"I can defend the Bible" Can you?

[polonius]

JP Cusick posted:

I can defend the Bible, but Christianity needs to be given excuses.

On beginning this thread, I'd like to gather some opinions on the accuracy of the bible which some claim can be "defended."

I don't want to create a survey, but do some posters have reasoned arguments for or against defense of the Bible that they are willing to share?

[polonius]

Matthew 8:5 -7
5 When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, appealing to him

Luke 7:2-7
A centurion there had a slave whom he valued highly, and who was ill and close to death. 3 When he heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders to him, asking him to come and heal his slave.

QUESTION: Who asked Jesus about the centurion's slave?

It is not unusual in language to speak of a thought or idea or message as coming from its originator even though it was conveyed by an intermediary. Sometimess we mention those that convey or carry the message other times not.

Let's take a look at some examples:

A woman might say: "My husband just sent me a dozen roses!" When in fact the woman's husband didn't send them, he went into a shop and told the florist to send them. So did the husband send them or did the florist send them?

Another example, we might say: "my boss just wrote me" when in actual fact his secretary wrote and delivered the letter. So who actually performed the verb (to write)? The boss or the secretary? Both are correct depending on whether we are going to refer only to who originated or made the writing possible (the boss) or who performed the act under the direction of the boss (the secretary).

In both cases failing to mention whose idea is being conveyed might be misleading but even then not necessarily a contradiction.

Since both Matthew and Luke mention the same originator of the message (the centurian) and the destinator (Jesus) but Luke mentions who transmited the message while Matthew doesn't, we don't have a contradiction, it is simply a case of not mentioning all relevant details. A contradition only exists if both its parts cannot possibly be true, so if there is a legitimate way to understand the statements that can render them both true, there is no contradiction:

MATTHEW: Since the centurian did indeed "come to"* (as in approached) Jesus (albeit through unmentioned intermediaries) the first statement is true.

LUKE: And if the centurian "came to" (or approached) Jesus through his envoys the second statement can also true.

* "There came unto him; i.e. by messengers" - The Pulpit Commentary

The only way to create a real contradiction would be for Matthew to state catagorically that the centurian sent no envoys.


JW

RESPONSE: Let go by the plain meaning of words. A demand for a"categorical" attempt to avoid the obvious facts isn't necessary. It says what it says.

Matthew 8:5 -7
5 When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, appealing to him 6 and saying, “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible distress.� 7 And he said to him, “I will come and cure him.� 8 The centurion answered, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only speak the word, and my servant will be healed.

Or

Luke 7:2-7
A centurion there had a slave whom he valued highly, and who was ill and close to death. 3 When he heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders to him, asking him to come and heal his slave. When they came to Jesus, they appealed to him earnestly, saying, “He is worthy of having you do this for him, 5 for he loves our people, and it is he who built our synagogue for us.� 6 And Jesus went with them, but when he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to say to him, “Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; 7 therefore I did not presume to come to you.

One version says the centurion HIMSELF spoke to Jesus. A second version says that the centurion SENT representatives to speak to Jesus.

See how simple plain English is.

[polonius]

Acts 9:7 7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one.

Or

Acts 22:9 9 Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me.

Did Pauls attendants hear Jesus voice?

At Acts 9:7, the account states that the men with Saul heard “a voice [“sound,� Da, Ro, ftns].� Here the Greek word pho·nes′, the genitive case of pho·ne′, is used, with the sense of ‘hearing of the voice.’ This allows for the meaning that the men heard only the sound of the voice, but did not understand. When Paul later related the experience, he said that the men “did not hear the voice of the one speaking.� (Ac 22:9) In this account the accusative (objective) case pho·nen′ is used. This can give the sense that, although the sound registered on their ears, they did not hear the voice as being distinct words that they understood as did Saul, to whom Christ was speaking.

Source: Bible Encyclopedia Insight on the Scripture Vol II p. 1161

RESPONSE: No. The Greek word refers to hearing not seeing. Lets look at the a source document and observe the use of the plain meaning of words.

http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.c ... sindex=191

Online Greek Interlinear Bible - Scripture4All
www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm

akouontes akouontes G191 vp Pres Act Nom Pl m HEARING

Strong's Greek Lexicon Search Results

191. akouo ak-oo'-o a primary verb; to hear (in various senses):--give (in the) audience (of), come (to the ears), (shall) hear(-er, -ken), be noised, be reported, understand.

Lets go with the facts:
Acts 9:7 7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one.

Or

Acts 22:9 9 Now those who were with me saw the light but [b]did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me.[/b][/quote]

And isn't that reference that you incompletely cited really a JW publication.Why didn't you cite it completely?

Insight on the Scriptures, [Hardcover] Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Collaborator)

[polonius]

Let’s take a look at some Old Testament contradictions.


Genesis 2:17 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.�

OR

Genesis 5:5New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred thirty years; and he died.

Which of these bible stories are “God breathed�?

[Checkpoint]

Let’s take a look at some Old Testament contradictions.


Genesis 2:17 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.�

OR

Genesis 5:5New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred thirty years; and he died.

Which of these bible stories are “God breathed�?

Both.

The first verse refers to spiritual death, the second refers to physical death.

[polonius]

Let’s take a look at some Old Testament contradictions.


Genesis 2:17 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.�

OR

Genesis 5:5New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred thirty years; and he died.

Which of these bible stories are “God breathed�?

Checkpoint posted:

Both.

The first verse refers to spiritual death, the second refers to physical death.

RESPONSE: Let's take a look at your answer and see how it conflicts with scripture.

Aren't we talking about physical death in Genesis 2:17? Recall that man's physical death only entered the world because he sinned.

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. (Romans 5:12-14)

So even those who did not sin died (a physical death). Even infants. who would be incapable of sin.

[Checkpoint]

Let’s take a look at some Old Testament contradictions.


Genesis 2:17 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.�

OR

Genesis 5:5New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred thirty years; and he died.

Which of these bible stories are “God breathed�?

Both.

The first verse refers to spiritual death, the second refers to physical death.

RESPONSE: Let's take a look at your answer and see what conclusions follow

Aren't we talking about physical death in Genesis 2:17? Recall that man's physical death only entered the world because he sinned.

Not exactly.

Which came first, and which thus became inevitable as a result of sinning by eating what was warned against?

The Bible is written to convey spiritual realities in our physical environment.

[polonius]

Let’s take a look at some Old Testament contradictions.


Genesis 2:17 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.�

OR

Genesis 5:5New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred thirty years; and he died.

Which of these bible stories are “God breathed�?

Both.

The first verse refers to spiritual death, the second refers to physical death.

RESPONSE: Let's take a look at your answer and see what conclusions follow

Aren't we talking about physical death in Genesis 2:17? Recall that man's physical death only entered the world because he sinned.

Checkpoint argued.

Not exactly.

Which came first, and which thus became inevitable as a result of sinning by eating what was warned against?

The Bible is written to convey spiritual realities in our physical environment.

QUESTION: Then how do you explain the death of those who have not sinned?

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/God/God_013.htm

The three gifts of bodily immortality, integrity and infused knowledge are called preternatural because they are not strictly due to human nature but do not, of themselves, surpass the capacities and exigencies of created nature as such. In other words, they are not entitatively supernatural.

Bodily immortality is the converse of mortality, i.e., the possibility of separation of soul from body. Adam was therefore capable of not dying. Yet the gift was conditional, provided he did not sin; it was gratuitous, since Adam's nature by itself did not postulate this prerogative but came from the divine bounty; and it was participated, since only God enjoys essential immortality.

"You shall surely die" is referring to physical death.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 17 by polonius.advice]

QUESTION: Then how do you explain the death of those who have not sinned?

I don't, because there are no such; all of us have sinned and fallen short.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 17 by polonius.advice]

QUESTION: Then how do you explain the death of those who have not sinned?

I don't, because there are no such; all of us have sinned and fallen short.

RESPONSE:

Do you think a one month old infant can sin? But he can die. And that wouldn't be a death of the spirit.

[myth-one.com]

JP Cusick posted:

I can defend the Bible, but Christianity needs to be given excuses.

On beginning this thread, I'd like to gather some opinions on the accuracy of the bible which some claim can be "defended."

I don't want to create a survey, but do some posters have reasoned arguments for or against defense of the Bible that they are willing to share?

God Himself does not want common people to understand the message because people can misuse the knowledge for evil purposes.

Today's Christians and clergy as a whole do not understand the Bible! They are cycling. That is, they are teaching exactly what they were taught from their youth. It is what they sincerely believe, not what is in the Bible.

They misinterpret the Bible to meet their predisposed beliefs and are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing, misleading others by continuing to teach their inherited beliefs.

They cannot break the cycle, because the scriptures are sealed from their understanding:

But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. (Daniel 12:4)

And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. (Isaiah 29:11-12)

The scriptures are not sealed only from "common people" as Cusick claims, but from all mankind until the time of the end!

Even the twelve apostles did not understand the scriptures until Jesus opened their understanding shortly before ascending into heaven:

Then opened He their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:45)

Why then should we expect today's theologians to understand them?

Although the scriptures are sealed up from our understanding, God left a gaping hole in His security system! Consider what Jesus states regarding prayer:

And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive. (Matthew 21:22)

Therefore, each time before you begin reading the Bible, you should first pray and ask God to open your understanding of the scriptures, believing that He will do so!

But generally speaking, no one does that because they already know what the scriptures state. They state what they were taught.

Thus we go around, and around, and around.