunt Hillary", an ant colony with
collective intelligence.  The Tortoise's record "I Can't Be Played On
Record Player X".

Who knows, maybe we'll all wake up some day and realize that this was all
just a dream - popping out of the system.

				-- Bob

re .204

The book is a proof of the existence of God, but does not make any
formal statement about His nature.

/john

re: Note 820.205 by "John R. Covert" 

>The book is a proof of the existence of God, but does not make any
>formal statement about His nature.

Well, I think one conclusion might be that God's self-referential properties 
--I AM WHO I AM-- renders God incomplete, in the mathematical meaning of the 
word.  There are things about God which are un-knowable, undecided, and even 
contradictory.  In the terms of the book, God may "jump out" of �our� system
but cannot jump out of God's system.

Peace,

Jim

Re:. 205 John

Could you at least summarize the (alleged) proof?

				-- Bob

	The axioms of physical world cannot self-consistently
	prove themselves without resort to an external system,
	the supernatural which created and defined the natural.

Why would the axoims need to prove themselves?  Truth can exist even if it
can't be proven.

				-- Bob

    Re .208:
    I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "axioms of physical world"
    and how one goes about trying to make them prove themselves.  For
    example, how would you use the Laws of Nature to represent the Laws
    of Nature?
    
    Mark (I recently finished re-reading GEB:EGB)

Re:  .180

  >If the Bible is not innerant then the Bible claiming to be
  >innerant means nothing.

It means quite a bit.  It says a *lot* about the true
worth of the writing, one way or the other.  It also says
quite a lot when this statement/assumption is used throughout
the text.  Either way, this claim is a *very* important
claim in evaluating the Bible.

  >I could argue that the Bible does not claim to to be innerant
  >but within your paradigm, you cannot hear the evidence.  

It truly amazes me that something can claim to be true thousands
of times and in many different ways - yet many are blind to this
fact.  I know that I am much more aware of these claims/assumptions
now that I accept them than I was before I accepted them.

Collis

    Do the names Tyndale and Wycliff  mean anything to you?

    RE:  .209
    
    > Why would the axoims need to prove themselves?  Truth can exist even
    > if it can't be proven.
    
    Ahh-ha!  Exactly Bob.  Axioms don't need to be proven.  God exists. God
    reveals Himself.  The Bible is God's Word.  Jesus Christ is God's Son.
    They are all axioms.  There is reasonable evidence of why we believe
    them, but axioms can't be proven.
    
    A second Ahh-ha!  I loved what you said about Truth being able to exist
    even if it can't be proven.  God said He is The Truth.  Nobody needs to
    prove it.  It's inconsequential whether you can prove it or not. It
    doesn't change that He is.
    
    Jill

Truth can exist even if can't be proven, but not everything that can't be
proven is true.

				-- Bob

	Re: 820.104 (& .101 .126)

	My reply is late because I was in hospital.

	Thanks /john for your reply and lists of prophecies. I really
	appreciate the work you must have put into the research and to
	the task of entering them. I will need some time to work through
	all of them, but I will start with those you entered under the
	heading "Prophecies Concerning Our Lord's Birth".

	Before I begin, I want you to know that, although we disagree on
	their prophetic worth, you (and Jill by raising the point in the
	first place) have helped me to come a whole lot closer to your
	belief system. I am still open on whether I will be able to
	accept it for my person. Thanks.

	Where I quote, it is from my KJV although I also referred to the
	Douay and New English for clarity.

	1. Ge 3:15 And I will put emnity between you and the woman,
	   between your seed and her seed. They will strike at your head
	   and you will strike at her heel.

	This is God speaking to the Serpent in Eden. I am unable to see
	where this is a prophecy relating to Jesus. I do not understand
	the link to Mt 1:20 or to Gal 4:4.  Perhaps you could talk me
	through this.

	2. Is 7:14 Therefore the Lord will give you a sign; Behold a
	   virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name
	   Immanuel.
	   Refered in Mt 1:18-25 and Lk 1:26-35

	The famous Septaugint mistranslation of Alma which has already
	been exhaustively discussed. The context does not justify its
	use as a Jesus prophecy and also, the name Immanuel means "God
	with us" whereas Jesu means "saviour": different names with 
	differing meanings.

	3. Ps 2:7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me,
	   Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee.
	   
	   and

	   1 Chr 17:11-14 (or 2 Sam 12-16 which is virtually the same
	   text with no significant differences). And it shall come to
	   pass, when thy days be expired that thou must go to be with
	   my fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which
	   shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom. He
	   shall build me a house, and I will stablish his throne for
	   ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will
	   not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that
	   was before thee. But I will settle him in mine house and in
	   my kingdom for ever: and his throne shall be stablished for
	   evermore.
	(NT texts: Mt 3:17, 16:16, Mk 9:7, Lk 9:35, 22:70, Jn 1:34,49 and
	Acts 13:30-33).
	These are all quotes surrounding the anointment of David. The 
	Psalms text is not prophetic but reported speech in the present
	tense.  The Chronicles and Samuel texts are God's promises to
	David regarding his son, Solomon. And God, for whatever reason,
	saw fit not to fulfill these promises: the line of kings of
	Israel did not last for ever.
	The fact that NT authors used similar phrases proves, at best,
	that they had already started to read prophecies into their
	texts where none existed but, more likely, that they simply used
	similar phrases. It is theologically intersting to note that the
	John text uses the name Nathaniel to force recollection of the
	OT texts (Nathan was the bearer of God's message to David).

	4. Ge 12:2-3 And I shall make of thee a great nation, and I will
	   bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a
	   blessing. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them
	   that curseth thee: and in thee shall all the nations of the earth
	   be blessed.
		and
	   Ge 22:18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be
	   blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

	(NT references: Mt 1:1 (?) and Gal 3:16)

	Sorry, once again I fail to see a prophecy in relation the Jesus.
	It is, perhaps) interesting to note that Paul, in using this text
	to make his point, stressed that "seed" was singular and meant
	Jesus. In the same letter, (Gal 4:4) he apparently uses the Ge 3:15 
	text where the same word "seed" is clearly plural. The Ge 22:18
	passage, IMO, also is plural.

	5. Ge 21:12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be greivious in
	   thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondswoman; in
	   all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for
	   in Isaac shall thy seed be called.
	
	(NT references: Mt 1:2 and Lk 3:23-34)
	To interpret this as a prophecy of Jesus is, IMO, purest shoehorning
	and reference to the incompatible genaeologies in Matthew and Luke
	does not make it less so. This applies equally to the Son of Isaac
	and Son of Jacob, Tribe of Judah, family line of Jesse and House
	of David references you provided.

	That's the 100 line limit: I'll continue in the next note.

	Greetings, Derek.

	To continue:

	6. Micah 5:2 But thou Bethlehem Ephratah, although thou be little
	   among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come
	   forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth
	   have been from old, from everlasting.

	   (NT refs: Mt 2:1, 4-8, Lk 2:4-7, Jn 7:42)

	This I recognise as a messianic prophecy, even though there is
	nothing to indicate that Jesus is intended. The majority of Jews
	did not see Jesus as fulfilling this prophecy (ruler in Israel,
	for example). The dubious circumstances, as described by the
	Gospellers, as how Mary came to be in Bethlehem - the arguments
	are well known and historically supported - indicates to me
	that they were cutting their cloth to fit.  This is reasonable:
	they were writing long after Jesus' death and were already convinced
	that Jesus was the Messiah so they were just trying to sqeeze as much
	"truth" out of their traditional prophets as possible.

	7. Ge 49:10 The scepter shall not pass from Judah, nor a lawgiver
	   from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the
	   gathering of the people be.
		and
	   Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going
	   forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerasulem unto
	   the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and
	   two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even
	   in troublesome times.

	(NT reference: Lk 2:1-7 (?) This text is the birth of Jesus and
	makes no reference to Hebrew tradition).
	The Genesis text is Jacob addressing his sons, one of him is Judah.
	I cannot see messianic prophecy here. The Daniel text is interesting,
	mathematically. I spent hours trying to fit dates and elapsed time
	etc, into the birth of Jesus, using different calendars, starting
	points, end points etc. but I could not get it to work, not even as
	a near-fit. Who can walk me through this one?

	8. Ps 72:10-15 The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring
	   gifts ...
	   ... And he shall live, and to him shall be given all the gold of
	   Sheba: prayer shall be made for him continually; and daily shall
	   be he praised. 
		and
	   Is 60:6 The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries
	   of Midian and Ephah; all they from Sheba shall come: they shall
	   bring gold and incense; and they shall show forth the praises of
	   the Lord.

	NT reference: Mt 2:1-11

	The psalm is to Solomon and I see no relation to Jesus. There is
	evidence that the words "shall" in the text were originally "will
	that" and the psalm was wishful rather than prophetic.

	Isaiah is prophecying the renewed splendour of the city of Jerusalem
	and, in all honesty, I do not see a trace of messianic prophecy here.
	Splitting hairs: There is no evidence that Jesus received any of
	Sheba's gold and: Sheba is situated SSE of Israel which is a long 
	way from the East and the Magi.

	9. Jer 31:15 Thus saith the Lord: A voice was heard in Ramah,
	   lamentation and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children
	   refused to be comforted for her children for they were not.

	This whole chapter is one of my favourites. It is a prophecy about
	the rebuilding of Jerusalem. It prophecies the joy of the masses
	at the regaining of their homeland after the exile, but shows that
	some have lost too much to be consoled. With the best will in the
	world, I do not see messianic prophecy here.
	The "slaughter of the innocents" was a barbaric act which, even in
	those violent times, could not have passed unnoticed by contemporary
	writers (eg Josephus, Pliny) Outside of Matthew, there is not a
	whisper of this event. That is not proof that Matthew wrote fiction,
	but it does raise a reasonable question.

	I'll take a look at the next group "Prophecies Relating to Our
	Lord's Nature" in the next few days.

	Greetings, Derek.

Derek (.215 & .216),

	I would be curious of your impression of the prophesy in Daniel
7.13-14, or did I somehow overlook it in your replies?

    					Shalom,
					Richard

	re: 820.132 Jim Kirk

	>I'm not even sure the Koran exists in English...

	Sure it does, although, as you said, there are reservations
	that translations "dilute" the message.  However, I have a
	copy which is enthusiastically approved by Islams and, if
	you wish, I can get the publishing/ISBN details.

	Muhammed spent time in the desert (seemingly mandatory for
	prophets of old) and most of his texts originate here (though
	not written down then by him).

	He had three "manners of revelation" (Islam)
	 * he "simply found the words in his heart" or
	 * he "heard a voice but saw no man" or
	 * most frequently, the words were "brought to him by the angel
	   Gabriel".

	Muhammed memorized the words and later communicated them to his
	followeres who faithfully wrote them down. They deny the deity of
	Jesus but not his prophet-ship and Jesus and Mohammed share a 
	common ancestry.

	An original Koran is a work of art. I get a "tingly feeling" of
	awe when I am allowed to hold one and turn its pages - much as 
	when I hold a medievel, hand illuminated, bible. Both, to my
	chagrin, rare privileges.

	Greetings, Derek.

	Re: 820.217
	
	Hello Richard!

	I was replying to the list kindly provided by /john Covert in reply
	105.  He divided this list into "generic" groups and my reply was
	aimed at the first of these: "Prophecies Concerning Our Lord's
	Birth".  Daniel 7:13-14 was not quoted by /john here and, as I
	scan the rest of the list, I do not see it.

	However, I am "warned" -  [:-) - that there are 269 further
	prophecies; maybe it's in there.

	I do not have a bible with me - and I have long stopped trying to
	commit it to memory - so I cannot comment until tomorrow (our time)

	Greetings, Derek.

	Hello Richard!

	An interesting book, Daniel; thanks for bringing me back to it after
	a long absence -- I've been much too "Pauline" of late --. It is said
	of Daniel that it is "the only book of the bible of which the origin
	and purpose can be known with certainty."

	Christans include the book under the Prophets; Jews, hoever, set it
	under the writings. It ranks, alongside Jonah, Ruth and Esther as
	historical fiction. The person Daniel also appears in Apocryphal texts
	and in Bel and the Dragon. The author(s)picked up a character
	in Ezekiel and used him as a hook for the stories in the book of
	Daniel. The authors were probably very much aware of "Jonah's
	Dilemma" and chose to place their prophecies at a safe distance from
	themselves.

	The book itself was written partly in Hebrew and partly in Aramaic,
	suggesting -- but not proving -- dual authorship. It is divided into 2 parts
	(not congruent with the language division): Chapters 1 - 6 are historical
	fiction and, from 7 - 12 we have pure Apocalyptic writing and has, of course,
	been the subject of intensive exegesis and Midrash. It was written in, or
	very slightly later than 164 BC as a composite of stories and prophecies
	which were known from 280 t0 164 BC.

	Which brings me to your question!

	Even though fictional, the text predates Jesus so its prophetic	 value
	should be addressed.

	As far as I am able to determine, only relatively few people hold  7:13-14
	to be a Jesus prophecy. Rather more, but by no means most, hold it to be a
	messianic prophecy. The supporters of the Jesus prophecy depend on the
	figure in the vision being described as "like unto the son of man"; one of
	the expressions used by Jesus to describe himself.

	The "son of man" discussion" is not one in which I want to get involved:
	suffice it to say that I have hung my faith on the opinion of Geza Vermes
	-- and, with him, the maority of Jewish commentators -- which hold it to
	be purely Aramaic in origin (the NT Greek "ho huios to anthropou" being
	held, linguistically, to be a "rather inelegant barbarism"). Its use means
	"man" in general, "oneself" or simply "I" (inferring awe or modesty).

	Concentration on the "son of man" useage has, IMO, blinded the supporters
	of the Jesus prophecy to the full context. The very nature of the figure as
	described in Daniel, bears no resemblance to the Jesus of the New Testament;
	he is more in line with the Machabbean (sp?) tradition.

	Personally, I hold it to be purely eshatological but admit to a, say, 10%
	possibility that it is messianic. If the latter be the case, it is not yet
	fulfilled.

	Greetings, Derek.

    .220 Derek,
    
    	Some of the text of .220 is off the right margin of my screen,
    so I couldn't read the whole thing.
    
    	I am aware that Daniel was most likely written long after the
    time the events written about were supposed to have occured.
    
    	Still, in the symbolism of the dream, the "Ancient of Days" or "The
    One who had been living forever" bestowing special assignment to the
    "One who appeared like a human being" seems to be pointing to a messiah,
    at least, if not directly pointing to Jesus.
    
    Thanks for your thoughts and research.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

  <<< Note 820.220 by VNABRW::BUTTON "Another day older and deeper in debt" >>>
                              -< Daniel 7:13-14 >-

Hello Richard!

An interesting book, Daniel; thanks for bringing me back to it after
a long absence -- I've been much too "Pauline" of late --. It is said
of Daniel that it is "the only book of the bible of which the origin
and purpose can be known with certainty."

Christans include the book under the Prophets; Jews, hoever, set it
under the writings. It ranks, alongside Jonah, Ruth and Esther as
historical fiction. The person Daniel also appears in Apocryphal texts
and in Bel and the Dragon. The author(s)picked up a character
in Ezekiel and used him as a hook for the stories in the book of
Daniel. The authors were probably very much aware of "Jonah's
Dilemma" and chose to place their prophecies at a safe distance from
themselves.

The book itself was written partly in Hebrew and partly in Aramaic,
suggesting -- but not proving -- dual authorship. It is divided into 2 parts
(not congruent with the language division): Chapters 1 - 6 are historical
fiction and, from 7 - 12 we have pure Apocalyptic writing and has, of course,
been the subject of intensive exegesis and Midrash. It was written in, or
very slightly later than 164 BC as a composite of stories and prophecies
which were known from 280 t0 164 BC.

Which brings me to your question!

Even though fictional, the text predates Jesus so its prophetic	 value
should be addressed.

As far as I am able to determine, only relatively few people hold  7:13-14
to be a Jesus prophecy. Rather more, but by no means most, hold it to be a
messianic prophecy. The supporters of the Jesus prophecy depend on the
figure in the vision being described as "like unto the son of man"; one of
the expressions used by Jesus to describe himself.

The "son of man" discussion" is not one in which I want to get involved:
suffice it to say that I have hung my faith on the opinion of Geza Vermes
-- and, with him, the maority of Jewish commentators -- which hold it to
be purely Aramaic in origin (the NT Greek "ho huios to anthropou" being
held, linguistically, to be a "rather inelegant barbarism"). Its use means
"man" in general, "oneself" or simply "I" (inferring awe or modesty).

Concentration on the "son of man" useage has, IMO, blinded the supporters
of the Jesus prophecy to the full context. The very nature of the figure as
described in Daniel, bears no resemblance to the Jesus of the New Testament;
he is more in line with the Machabbean (sp?) tradition.

Personally, I hold it to be purely eshatological but admit to a, say, 10%
possibility that it is messianic. If the latter be the case, it is not yet
fulfilled.

Greetings, Derek.

    .222 Thanks, Jim Kirk.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    Re: previous 2.
    
    	Sorry about the margin problem and thenks Jim for your restauration
        job.
    
    	For the first time, I typed the original reply on my home PC and
    	"floppied" it over to my office system. I was sooooo proud! [:-)
    
    	Greetings, Derek.

    
    And a fine job you did too, Derek!  (;^)
    
    Cindy
    
    PS. How *did* you do it (short digression for a moment here).

	RE: 820.104 and others.

	I have finished checking out all the prophecies identified in the
	reference note. I will spare you the step-by-step conclusions which
	I have reached.

	IMO all of the prophecies fall into the following categories:
	
	1. They are not prophecies at all. The quoted verse(s) have been
	   read out of context and "shoehorned" into the life of Jesus.
	   (this seems to be the most common group)
	2. They are non-messianic prophecies (often referring to a specific
	   named person) which have been reinterpreted into Jesus' life.
	3. They are messianic prophecies which are too vague to be specific
	   about their application to Jesus.
	4. They are messianic prophecies which are sufficiently clear to be
	   sure that they cannot apply to Jesus.

	It was an interesting exercise. I got entangled with the incompatible
	genaeologies of Matthew and Luke; tied up in knots with various
	calendar systems; rediscovered long-cherished texts; and buried in
	history.

	It seems that there were prophetic styles. One was the "repent or
	else..." style which, it seems to me, always has a sense of immediacy:
	The speaker is telling people that they will experience the "or else"
	unless they change their ways. This type of prophecy cannot be
	projected forward more than a few years (one or two generations).
	They were the kind which led to Jonah's Dilemma.
	
	Another was the "doom will fall on all Israel" type. Or, alternatively,
	they prophecied the rise or fall of neighbouring regimes. These were
	often written after the event - or corrected by later editors. Those
	which do seem to see ahead could mostly have been made by any well-
	informed person of the time.
	
	The messianic prophecies offered hope: they point to a mighty
	king who will sweep the enemies of Israel away. Majestic, but not
	of Jesus.

	Deuteronomy 18:20 "The prophet who presumes to speak in my name that
	which I have commanded him, or if he speak in the name of other
	Gods; that prophet will surely die."
	To my knowledge, all of the Hebrew bible's prophets are dead! ;-)

	Is there anyone out there who would like to walk me through, say,
	Genesis 3:15 (how this is seen as a prophecy) and/or Daniel 9:25,
	(which, for some Christians, is the most specific and relevant
    	prophecy relating to Jesus) how to get the timing to fit with *any*
    	of the likely birth dates of Jesus? 

	Greetings, Derek.

During a recent reading of II Timothy, I came across a particularly
interesting footnote in my TEV at verse 3:16.  It seems the oft
quoted verse can be translated accurately two ways, conveying two
very different concepts.

This was verified in another book I'm currently reading, "Fundamentalism:
Hazards and Heartbreaks," by Evans and Berent (pg. 78) --

"Here, the Greek, 'pasa graphe', literally 'every Scripture', makes the
beginning of the sentence read (roughly) as either 'Every Scripture is
inspired by God and is useful...' or 'Every inspired Scripture is useful...'
The latter reading, therefore, would refer to *only* whatever passages
or books of Scripture are inspired.  The former reading would indicate
that *all* Scripture is inspired.  Greek-language experts are divided
over which is the most proper translation.  One one thing is certain:
They will never know what was the author's intention."

Peace,
Richard

    What is TEV and what makes it an authority?

    	Re: .226

    Since no one has taken up my - seriously meant - invitation to talk me
    through the Daniel prophecy, I will enter the notes I made on it and 
    invite anyone to tell me where/if I have gone wrong. Note: I apologise
    for the length. But many lines are very short!

    Exegesis of Daniel 9:20-27

    This passage is probably the most often quoted by Christian apologetics
    as being a deginitive prophecy of the birth (or death) of Jesus.

	Time periods quoted are:
	70 times 7 years (v24)(AV) or
	70 weeks (v24)
	 7 weeks (v25)
	62 weeks (vs 25 & 26)
    
    A passage (disputed on grounds of punctuation and "logic") puts the 7 and
    62 weeks together, yielding 69 weeks.
    
    These cannot be, literally, weeks (Literalists may have problems with
    this). The numbers are usually interpreted to mean years (which seems to
    be in accordance with clues from Qumran and Talmud).

	Thus, the periods are:
	490 years (v24)
	 49 years (v25)
	434 years (vs 25 & 26)
	483 years (62 and 7) (vs 25)
    
    STARTING DATES:
    Two primary references are made in Hebrew scriptures to the decree to 
    restore and rebuild Jerusalem. 2 Chr. 36:22 ff and Ezra 1:1 ff. Both
    refer to "the first year of King Cyrus" which, by independant confirmation,
    is 538 BCE.
    
    Three secondary sources may come under consideration.
    Ezra 6:1-9 (In Darius' 2nd year he commanded an archive search for the
    Cyrus decree and then commanded to resumption of the temple's restaur-
    ation). This can be fairly accurately, and independently, dated to around
    524-520 BCE.
    
    Ezra 7:11-28 (A letter from the "King of Kings", Artaxerxes given to Ezra
    releasing the Isrealites to return to Judah and giving them a small
    fortune in gold, silver and wine). This happened in the 7th year of his
    reign (7:7) and allows dating to 458 BCE.
    
    Neh. 2:1-6. This seems to be shoehorning: The letter(s) are for safe
    passage to Judah and for the acquisition of timber for the citadel, gates
    and temple and cannot be (fairly) construed as a decree.  However, their
    dating is certain at 445 BCE.
    
    Summarized: 538 BCE; 522 BCE (mid of 524 - 520); 458 BCE; or 445 BCE.
    
    ENDING DATES (if the prophecy is to be relevant to Jesus):
    
    Jesus was born earliest 12 BCE and latest, say, 4 BCE.
    Jesus was crucified between 30 and 34 CE (general consensus: 30 CE), 
    making him between 34 and 46 years old at death.
	-------------------------------------------------------------------
    From the text, a prince, "one anointed", will appear seven weeks after
    the issuance of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and restore the temple.
    This prince will reign for 62 weeks in the rebuilt and restored Jeru-
    salem; then he will be "cut off" with no replacement (brought about by
    an invading prince and his hordes culminating in flood and war. During
    the final week of the 70, the invading prince (* will end sacrifices and
    make a covenant with ([the] many). Finally, following the war, one will
    come who makes desolate and the "decreed end" is poured out.
    
    * the subject of the verse may be the invading prince or the ruling
	  prince. 
	-------------------------------------------------------------------
    I read this to say that the messiah will appear 7 weeks (49 years) after
    the issuance of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and would remain for a
    further 434 years in office. Since this reading would not put me anywhere
    close to Jesus, and in any case, would require a life longer than any in
    the NT, it is clearly a "wrong" reading.
    
    There is considerable debate over "Masoretic punctuation", a Hebrew comma
    equivalent, which would divide the text exactly as I read it. If this
    "comma" was not in the original, it is argued, then the 7 and 62 count as
    a string equal to 69 weeks (or 483 years).
    If so, one or other of the numbers must have had some symbolic value,
    prompting the author to use, or avoid, it; otherwise it is unclear why he
    would not simply write 69 weeks.
    
    Testing this 483 years against the 4 possible starting points gives:

	538 - 483 = 55 BCE (too early for Jesus)
	522 - 483 = 39 BCE +/- 2 (also too early for Jesus)
	458 - 483 = 25 CE (too late for Jesus' birth, too soon for the
			   crucifixion)
	445 - 483 = 38 CE (too late for Jesus' birth or crucifixion)
    None of these dates work either for the birth of Jesus (12 - 4 BCE) or
    his death (30 - 34 CE) or, even, for the beginning of his mission. The
    last date gets closest; assuming a late crucifixion and a 3-year mission,
    we get only a one-year discrepancy - within reasonable tolerance.
    Unfortunately, this last date is not, strictly speaking, counted from
    the issuance of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and to restore the temple,
    but from the date of a letter of safe conduct and requisition notices.
    
    Robert Anderson (a Brit, I think) postulated a "prophetic year" of 360
    days based on his exegesis of Rev. 11:23 (earliest MSS stopped at Rev.
    11:19!) in which he sees 1260 days equated with 42 months. (Dissenters
    to this point out that the 42 months of Revelations could be +/- a couple
    of weeks). (I do not see it at all!)
    
    Using 360-day years over a 483 normal year time-span 476.4 years and,
    applying this to the 4 starting dates gives:

	538 - 476.4 = 61.6 BCE
	522 - 476.4 = 45.6 BCE
	458 - 476.4 = 18.6 CE
	445 - 476.4 = 31.4 CE (a possible date for Jesus' crucifixion)
    
    Others have offered a calendar based on a "sabbatical year" in which six
    years are "active" and one "fallow" in every 7-year period. (This derives
    from Lev. 25:3-7). Using this, I get two possible time-spans for 483
    natural years: 483 * 6 / 7 = 414 years or 483 * 7 / 6 = 563.5 years,
    depending on whether the fallow years should be included or excluded.
    Since neither of these bring me close to any significant Jesus date, from
    any of the four starting points, I conclude that my understanding of the
    sabbatical year differs from its proponents.
    
    Another way of using the sabbatical year proposal may be to give each
    calculated year a tolerance of up to seven (six?) years. Like interpreting
    a sentence such as "in the first week" means "any time during the initial
    sabbatical period of 7 years."
    This would, for example, set the starting date of 445 BCE plus 69 sabb-
    aticals, in the range 26 - 31 CE (Jesus' crucifixion).
    
    Beautiful! But it smells of shoehorning and, in any case, only works for
    the most dubious of the four starting dates. Until I have enough insight
    to understand the various possible calendars, I will have to put this
    exegesis aside.
    At any price, I must avoid falling into the heretic trap of seeing the
    text as relating to recent jewish history (retrospective foresight) and
    the invading prince as being Antiochus IV. 
    
    Greetings, Derek.  Have a pleasant weekend.

re Note 820.228 by JULIET::MORALES_NA:

>     What is TEV and what makes it an authority?
  
        The point *isn't* that the TEV is an authority, infallible or
        otherwise, but that there is *no* final authority on earth to
        which we can turn to settle an ambiguous passage.

        Bob

Hi Derek,

I have not fully read your note, but one thing you need to be aware of
when making calculations from BCE to CE dates is that there was no
year zero. As I understand it, the Romans had no concept of the
numeric zero. Hence 1 BCE when straight to 1 CE and therefore 

;	458 - 483 = 25 CE (too late for Jesus' birth, too soon for the
;			   crucifixion)

should be 458 - 483 = 26 CE.

Phil.

    re:  .229  Derek
    
    Here's a reply I entered in the CHRISTIAN notes file a couple of years
    ago regarding Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks.  I hope this helps
    give you insight to the prophecy.
    
    
    Steve
    
    
    
             <<< ATLANA::DUB1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN_V5.NOTE;1 >>>
               -< ...by believing you may have life in His Name >-
================================================================================
Note 810.37                        Armageddon                           37 of 38
COMET::HAYESJ "Duck and cover!"                     110 lines  25-AUG-1991 05:37
                        -< OK, here's what I have..... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel 9:24-27 (NWT)

:24  "There are seventy weeks that have been determined upon your people
      and upon your holy city, in order to terminate the transgression,
      and to finish off sin, and to make atonement for error, and to bring
      in righteousness for times indefinite, and to imprint a seal upon
      vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies."

Are the "seventy weeks" literal weeks?  Several Bible translations use ex-
pressions or footnotes such as "seventy weeks of years".  These are weeks
where each day counts as a year, or 490 years.   


:25  "And you should know and have the insight [that] from the going forth
      of [the] word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah [the]
      Leader, there will be seven weeks, also sixty-two weeks.  She will
      return and be actually rebuilt, with a public square and moat, but 
      in the straits of the times."

The "seventy weeks" begin to be counted "from the going forth of the word
to restore and rebuild Jerusalem".  Nehemiah 2:1-18 shows that this word
went forth in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king.  Artaxerxes, also
called "Longimanus", came to the Persian throne at the death of his father
Xerxes.  Artaxerxes' first year of reigning would be 474 BCE, and the twen-
tieth year would be 455 BCE.  Some have maintained that Cyrus issued the
word to rebuild Jerusalem.  However, Cyrus' decree was limited to rebuilding
the temple, which included the alter for sacrifice (Ezra 1:1-4).  For more
than 80 years after the temple had been rebuilt, Jerusalem remained with its
walls broken down, "devistated".

The first "seven weeks", or 49 years, cover the time of the rebuilding, up
until 406 BCE.  "The straits of the times" refers to the bitter opposition
this building work received from neighboring peoples (Nehemiah 4:6-20).  By
406 BCE, Jerusalem had become a flourishing city.

Adding the "sixty-two weeks" onto this we have a total of sixty-nine weeks
of years, or 483 years until "Messiah the Leader".  These 483 years, includ-
ing only part of 455 BCE and part of the final year, extend to the year 29 CE.
Luke 3:1-3 shows that John the Baptizer started his preaching and baptizing
in the "fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caeser".  Historians have es-
tablished that Tiberius became Roman empiror on August 17, 14 CE (Gregorian
calendar), so his fifteenth year would be 29 CE.  In the fall of 29 CE, John
baptized Jesus and holy spirit descended from heaven to anoint him as Messiah.
 
Many Jews at that time were anticipating the coming of Messiah, due at least
in part to their knowing of the "seventy weeks" (Luke 3:15, John 1:19, 20).
However, the majority missed the point of the prophecy.  They expected Messiah
to be a mighty warrior who would deliver them from bondage to the Roman Empire
(John 6:14, 15).


:26  "And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah will be cut off, with nothing
      for himself.
      And the city and the holy place the people of a leader that is coming
      will bring their ruin.  And the end of it will be by flood.  And until
      [the] end there will be war; what is decided upon is desolations."

The Messiah, rather than becoming a great political ruler, was put to a shame-
ful death without name or material wealth to leave for posterity.  Soldiers 
cast lots for all that had remained to him--his outer garments.

The period following Jesus' death was marked by war "until the end".  Finally,
in 70 CE, the Roman army swept like a flood into beleagured Jerusalem.  The
city and it's temple were demolished, brought to their ruin.


:27  "And he must keep [the] covenant in force for the many for one week;
      and at the half of the week he will cause sacrifice and gift offering
      to cease.
      And upon the wing of disgusting things there will be the one causing
      desolation; and until an extermination, the very thing decided upon
      will go pouring out also upon the one lying desolate."

This is the "seventieth week" of the prophecy.  Three and a half years (half
a "week") after his baptizm, Jesus was put to death.  That was in the spring
of the year 33 CE.  What the Law covenant mediated by Moses had been unable
to do, on the basis of it's animal sacrifices, the new covenant mediated by
Messiah would now accomplish, on the basis of his one perfect human sacrifice.
Thus, Jesus would "cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease".  

Daniel 9:24 says Messiah would "bring in righteousness for times indefinite".
That he did; our trespasses due to human imperfection may be forgiven on the
basis of the One who reconciles us to God (2 Cor 5:19).  Messiah also would
"imprint a seal upon vision and prophet", by fulfilling literally hundreds of
prophetic utterances by what he said and did.  This was like implanting an in-
delible seal on those prophecies, showing them to be true and accurate, and
having Jehovah God as their source.

How did Messiah "anoint the Holy of Holies"?  Hebrews 9:23-26 gives us the
answer.  No longer did the "holy place made with hands" in Jerusalem's temple
serve God's purpose in connection with the forgiveness of sins.  Following his
death and resurrection, Christ entered heaven to present "once for all time"
the value of his human sacrifice before God's Person.  Thus, God's heavenly
abode was anointed as the spiritual reality of which the Most Holy of Jer-
usalem's temple only copied.

Messiah also kept "the covenant in force for the many for one week".  This
'week of years' of 29-36 CE was the time that natural Jews were favored in
being adopted as part of the spiritual 'seed of Abraham'.  In 36 CE, Peter
preached to the uncircumcised Gentile Cornelius, opening up the way for the
people of the nations to be brought into the Abrahamic covenant (Gal 3:26-29;
Acts 10:30-35, 44-48).

It's pretty obvious to me that Daniel's prophecy had its fulfillment with the
appearance of Messiah in the first century.  I don't see any "gap" between the
first 69 weeks and the 70th week, or half week, or whatever, that would bring
it into our day.  Except, of course, the benefits of Jesus' sacrifice.


Steve 

Re:  .227

  >One one thing is certain:  They will never know what 
  >was the author's intention."

Some of us KNOW God's intention.  This is not to put down
those who are in doubt, but rather to clear up this
misconception.  :-)

For a little bit more info that will help you, too, to know
God's intention, consider:

  - No part of Scripture EVER explicitly questions the truthfulness 
    or accuracy of another part of Scripture
  - Paul (and many prophets) quoted the Old Testament as definitive
    and truthful - the final authority
  - translating this as an adjective is inconsistent and grammatically
    makes little sense  ("All God-breathed Scripture and profitable...)
    Yes, there is a "kai" there (meaning "and, even, also - typically
    means and) which is now rather nonsensical to translate if you
    use God-breathed as an adjective.  Note that in your proposed
    translation "Every inspired Scripture is useful", you simply
    ignored it.  I know of no other place in the Bible where this
    word is simply ignored during translation.  You can give it the
    meaning "also" which is less common and not particularly appropriate,
    but it would work.  However, the evidence is clearly stacked on one
    side as to what the best translation is.

Collis

    <----------------- Yeah what he said! :-) :-)
    

    re: Note 820.228 by JULIET::MORALES_NA 

    > What is TEV...

    It's a Bible (Today's English Version)

    > ...what makes it an authority?

    It's a Bible (Today's English Version)

    :^)
    
    I understand, however, that you don't consider it *THE* Bible. Just for
    my own information, so that I can better understand your viewpoints, do
    you consider anything, other than the KJV Bible, to have any authority?

    Eric

    Gee Richard,
    
    I know the intentions of the anonomous author of 2 Timothy.
    
    To put a hood on the revolutionary, radical nature of Paul's theology
    and get down to the business of institutionalizing the church under the
    direction of the emerging church father's of the mid second century.
    
    To rid the church of gnostic influences.
    
    To conform to the Free, Male authority structures of the church in the
    second century. To stay in the good graces of the ruling authorities.
    
    (Direct from my lecture last night, how timely)
    
    
    Now it is God's intentions that I don't think can be known.
    
    Patricia

    RE: Prophesies, etc.
    
    Other than to make the math fit better, what is the justification of
    interpreting Daniel's "weeks" to mean something other than weeks? Were
    the ancients so loose with their vocabulary of time? 
    
    Eric

    Eric,
    
    My Pastor.... and others.

    .237  Yes, I agree there are some clues as to the purpose of the
    pastoral letters.  My comment was in reference to the one verse,
    II Timothy 3.16, which I guess I didn't make clear.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    .233  I was wondering where you've been for awhile now, Collis. :-)
    
    I appreciate the fact that you believe you KNOW God's intention.  It
    is evident by your use of the phrase "God's intention" in connection
    with the canon where you stand with regards to biblical inerrancy.
    
    While I believe it is possible to KNOW God's intention, I don't believe
    it is possible to KNOW the intention of the author(s) of II Timothy
    with regards to verse 3.16.
    
    Martin Luther said that the Bible is the cradle in which we can find
    Jesus, but that we must never get the baby mixed up with the cradle.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

    re .240
    
    So I'm being a show off.  But that info was right in my head and I do
    have a final exam coming up in three weeks.

Why be so concerned about the human author's intentions
(which, by the way, seem very clear to me) when
God's (supernatural author's) intentions are much more 
relevant to us all.

But, to each his own.

Collis

    RE: .242
    
    Well for one, to understand as much as we can about the real author and
    the real author's intentions is critical to understanding the books of
    Timothy and Titus, just as understanding Paul's intentions in writing
    Corinthians and Romans and Galatians are critical to understanding
    those books.
    
    We gain much insight into early Christianity by understanding each of
    the books in its historical context.  It is evident for instance that
    the Pastorals were written in the mid 2nd century C.E.   Without
    understanding that we misread those books and misread Paul as well.  We
    loose value insight in the early development and institutionalization
    of Christianity.  
    
    We can review Theological constructs as they evolved from the
    undisputed letters, to Coloseans and Ephesians, and then to the
    Pastorals.  The theological evolution is fascinating.
    
    When we compare James and Hebrews it is even more fascinating.  We get
    a true feeling for how organic and vibrant early Christianity is.  
    
    If we try to merge all the books into one amorphous whole we truly
    loose much of the richness available through looking at the books as
    divergent strands.
    
    Patricia
    

Note 820.229 by VNABRW::BUTTON

>    At any price, I must avoid falling into the heretic trap of seeing the
>    text as relating to recent jewish history (retrospective foresight) and
>    the invading prince as being Antiochus IV. 

Antiochus Epiphanes IV?  It is my understanding that one of the horns
stood for this ancient tyrant.

Richard

Do rabbits chew cud?  No?  See Leviticus 11.6 and report back to me.

I know of no cud-chewing members of the rodent family.

Richard

    .245
    
    Oh crimoney.... not the ol' cud chewing argument again.  
    
    

   re:  .238  Eric

    
   >Other than to make the math fit better, what is the justification of
   >interpreting Daniel's "weeks" to mean something other than weeks?

   The fulfillment of the prophecy didn't happen after the counting of the
   periods of literal weeks that were listed (7 weeks, 62 weeks, 1 week,
   and � week).  But it was perfectly fulfilled when they are counted as weeks
   of years.  Obviously, they were meant to be interpreted that way.


   >                                                                  Were
   >the ancients so loose with their vocabulary of time? 

   The vocabulary of prophecy didn't have to originate with a human.  2 Pe 1:21
   (NWT) says, "For prophecy was at no time brought by man's will, but men
   spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit."  


   Steve

	Re: .231 Phil (About not having a year zero)

	Now that's a new one to me. I was aware that things got along for
	simply ages without a zero, but I thought that its "invention"
	was in the late bronze age. I'll revisit my maths books. (How
	did an ice-age hunter, home from an unsuccessful hunt, report his
	haul to a hungry wife: "I caught ummm errr ummm less than one. You'll
	have to eat ummm errr ummm yesterday's leftovers")   :-)

	Re: .238 Eric (re-mathing weeks to years to make prophecies work).

	I made the comment that bible literalists may have problems with 
	this. However, I understand that all sorts of things went in cycles
	of seven (including sabbatical years, priestly years etc.) and the
	use of weeks for years was very probable: much like our "month of
	Sundays".  Hunter to wife: "Goodbye; I'll only be gone a week" "OK;
	but don't be surprised to find youself father of six when you get
	back!"   :-) 

	Re: .232 Steve (Daniel 9:24-27 (NWT) from CHRISTIAN)

	Thanks, Steve; I appreciate your response.

	I do not have a copy of NWT, but I can assure you that the wording
	is significantly different than any of mine (they differ, too, but
	not quite so significantly). This is apparent in the NWT reference
	to the 7 weeks and 62 weeks; it leaves no doubt that these are to
	be seen as two separate epochs. Mine are either clear in that they 
	should run together, or they are ambiguous.
	However, I prefer to believe the ambiguous version (and, it seems,
	the NWT) and view them separately.

	We diverge, however, on two points:

	1. Which of the 4 biblical references (of the 5, two are repetitions,
	making only four actually) should be taken as the intended one.
	You have put all your money on Nehemiah which, as I indicated in
	my note, would be my last choice. I cannot read a decree into the
	letters given to Nehemiah: I read them to be letters of safe passage
	and requisitions for timber. The eighty years of non-work would fit
	rather better to the time from Cyrus' decree (538) to the letter
	given to Ezra from the 'King of Kings' Artaxerxes (458).
	(I know there is dispute about the correct order of Ezra/Nehemiah
	books and how the editors mixed some parts of one into the other,
	but that's another can of worms).

	2. Even if we take the Nehemiah letters to be the starting point,
	our dates differ by 10 years: I get 445 and you get 455. I quickly
	revisited my sources on Sunday (when I should have been in church!)
	and cannot get closer to you than 447 from any reliable source and
	that is based on a (IMO) wrong date for Artaxerxes' reign. Most
	references (plus "in the seventh year") bring me to 445. The reign
	of Artaxerxes is affirmed by sources external to Hebrew scriptures.

	Given these factors, it is easy to see why should differ on the
	validity of the prophecy in relation to Jesus.

	As I hinted in my note, the dating of the Daniel text -- which is
	pretty well affirmed by biblical scholars -- and knowledge of the
	recent events around that date, must lead an open-minded reader
	to the conclusion that this is an allegory of recent history and
	not a prophecy at all.

	But, as I said, I do not have a NWT.  :-)

	Greetings, Derek.
      

Re:  .246

There is a long detailed discussion of cud-chewing in
(I think) the previous version of Christian.  You're probably
aware of it.  Just for the heck of it, you might want to
enter the detailed analysis of why this verse is correct
that is presented there and then you can share with us
why it is all wrong.

I know that this suggestion will probably stop this discussion
in its tracks, but then well-reasoned truth has a way of
doing that.  :-)

Collis

re Note 820.249 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> I know that this suggestion will probably stop this discussion
> in its tracks, but then well-reasoned truth has a way of
> doing that.  :-)
  
        Has it ever stopped you, Collis? :-}

        Bob

        P.S. just teasing you with a "have you stopped beating your
        wife" question!

           <<< YUKON::DISK$ARCHIVE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< The CHRISTIAN Notesfile >-
================================================================================
Note 53.56                 The Inerrancy of Scripture                  56 of 327
COMET::HAYESJ "Duck and cover!"                      16 lines  17-MAR-1993 03:29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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
    

    There is more information and validation through medical organizations
    in this note string, feel free to peruse at will.

I'll grant you, the furry li'l suckers look like they're chewing something,
alright.

However, if you look far enough, you can find respected, supposedly intelligent
people who'll verify for you that trees cause pollution, too.

Richard

    RE: .253
    
    Actually, there is a haze in New England during the summer that *is*
    caused by tree's.
    
    
    Small effect, but noticeable.
    
    Marc H.

    .254  Yup, that be what I be speakin' of. ;-}
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

re .248

Derek,

You will need to look into Roman culture and how the Julian calendar
came about. The Gregorian calendar is a revision of the Julian one.
Other civilisations such as the Chinese may or not have had a concept 
of the number zero. However, if I remember rightly from my early school 
years there is no Roman numeral for the number zero. 

I guess the Roman hunter just held out his empty hands and said "nothing
today love".

Phil.

Re: .245
  
  >Title:  God knows rabbits don't chew cud

  >Do rabbits chew cud?  No?  See Leviticus 11.6 and report back to me.

  >I know of no cud-chewing members of the rodent family.

  >Richard

and

.253
  >I'll grant you, the furry li'l suckers look like they're chewing something,
  >alright.
(Almost an admission of the truth of .251 which says that
scientists did indeed consider rabbits cud-chewers.)


Indeed, it appears that this discussion stopped before it even
started.  I'm feeling a little fiesty after seeing some Rush
Limbaugh recently :-) who has a habit of comparing the statements
that people make at one point of time with the statements that
are made later.  Somehow, doing that here seemed appropriate.

The reason for this has nothing to do with gloating.  It has
everything to do with realizing how much time inerrantists spend
reiterating time after time the same answers to the same questions
that either are and should be well-known by the questioner.  The
fact that there is a reasonable answer doesn't stop them from
doing whatever they can to throw up more obstacles to actually
believing what the Bible says.  And then, when the answer is
provided, you will rarely hear the questioner say something like,
"Oh, that explains it very well.  My assumptions about this being
inconsistent were wrong."  No, what you will hear is either
silence or comments that indicate grudging consent that perhaps
the Bible is accurate in this area (such as what we see above).

This just seemed an appropriate time to point out what is going
on here - an agenda is being pushed.  If something pushes that
agenda along - even if it is misleading as in this case - it is 
used.  If it is later exposed for what it is, that's o.k. because
it has accomplished its purpose (to raise doubts).

O.K., that's all.  I won't repeat this for at least another 6
months.  :-)

Collis

    RE: .257
    
    I see/read no agenda. 
    
    Really, I myself have a long way to go on my faith journey. I've made
    some progress, but continue to question.
    
    Can't honest questioning be called as such, without an emotionally
    charged term like "agenda" added?
    
    Marc H.

re: Note 820.258 by Marc "I'm the NRA" 

>    RE: .257
>    
>    I see/read no agenda. 

I've often found that you find what you're looking for. If someone is looking 
to see agendas, they probably will find them.

I've also often found that people see others in their own image.  If I have an 
agenda, I generally see other people as having an agenda.

Peace,

Jim

    .257 by Collis,
    
    I did admit that some scientists would probably define what rabbits
    do is chewing cud, and that it would be approximately the same as
    a reputable person classifying mist, allergens, pollens, etc., from
    trees as pollution.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

Well, several points stand out in my mind:

  - Richard invariably acts as one who questions all
    kinds of things.  Sometimes this is to stimulate
    interesting discussion.  Sometimes not (IMO).

  - Richard knows the responses to many of the issues
    that I will usually respond to.  For example, I
    explicitly mentioned that this was discussed in
    Christian.  It is certainly possible that Richard
    was unaware of this.  Personally, I consider this
    unlikely.  I wouldn't be surprised if he was aware 
    of this issue *precisely* because it was extensively
    discussed in Christian.

So, how does Richard approach this?

Out of the blue, he mentions cud-chewing animals and
suggests that the rabbit is not one.  He probably knows
a whole lot more about this issue than that, but
conveniently decides to say nothing more.

Is his interest in cud-chewing or in rabbits?

 - No, the information on that is already available.

Is his interest in the accuracy of the Bible?

 - No, his mind is already mind up about that.  And
   he has information about this issue allready that
   is rather definitive.

Perhaps his interest is in a fair and balanced discussion?

 - No, for then he would present all the information that
   was available for this.

Again, perhaps Richard was simply unaware about this
discussion in Christian.  If Richard tells me that, I'll
believe him and readily admit that his question was much
more innocent than it first appeared.  However, this is not
the first time that this modus operandi has been seen in this
file, nor the second, nor the third...  I guess when you have
dealt with these issues phrased in these ways time after time,
you see a pattern (as I have seen).

After I point out that this discussion existed in Christian,
there is no "thanks for the reference" (not that I expected
this) or "oh, I didn't know that".  Neither is that any
admittance upon Richard's part that he was aware of this.
There is a remark which can possibly be interpreted to accept
that the Bible is accurate in this regard.

Quite frankly, this stinks in my opinion.  It does not have
the appearance of being fair, even-handed and aboveboard.
Perhaps it is.  It just doesn't seem that way to me.

Therefore, I see an agenda.  Agree or disagree, that is
what runs through my head.

Collis

    .261  Collis, I never read any of the so-called cud-chewing string
in conference entitled CHRISTIAN.  Cud-chewing was brought to my attention
by the book, "Fundamentalism: Hazards and Heartbreaks."
    
"It is the...primitive tendency to describe things as they superficially
appear that probably led Biblical authors to describe hares as chewing their
cud (Leviticus 11.6)."

(Fundamentalism: Hazards and Heartbreaks, by Evans and Berent, pg. 36,
Open Court Publishing, 1988)

    CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE, because it is unrigid with regards to the
inerrancy issue, is a place where all sides may share their most
convincing evidence, reasoned thought, and observations concerning the
issue.  CHRISTIAN is going to be decidely less than objective concerning
the inerrancy of the Bible because of the very nature of the conference.

    .261 does present us with an interesting exercise in your thought-
processes though.  Thank you for that.

Richard

    In Christian you will find more people who will stand on the side of
    inerrancy.  period.

    RE: .263
    
    Its also a place that I stay away from. Discusion is not allowed.
    
    Marc H.

Re:  .262

Thank you, Richard, for opening yourself up a little to
share that.  It is good to know that you honestly thought
there were problems with this bit of trivia from the
Bible.

I do regret the public questioning of your motives on this
issue.  However, in my opinion, it is only natural given
the style in which you have noted in the past.

There are 2 ways in which we can cut way down on these
exchanges and speculations.  One is if someone (such as me)
doesn't press the issue so hard.  I often do not, but I did
in this instance.  The other is if someone (such as you)
respond with a straight-forward explanation of what you
know and how you come about to know it.  Since you are
often very reticent to share such information, others
(such as myself) are forced to speculate (always privately,
sometimes publically) as to your reasons and motivations.
Clearly I am not the only one that sometimes misguesses.

Collis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    So what is the problem in Christian Perspective of finding  people
    who will stand up for the Bible as a beautiful but fallible human
    instrument?
    
    What is the problem in finding persons in Christian Perspective who are
    just as confident about their Christian Faith based on this book of
    witness to human faith as those who are confident that the book by
    itself is superhuman.
    
    God is big enough to speak through billions of different divergent
    Faith stories.  
    
    Allelua.
    
    Patricia

Does your translation of Leviticus 11.13-19 include, in the list of
unclean birds, bats?

It is Hebrew word for bird here "any flying non-insect"?

Or is there a plethora of scientific evidence somewhere that bats are
really birds after all?

This question came to mind last night after re-reading this chapter.

Shalom,
Richard

Article 2648 of alt.religion.christian:
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian
Subject: Surprising Info on Bible Translations
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 94 08:41:21 CDT
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham

A printed brochure of this message, plus a sample of current tracts is
available by e-mailing your POSTAL MAILING address to
[email protected]. (see bottom of message)
 
ALL TRACTS ARE FREE!
 
God has placed alot of importance upon His Word. Jesus Christ said in Matthew
24:35, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but MY WORDS shall not pass away."
Psalms 138:2 says, ". . . thou hast magnified THY WORD ABOVE ALL THY NAME."
1 Peter 1:23 reads, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of
incorruptible, by THE WORD of God, WHICH LIVETH AND ABIDETH FOR EVER."
 
The first time Satan attacks the human race--it was a direct assault upon the
Word of God! Genesis 3:1 says, "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 . . ." Satan planted a small seed of doubt into the mind of Eve. And
as Eve questioned the truthfulness of God's Word -- the fall of mankind was
only a bite away. Satans' target of attack hasn't changed! He knows the
spiritual life-line of the human race is dependent on the Word of God, and if
he can place the smallest seed of doubt and confusion in God's Word--MANKIND
WILL LOOK ELSEWHERE!
 
Today, there is more confusion about the Bible, than any other time in history.
The Bible is ridiculed and scorned. It's banned from our public schools. It
seemingly has no answer for 20th century man.
 
And nothing has caused more confusion and doubt about the Word of God than the
many different translations of the Bible now available. Time magazine of April
20, 1981 says, ". . . there is an unprecedented CONFUSION of choices in Bibles.
Never have so many major new translations been on the market."  Since 1880, over
200 different translations have appeared! NO WONDER PEOPLE ARE SO CONFUSED!
I've had people say many times, "This Bible says one thing, that Bible says
another, and that Bible says another. Which one is right? WHAT'S A PERSON TO
BELIEVE?"  Let's get something straight. 1 Corinthians 14:33 plainly says,
"GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION." God is not in the confusion business! BUT
SATAN IS! If he can plant the smallest seed of doubt in an individuals mind,
chances are that individual will never take God's word serious!
 
The question is: If God has placed SO much importance on His WORDS, do we have
the Words of God? If so, where are they? Jesus said in John 14:23, "...If a man
love me, he will keep my WORDS..." Notice, Jesus Christ is not referring to
a "collective" "Word of God", but my WORDS. Where are they? Jesus answered the
temptations of Satan, in Matthew 4:4, ". . . It is written, Man shall not live
by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."...
Where are they?  If we don't have the Words of God . . . We have no hope . .
. No answers . . . No authority . . . Any opinion, ideology, is just as good as
the next.  Simply put, if we don't have the very Words of God--WE HAVE NOTHING!
 
I believe, without a shadow of doubt, that God has preserved His Word in the 
King James Bible. I firmly believe the other versions are Satanic counterfeits
to cast doubt, cause confusion and ATTACK THE LORD JESUS CHRIST! And I'm going
to prove that statement.
 
Most people believe that the different versions are basically the same. They
believe the newer versions are just revisions in wording, updating of archaic
words, and just made easier to read and understand. NOTHING COULD POSSIBLY BE
FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH!
 
One of the clearest verses in the Bible proclaiming the deity and incarnation of
Jesus Christ, the fact that Jesus Christ was God manifested in the flesh, is
1 Timothy 3:16. The King James Bible reads, "And without controversy great is
the mystery of godliness:  GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH, justified in the
Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world,
received up into glory." The King James says plainly, "GOD was manifest in the
flesh". The New International Version (NIV) says, "HE appeared in a body". The
New American Standard (NASV) says, "HE who was revealed in the flesh". The
Revised Standard (RSV) reads, "HE was manifested in the flesh." Every one of
them, reads "HE" instead of "GOD". Who does "He" refer to?  "He" is a pronoun
that refers to a noun or antecedent. There is no antecedent in the context!
Consequently, THE "HE" SPOKEN OF MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
 
A DIRECT ASSAULT ON THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST! And in case you think it's
because of "better and more reliable manuscripts",--of all the greek
manuscripts only one--that's right--ONLY ONE, has a "he" (without God)! Why
would someone ignore overwhelming manuscript evidence and deliberately deny
the deity of Jesus Christ?  Think that's just a coincident? NOT HARDLY!
 
The KJV, again clearly revealing the deity of Jesus Christ, reads in
Philippians 2:6, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery TO BE
EQUAL WITH GOD" The NIV, NASV, RSV, Living Bible and their "buddies" totally
re-word the verse to attack the deity of Jesus Christ! The NIV reads, "Who,
being in very nature God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD SOMETHING TO BE
GRASPED," Someone is trying to get you to question, probably the most
important doctrine in the Bible~the deity of Jesus Christ!  WHO WOULD DO SUCH
A THING?
 
Let's try another. Luke 2:33, The King James reads, "And JOSEPH and his mother
marvelled at those things which were spoken of him."  The NIV reads, "The
CHILD'S FATHER and mother marveled at what was said about him." The "CHILD'S
FATHER?" Do you believe that Joseph was Jesus's father? Not if you believe the
virgin birth!  Not if you believe John 3:16, that Jesus Christ was the Son of
God!  A subtle satanic attack at the virgin birth. WHY?  WHO WOULD DO SUCH A
THING?
 
Think these are just isolated cases? NOT BY A LONG SHOT! There are literally
thousands of alterations. Consider Colossians 1:14, the KJV reads, "In whom we
have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins:"  The NIV
reads, "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."  The NIV, NASV,
RSV, and others rip the precious words "THROUGH HIS BLOOD" out! Friend,
salvation is only "THROUGH HIS BLOOD." That old song says, "What can wash away
my sins, NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD OF JESUS!"
 
Not according to the NIV, the NASV, the RSV, and their buddies! THE NIV REMOVES
"THE BLOOD" 41 TIMES! 41 times they take the "blood" out of the Bible! At least
30 times they remove the word "CHRIST"!  And believe it or not!  THEY REMOVE THE
WORD "LORD" 352 TIMES! You read right! 352 times they took out the word "Lord"!
Somebody doesn't like the lordship! Somebody wants you to be your own god! WHO
WOULD DO SUCH A THING? I'll give you a hint. . . He said to Eve in Genesis 3:5,
". . . YE SHALL BE AS GODS . . ."
 
And of course something has to be done with John 3:16! So the NIV and company
reads "For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE AND ONLY SON, that
whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life"--removing
the critical word "BEGOTTEN"! If Jesus was "the one and only" then what happens
to the wonderful promise to believers in 1 John 3:2, "Beloved, now are we
the sons of God, . . ." or in John 1:12, Phil. 2:15, etc.? A BLATANT
CONTRADICTION APPEARS!
 
A glaring error is found in the New Bibles in Mark 1:2,3: "It is written in
Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your
way--a voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way for the Lord, make
straight paths for him." It was most certainly NOT written in Isaiah--"I will
send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way"--is found in Malachi
3:1! The King James correctly reads: "As it is written in the PROPHETS, . . ."
A better translation! A better reading! Easier to understand! BY A LIE! (See
John 8:44) Somebody is deliberately tampering with God's Word to DISCREDIT IT?
 
To really show the hypocrisy and satanic influence behind these "PER-versions"--
look at the replacement of the word "hell" with "hades"! See Matt. 16:18, Luke
16:23, Acts 2:31 and many more. And this is a better translation!  In fact,
"hades" is not a "translation", but a "transliteration" (changing the greek word
into the English alphabet)! Making it clearer all the time, huh?  What does that
do to the silly argument of the "archaic", "out-dated" King James Bible that
nobody understands? Trying to put these new versions in modern language? By
removing "hell" and replacing it with the greek word "hades"! Why didn't they
"transliterate" heaven and call it "ouranos"? Because someone is trying to
remove the warning and horror of hell! WHO WOULD DO SUCH A THING?
 
Are you getting the picture? Do you see how it's done? Do you see how subtle
(see 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 . . .), how seemingly, insignificant the changes are--AND YET HOW DEADLY
THEY ARE TO THE INTEGRITY OF GOD'S WORD! Yes friend. Satan has launched an
attack on your Bible!  YOU'D BETTER BELIEVE IT!
 
Let's try another. Acts 8:37, the King James reads, "And Philip said, If thou
believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe
that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."  The NIV, NASV, RSV and "buddies" reads--
NOTHING! THEY TOOK THE WHOLE VERSE OUT! One of the clearest verses found in all
the Bible on salvation through Jesus Christ and they take the whole verse out!
The Ethiopian eunuch is getting saved and they take the words of salvation right
out of his mouth! Why? Why is it that every time a sinner is saved by grace in
the book of Acts the NIV and his buddies attack it? In Acts 9:5,6: Paul is
getting saved they take out 20 words! In Acts 16:31 when the Philippian jailor
gets saved, the word "CHRIST" is removed! Why do these new bibles so fiercely
attack God's wonderful plan of salvation?   WHO WOULD DO SUCH A THING?
 
Three times the Lord warns against "adding and taking away" from the Word of
God.  Toward the beginning: Deuteronomy 4:2 reads: "YE SHALL NOT ADD unto the
word which I command you, NEITHER SHALL YE DIMINISH ought from it, that ye may
keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." Toward the
middle: Proverbs 30::6, "ADD THOU NOT unto his words, lest he reprove thee,
and thou be found a liar." At the end, Revelation 22:18,19  ". . . IF ANY MAN
SHALL ADD unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written
in this book: AND IF ANY MAN SHALL TAKE AWAY FROM THE WORDS of the book of this
prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the
holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
 
And despite these clear warnings--these new versions take out and add text over
and over! They take out: Romans 16:24, Mark 11:25, Acts 15:34, Luke 23:17, Acts
28:29, John 5:4, Mark 7:16, 9:44,46 and many, many, many, many more, as your
Bible is ripped apart! Jesus Christ says, in Matthew 4:4, ". . . It is written,
Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the
mouth of God." Not surprisingly, the last half of Matthew 4:4--but by every word
that proceedeth out of the mouth of God--is removed from the NIV and crew. And
don't let anybody try to tell you that "older and more reliable manuscripts have
been recently discovered" (as reads in the NIV, in order to remove Mark 16:9-20,
etc.) in order to defend these new translations. That is absolutely untrue! The
book, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of Mark, by Dean Burgon contains over
400 pages of undisputable documented evidence for Mark 16:9-20, that has never
been refuted, nor ever will! And furthermore, it is a well documented FACT that
90-95% of all the greek manuscripts found are in agreement with the King James
Bible! SO WHY ALL THE CHANGES? I THINK WE KNOW! DON'T WE? Genesis 3:1!
 
Your King James Bible is constantly under attack by preachers in the pulpit,
some intentional and some simply out of ignorance.  One way they correct your
King James Bible is by saying "THE ORIGINAL SAYS".  There is one little
problem with that...THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "THE ORIGINALS."  There are no set
of "ORIGINALS" on the face of this earth!  Another way they correct it is by
saying "THE GREEK" says.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "THE GREEK!" There are
literally thousands of greek texts!  There is no "THE GREEK".  Preachers, by
the thousands will stand weekly in the pulpit and correct your King James Bible
by saying "This is an unfortunate translation" or "a better reading would be."
Did God not know what He was doing when He gave His Word?  Did He need these
modern day "Bible correctors" to come along and help Him out?  NOT HARDLY!
FRIEND, DON'T LET THEM DESTROY YOUR FAITH IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE!
 
God has preserved His word for the English speaking people in the King James
Bible. Proverbs 16:10 says, "A divine sentence is in the lips of the KING..."
Ecclesiastes 8:4 says, "Where the word of a KING is, there is power:..." King
James. "James" is not an English word but a Hebrew word. Do you know what the
Hebrew word for James is? It's JACOB! You'll never guess what Psalms 147:19
says, "He showeth His word unto JACOB...!" Is it adding up? Could it be any
clearer?
 
The King James Bible is the only Bible in the world with no copyright! Anybody
can print, distribute, reproduce, and quote the King James Bible and never ask
permission from anybody. Paul said in 2 Timothy 2:9, "...THE WORD OF GOD IS NOT
BOUND." All the other translations are "bound" by copyright laws.  New
American Standard--copyright Lockman Foundation.  New International
Version--copyright New York International Bible Society.  New King James
Version--copyright Thomas Nelson Publishers.

There are over 20 million books in the Library of Congress! Do you know how
many do not have a copyright? ONE! THE KING JAMES BIBLE!  Don't that tell
you something? God's word is not bound, it is public domain!
 
IF YOU HAVE A KING JAMES BIBLE.  FRIEND, YOU HAVE THE WORD OF GOD!  And don't
let anybody, or anything take it from you!
 
What about people who don't read English? More foreign Bibles are translated
from the Textus Receptus (the text the KJV is from) than any other text.  Nearly
everyone, has available a Bible true to the King James Bible.
 
Following is a list of 40 changes (among thousands) clearly showing the
"satanic" tampering of the Word of God. At the bottom is a scorecard of the
7 popular "per-versions".
 
1.  Matt. 18:11 -VERSE REMOVED
2.  Mark 1:2 -changes "prophets" to "Isaiah"
3.  Mark 9:44 -  VERSE REMOVED
4.  Luke 2:33 -  changes "Joseph" to "The child's father"
5.  Luke 4:4 -   removes "but by every word of God"
6.  Luke 4:8 -   removes "Get thee behind me, Satan"
7.  Luke 16:23 - changes "hell" to "hades"
8.  Luke 23:42 - changes "Lord" to "Jesus"
9.  John 1:18 -  changes "Son" to "God"
10. John 3:16 -  removes "begotten"
11. John 5:4 -   VERSE REMOVED
12. John 6:69 -  removes "Christ, the Son of the living God"
13. John 9:35 -  changes "Son of God" to "Son of Man"
14. John 14:2 -  changes "mansions" to "rooms", "dwelling places"
15. Acts 1:3 -changes "infallible proofs" to "convincing proofs"
16. Acts 2:31 -  changes "hell" to "grave" or "hades"
17. Acts 4:27 -  changes "holy child Jesus" to "holy servant Jesus"
18. Acts 8:37 -  VERSE REMOVED
19. Acts 16:31 - removes "Christ"
20. Acts 28:29 - VERSE REMOVED
21. Rom. 1:25 -  changes "changed the truth" to "exchanged the truth"
22. Rom 8:1 - LAST HALF REMOVED
23. Rom. 16:24 - VERSE REMOVED
24. 1 Cor. 15:55 -    changes "grave" to "hades"
25. 2 Cor. 2:17 - changes "corrupt" to "peddle"
26. 2 Cor. 5:17 -     changes "new creature" to "new creation"
27. Eph. 3:14 -  removes "of our Lord Jesus Christ"
28. Phil. 2:6 -  changed to deny deity
29. Col. 1:14 -  removes "through his blood"
30. 1 Tim. 3:16 -     changes "God" to "He"
31. 1 Tim. 6:10 -     changes "root of all evil" to "root of all kinds of evil"
32. 1 Tim. 6:20 -     changes "science" to "knowledge"
33. 2 Tim. 2:15 -     removes "study"
34. Heb. 1:3 -   removes "by himself"
35. 1 Pet. 2:2 - removes "of the word"
36. 1 Pet. 2:2 - changes "grow thereby" to "grow up in your salvation"
37. 1 John 3:16 -     removes "love of God"
38. 1 John 5:7 - LAST HALF REMOVED
39. Rev. 8:13 -  changes "angel" to "eagle"
40. Rev. 22:14 - changes "do his commandments" to "wash their robes"
 
New International Version (NIV) - all, except 7, 24
New American Standard Version (NASV) - all, except 10, 24, 26, 35
New King James Version (NKJV) - 7, 16, 17, 21, 24, 25, 26, 31, 32, 33, 37
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) -  all, except 24
Revised Standard Version (RSV) - all, except 9, 24, 31
Living Bible - all, except 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 16, 18, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 34
Amplified Bible - all, except 8, 9, 10, 12, 17, 19, 24, 31, 33, 34
 
Know ye not that A LITTLE leaven leaveneth the whole lump? 1 Cor 5:6
 
WHAT ABOUT THE NEW King James Bible?  The NKJV matches the "per-versions" in
hundreds of KEY places, such as Romans 1:25, 1 Cor. 1:21, 2 Cor 2:17,
1 Tim 6:10, 1 Tim 6:20 and 1 John 3:16. The word "hell" is removed in KEY
verses, such as, Luke 16:23 and Acts 2:31.   Add the word "continue" to 1 John
5:13. Is it TRUE to the King James Text?  Absolutely Not! Not even close...
 
If you would like more information on this subject: Please e-mail your POSTAL
(Snail Mail) MAILING ADDRESS to [email protected] and request the
information package on the King James Bible. We would be happy to send you the
material free of charge along with a sample of other tracts.
 
NOTE. Comments, Additional DOCUMENTED information, etc is welcomed!
 
This Message is also encouraged to be e-mailed, uploaded BBS's, etc.
 
A printed brochure of this message, plus a sample of current tracts is
available by e-mailing your POSTAL MAILING (Snail Mail) address to
[email protected].
 
Available Messages:
     Hell: Fact or Fiction
     Warning: 666 is Coming
     Rock Music: The Devil's Advocate
     It's Only Rock'n Roll But It Kills
     The Coming New World Order
     The World's Deadliest Drug
     The Attack On the Bible
     The World's Most Amazing Book
     The Resurrection: Myth, Miracle or Madness
     Christian Rock: Blessing or Blasphemy
     Fatal Attraction
     Satanism and the Occult
     Jesus is Coming
     The Time of His Coming
     Abortion: What They won't Tell You!
     The Clinton Health Care Plan (It'll Make You Sick!)
 
ALL TRACTS ARE FREE!
 
E-MAIL your MAILING address to [email protected]
 
You WILL NOT be placed on a junk mailing list, nor be solicited, begged, etc.!

You really shouldn't post silly stuff like that...

>Three times the Lord warns against "adding and taking away" from the Word of
>God.  ...

Then how come most versions of the KJV currently in print take away fourteen
books in the Authorized Version of the KJV?

>The King James Bible is the only Bible in the world with no copyright! Anybody
>can print, distribute, reproduce, and quote the King James Bible and never ask
>permission from anybody.

The Douai-Rheims has no copyright.  The Coverdale has no copyright.  The
Greek editions have no copyright.  The Latin Vulgate has no copyright.
Martin Luther's translation has no copyright.

>There are over 20 million books in the Library of Congress! Do you know how
>many do not have a copyright? ONE! THE KING JAMES BIBLE!  Don't that tell
>you something? God's word is not bound, it is public domain!
 
Baloney.  Thousands of books in the Library of Congress have no copyright.
The U.S. Book of Common Prayer, for example, has no copyright (provisional
versions do, so that they can be removed from circulation, but officially
released ones don't).

/john

    Please, watch the length, Mike.  With a little effort, you could
    have condensed or paraphased a lot of the material in .268.
    
    Richard
    

    just thought some of it was interesting, despite the tunneled vision.

    One of my favorite teachers, Chuck Missler, said a Rabbi once told him 
    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 him.  Knowing this verse, consider 
    these golden nuggets:    
    
    If you directly translate the word "Torah," from the Hebrew language, it's 
    actually spelled "TORH" and means "instruction."  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.  It's telling us that the Word (instruction) points to God!
    
    What about the significance of 49 and 7?  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.
    The 7 is attributed to the number of days from Sabbath to Sabbath and
    is considered a divine number.
    
    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.
    
    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.
    
    Though God is never mentioned in the book of Esther, the name YHWH is
    intricately woven into several passages.  More on this later...
    
    Mike

    Here's an interesting comparison of science and the Bible.  You can
    really see the imprint of God now that we know the truth!
    
    Earth is Round
    --------------
    For centuries, people believe the earth was flat.  Obviously these
    people ignored God's Word.
    
    Isaiah 40:22  "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the
    inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens 
    as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"
    
    Earth hangs in Space
    --------------------
    'State-of-the-art' thinking in ancient times seem to agree with the
    myths from the Islamic Koran and Hindu Veda about the earth riding on 
    the back of the turtle. 
    
    Job 26:7  "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth 
    the earth upon nothing."
    
    Stars are Innumerable
    ---------------------
    It wasn't until within the last 20 years or so that astronomers have
    finally realized that the stars are innumerable, and use the volume of
    sand on seashores as a model.  In ancient times, astronomers would catalog 
    stars that they've counted.  For quite some time, they believed there 
    were only 1,200 stars!
    
    Genesis 15:5 "And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward 
    heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said 
    unto him, So shall thy seed be."
    
    Nuclear Fusion
    --------------
    For years, Bible critics used to use this passage as proof that the
    Bible was false.  The reasoning was that nothing of this magnitude
    could destroy the earth this way.  Now we know better.  The Hebrew word
    for "dissolve" ("destroyed" in some versions) literally means to
    "untie."  This is exactly what happens when splitting atoms.  Untying
    them is what causes the great releases of energy.
    
    2 Peter 3:10-12 "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the
    night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and 
    the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works 
    that are therein shall be.  Seeing then that all these things shall be
    dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation 
    and godliness,  Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of
    God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the 
    elements shall melt with fervent heat?"  
    
    Oceans' Floor
    -------------
    For centuries, man believed the floor of the seas were smooth and
    gently sloping.  Now we know otherwise.  The infamous Marianas Trench
    is 7 miles deep.  You could put Mt. Everest inside of it and still have
    over 1 mile of water over it!
    
    Job 38:16 "Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou
    walked in the search of the depth?"
    
    Jonah 2:5-6 "The waters compassed me about, even to the soul: the depth 
    closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head.  I went
    down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me 
    for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my
    God."
    
    Sea Currents
    ------------
    Interesting background on this one.  The man who went on to chart all
    the major shipping lanes in all the oceans, and is the founder of the
    Annapolis Academy, was ministered by this passage.  He was ill at the 
    time and his son was reading Psalm 8 to him.  When the boy read verse 8, 
    the Holy Spirit ministered to the man (Maury?) and jumped up and said, 
    "Well if God's Word says so, they must be there!"  His statue at Annapolis
    shows him with the navigator's tool in one hand, a Bible in the other. 
    Also note the Hebrew word for "paths" literally means a well-trodden
    path or caravan route.  
    
    Psalm 8:8 "The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever
    passeth through the paths of the seas."
    
    Hydrological Cycle
    ------------------
    Amos, a mere fig picker, had the Lord reveal to him the hydrological
    cycle.  Likewise for Isaiah.  'State-of-the-art' thinking in ancient 
    times seem to agree with the myths from the Islamic Koran and Hindu Veda 
    about a giant frog causing rainfall.  You can see how much more advanced 
    the Word of God is.
    
    Amos 9:6 "It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath 
    founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, 
    and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name."
    
    Isaiah 55:10 "For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and
    returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth 
    and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:"
    
    Wind Currents
    -------------
    In addition to the hydrological cycle, God reveals the wind currents to
    Solomon.
    
    Ecclesiastes 1:6-7 "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about 
    unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth 
    again according to his circuits.  All the rivers run into the sea; yet 
    the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither 
    they return again."

.273 FRETZ::HEISER Science & the Bible

You're not serious, right?

If you want to talk about the accuracy of the Bible from a scientific
standpoint, I suggest we start another topic. We can take them one at a time.

This could be fun.

Steve

    I'm not in this for your pleasure, but I'm dead serious.

    Also see Note 802  "The cosmology of the Old Testament"
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

Also see Note 522   "In The Beginning: The Genesis Story"

Shalom,
Richard

re: Note 820.273 by Mike "Maranatha!" 

>                            -< Science & the Bible >-

>    Isaiah 40:22  "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the
>    inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens 
>    as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"

Circles are flat.  Spheres aren't.
    
...

Peace,

Jim

.278 TFH::KIRK circles are 2D, spheres are much closer to truth

Ah, Jim, you took the easy one right off the bat. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.275 FRETZ::HEISER "Maranatha!"

    I'm not in this for your pleasure, but I'm dead serious.

This seems to be a hot button for you, so I won't push it unless you would like
to. Suffice to say that I consider your claims to be somewhat off center.

Steve

    Steve, it's not a hot button.  For I "...am not ashamed of the gospel." 
    What I meant is that I don't have time to entertain you.  If you want
    to have a serious discussion, fine.  There's nothing in the Bible that
    we have to be ashamed or embarassed about.  God's Word will stand on
    its own.
    
    Mike