|
|
#21
09-20-2007, 10:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Its Hard to Decipher....
[ QUOTE ]
No need to think critically tpir... [/ QUOTE ] lol. easy for you to say. [ QUOTE ] the scholars are just reporting the events that jive with what biblical prophets proclaimed... [/ QUOTE ] Is it possible that in some cases they searched through history to find events that matched the Bible? What about all the prophecies they messed up royally? 
|
|
#22
09-20-2007, 10:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Its Hard to Decipher....
[ QUOTE ]
As I said before, I didn't read much of these sites at all & I don't know where this "book of facts" part came from but be careful Bunny, you are skating on thin ice. The Bible, from a Christian view, is without error & is the infallible Word of God. The error comes from man's interpretation. [/ QUOTE ] It's not a necessary view to hold in order to be a christian, not even close. The only way to arrive at such a claim is to think you have an infallible interpretation in which case ... ... oh, never mind. luckyme
|
|
#23
09-20-2007, 10:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Its Hard to Decipher....
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with a lot of what you said bunny ...Its extremely important how you use the word...But there are certain historical facts predicted in the Bible... Christ is actually described in Isaiah 53 more than 800 years before he is born ... [/ QUOTE ] I dont know if they were predicted. Look at the example I pointed out above - it was claimed as a successful prediction when, in fact, there was a lot of numerical adjustments and corrections, coupled with a sloppy calculation of the difference between 536 BC and 1948 AD. By their own assumptions and calculations, Israel was predicted to be re-established in 1949 and yet it didnt come about when the Bible predicted it would! The thing is, retrospectively fitting facts to historical documents and then labelling it a successful "prophecy" is easy. If someone had interpreted the bible in 1900 and claimed Israel would be re-established in 1948 and then it happened - that could mean something. I dont find the prophecies predicting Jesus particularly compelling, but even then, the fact is the New Testament which gives us the accounts of Jesus was written after the fact, by people who were familiar with the Old Testament and who were trying to persuade Jews in a superstitious time that Jesus was the Messiah from prophecy. There are obvious alternative explanations as to why the accounts of his life in the new testament seem to "fit" the prophecies written hundreds of years previously. My position is that it doesnt matter - spiritually, what matters is how you relate to God, not whether you can comb through scripture discovering numerical relationships which may or may not be coincidence. I think such things distract from the important part of being a Christian.
|
|
#24
09-20-2007, 10:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Its Hard to Decipher....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Well why not contact them bunny with your concerns. [/ QUOTE ] Because I fundamentally disagree with their claim that the Bible can be used as some sort of "Book of facts". I think it is a spiritual book and attempting to interpret it literally is doomed to failure - all you end up doing is wasting time and energy articulating which bits are literal, which are allegorical and as soon as you make one error - you're left defending an absurd position as "the inerrant word of God". I think it is far better to view it as a tool for your own spiritual development - not as an inerrant catalogue (especially given how easy it is to twist the words to say whatever you want as Brad1970 pointed out). [/ QUOTE ] As I said before, I didn't read much of these sites at all & I don't know where this "book of facts" part came from but be careful Bunny, you are skating on thin ice. The Bible, from a Christian view, is without error & is the infallible Word of God. The error comes from man's interpretation. [/ QUOTE ] I agree - and I think a literal interpretation is one of the incorrect ones.
|
|
#25
09-20-2007, 10:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Its Hard to Decipher....
You are right bunny the message is everything....The additional details I have provided are to strenghthen your faith and to help you keep watch...Those that doubt the message now have more information on their search for truth...Christianity is not a fairy tale...
Probably the reason some of these details are so obscured is because of the paramount importance of the message ....still things like the Israelites going into Babylonian exile...that is actual history...Nebuchadnezzar is an actual Babylonian king...The bible is littered with history...There's alot of archaeology study going on now too on Biblical story sites...
|
|
#27
09-20-2007, 10:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Its Hard to Decipher....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Well why not contact them bunny with your concerns. [/ QUOTE ] Because I fundamentally disagree with their claim that the Bible can be used as some sort of "Book of facts". I think it is a spiritual book and attempting to interpret it literally is doomed to failure - all you end up doing is wasting time and energy articulating which bits are literal, which are allegorical and as soon as you make one error - you're left defending an absurd position as "the inerrant word of God". I think it is far better to view it as a tool for your own spiritual development - not as an inerrant catalogue (especially given how easy it is to twist the words to say whatever you want as Brad1970 pointed out). [/ QUOTE ] As I said before, I didn't read much of these sites at all & I don't know where this "book of facts" part came from but be careful Bunny, you are skating on thin ice. The Bible, from a Christian view, is without error & is the infallible Word of God. The error comes from man's interpretation. [/ QUOTE ] I agree - and I think a literal interpretation is one of the incorrect ones. [/ QUOTE ] Do you mean all literal interpretation is incorrect? Or just some?
|
|
#29
09-20-2007, 10:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Its Hard to Decipher....
[ QUOTE ]
Do you mean all literal interpretation is incorrect? Or just some? [/ QUOTE ] OK, you guys are making me crazy. I'd tend to take "literal interpretation" as an oxymoron. I'm interested in just what "..some " literal interpretation means. carry on, luckyme
|
|
#30
09-20-2007, 10:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Its Hard to Decipher....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] As I said before, I didn't read much of these sites at all & I don't know where this "book of facts" part came from but be careful Bunny, you are skating on thin ice. The Bible, from a Christian view, is without error & is the infallible Word of God. The error comes from man's interpretation. [/ QUOTE ] I agree - and I think a literal interpretation is one of the incorrect ones. [/ QUOTE ] Do you mean all literal interpretation is incorrect? Or just some? [/ QUOTE ] I mean only some. I expect some parts of the bible were intended to be interpreted literally. In general, if I want to learn a fact about the world, what's written in an old book is not a good way to learn it. Scientific investigation and/or corroboration from several sources is a better way to determine the age of the earth, whether the Red Sea parted, etcetera, etcetera.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
