Bible Questions?

So you believe that they all had it coming?

What about the virgin women who were kept by the pillagers?

Do you believe genocide was truly in order?

 

I don't believe they were the innocents that were "murdered" as you seem to make them out to be.

Could you refresh my memory on that one? I can't seem to find that scripture.

You keep saying genocide but it seems that it was less genocide than it's was the Amalekites who kept attacking the Israelites until they finally reaped what they had been sowing.

 

I have a question!

Can you read everything on the bible and take it for reality? or are they just story sometimes?

 

Some believe that they are just stories that were inspired by God that are used to express God's plan for mankind and how man can become more responsive to love. But personally, I believe that they are actual events. One reason why I believe this is because the Bible has been proven to be historically accurate through archeological evidence.

For many years skeptics pointed out that since no evidence existed for the Hittites described in the Bible, then the Bible described places and peoples that did not exist. But only years later was archeological evidence about the Hittites found and now we know a lot about the Hittites. So from this we can deduce that at the very least, the Bible is historically accurate.

The question that I asked myself to understand whether or not these events were real A> If God wrote the Bible and God can't lie and that nothing is impossible for God then stories like Noah's Ark probably existed, and probably not just stories by God. B> Figuring out if the Bible was written by God other than the Bible saying it does. C> Why is the Bible describing people and places, successes and failures of prophets, kings, and cultures if it doesn't seek to be honest? If it's honest about history and their own failures then they are probably honest about other events as well. D> Archeology is a slow process of discovery and more evidence is uncovered that proves places in the Bible to be real... archeologists, for example, found Sodom and Gomorrah and found evidence of scorch marks.

But if we take all of this into account, with fulfilled predictions of the Bible, even the Bible calling, by name, the King that would free the Jews from Babylon (Cyrus) (Isaiah 45 - Written hundreds of years before the fact) then it may not to be too far of a stretch to believe that these events actually did occur as described.

Isaiah 45:3-7:

3 And I will give you the treasures in the darkness and the hidden treasures in the concealment places, in order that you may know that I am Jehovah, the One calling [you] by your name, the God of Israel. 4 For the sake of my servant Jacob and of Israel my chosen one, I even proceeded to call you by your name; I proceeded to give you a name of honor, although you did not know me (Cyrus the Great was a Pagan). 5 I am Jehovah, and there is no one else. With the exception of me there is no God. I shall closely gird you, although you have not known me, 6 in order that people may know from the rising of the sun and from its setting that there is none besides me. I am Jehovah, and there is no one else. 7 Forming light and creating darkness, making peace and creating calamity, I, Jehovah, am doing all these things.

 

^ thanks Def!


how can we prove to someone that the bible events can be found today? or at least prove that the bible has connections with history?

 

NP!

The best way is to ask them to find the least biased archeological evidence and research it.

Here are some websites that gave me good leads:

http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/
http://www.thedevineevidence.com/
http://www.100prophecies.org/

 

Is the virgin birth downplayed in the new testament?

 

How so?

The virgin birth is important because that is the only way Jesus could avoid inherited sin and thus use his perfect sinless life to ransom us back from what Adam did.

But the Christian Greek Scriptures don't spend a lot of time talking about his birth.

 

Who did he "ransom" himself to, why does your religion have such contempt for sexual intercourse?

It's not like being born of a virgin is a big deal anyways right?

 

I guess you could say God.

My religion has no contempt for sexual intercourse, it is a wonderful and enjoyable gift from God.

Well, like I said it was important because it served a purpose, it allowed Jesus to be born free from inherited sin but other than that, being born of a virgin is not that important.

 

In the same breath you say your religion has no contempt for sex and then go on to state that anyone concieved in intercource is born into sin.

Ok, I must ask you when you look at a new born infant do you just see a miserable sinner who must repent or rot in some pseudo hell?

what a cynical philosophy... :coffee:

 

Sex, intercourse, conception and birth have nothing to do with inherited sin. It has to do with heredity, whether both parents themselves carry inherited sin or not. In Jesus' case only one parent had inherited sin and thus he did not inherit inherited sin.

No, I do not but as I've explained before, inherited sin is not something easily discernible, especially in children. The visible signs of inherited sin are old age and death.

Perhaps but can you look at such an infant and tell me it will never die?

 

Shouldn't he be half sinful then?

So they are full of sin but not just don't look like it, sounds paranoid and cynical to me.

Why would I, what are you even implying?

 

I think that he is implying that rather than that child being immortal, that child dies in the future like we all do because of inherited sin.

 

Perhaps original sin rests on the man.

A while ago in these threads it was mentioned that if Adam did not sin then we would have been safe from inherited sin.

Have you read God's porn lately (Song of Solomon)?

 

.

 

There are many inherited diseases that do not transmit to the child unless both parents give the child the disposition for it.

Just being truthful.

If that child does not have inherited sin it will never grow old and die.

You say that the child does not have inherited sin and would mean it would never grow old and die, can you look at an infant and say that it will never grow old and die?

The seeds are there even if they are not readily discernible.

 

So your making the claim that sin is a disease?

If your being truthful wheres your proof?

Haha, your insane

Jesus was without sin, he grew older, am I right on this?

Not only are the seeds not there, but the field is barren.

 

No, just that there is comparison that can be made about things that can be inherited.

They grow old and die, which is because of inherited sin.

Perhaps but it's true.

Yes but if you are implying that because he matured from childhood to adulthood that he must have had sin, you misunderstand what I was saying.

Maturing from childhood to adulthood is a natural process that has nothing to do with sin, but the aging that now takes place after maturity, when a man's life begins to wind down to death. That is not natural and will not happen to a sinless person.

So you believe they won't grow old and die? Interesting.

 

You compared sin to a disease and now retract your statement, fine.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, are animals without sin?

Perhaps it is.

You said people without sin never age.

Is there a specific age that this happens, where do you even get this claim from and how do you know that Jesus aged so well it's not like you have a picture of him to cement this claim.

No, I believe that there is no such thing as sin, would yotruly tell a child who would ask you about growing old that the reason they will die is because they are sinners?

I never said I did not believe that they would grow old and die, it is you who is on a quest for immortality not I.