“Sarge!

God doesn't HAVE to do anything. But if there is a heaven and hell and God decides which way you go, it would have to be a pretty unjust God to doom to hell someone who is incapable, physically, of participating in the accoutrements of belief in this country and world.

Perhaps God is unjust.

And I've been trying to understand free will a bit better lately. I am trying to reconcile the idea that God is at work in the world with the idea that we have free will.

But I have to ask what would have happened had Adam and Eve (literal or metaphorical, take your pick) lived a better life? Also, what would have happened if the people who lived before and during Jesus's life had lived a god-fearing existence?

Would there have been a need for us to become aware of Jesus and his teachings. Or would our understanding of God, pre-Jesus, have been sufficient for us.

And would that also not tend to suggest that the MESSAGE of Jesus was the central reason for his arrival on Earth, not the glorification of him personally - not to discount the value in that.

I tend to believe that it would have been sufficient. Thus, while Jesus is the savior, a part of God and all that, acceptance of that part of God is not absolutely essential to salvation.

But perhaps I am incorrect and doomed to hell. This, despite the fact that I SAY that I accept Jesus Christ as my personal lord and savior - which i do - simply because I believe in a God who saves Hindus and Muslims as well.

But, Sarge, if there is one true faith, my Catholicism has as much chance as your particular brand of Christianity.

You should go to mass more often.”

“lurker - You seem to not understand or being aware of certain basics that are presented in the Bible. I won't get into a lot of detail on this thread, but if you want to email me about this, feel free at rb_allen@hotmaildotcom. (change the dot to ".") Put TrailTalk in the subject.

To briefly respond, 3 points:

1. ALL men deserve hell. God is being merciful by giving us a way out of that prediciment (Jesus Christ). Again, this is tough for some people to stomach, email if you want to discuss.

2. Jesus IS essential for salvation according to the Bible. According to the Bible, Hindus and Muslims cannot go to Heaven unless they change their beliefs (John 14:6)

3. Regarding going to mass - I do believe there are Christians in many different denominations. I don't believe at all that MY denomination is the only way to be saved.

goog - Intelligent design not only came from the Bible, but from physisists. Read the top physisists in the world and you will be hard pressed to find one that does not believe in intelligent design. The way I came to know God was studying physics and realizing that almost all the top physisists admitted to ID.

Whether or not Christians have an agenda is irrelevant. Everybody has some agenda. That does not mean it should not be discussed. To say that 86% of America has some hidden agenda when it comes to what is taught at school is not logical.

You are right about the definition of atheist. I poorly worded that. My atheist friends who are heavily into science have no other explanation other than ID, and believe in ID, but do not believe in a god that is to be worshipped. I hope that explains better.
last edited: 12/18/04 1:58:11 PM”

“My question is... Why do some people think they have the right to indoctrinate others people's children into their religion?

HMMmmm?”

“Sarge!

I was going to refute your points, but I agree with all three, except, #2, Part B.

In terms of Biblical understanding, it is not a lack of understanding on my part. It is a lack of agreement with your particular interpretation of the Bible.

One of the core ideas of Protestantism is the idea that individual believers should have access to the core documents of Christianity. They shouldn't need mediation between themselves and the Word.

This means that there are many interpretations of the Bible that are possible. Some allow for salvation for non-Christians. Others don't.

I happen to be in a tradition that interprets the text to allow for salvation outside of Christianity through the power of Jesus Christ/God.

One difficulty, however, is that you and I are fundamentally different in how we link with Jesus.

You, apparently, belong to a Christian denomination that ties itself back to the original revelation predominantly through the Biblical text.

I belong to a faith - Catholic Christianity - that ties back to the original revelation predominantly through a hierarchical line.

Each has its plusses and minuses. But it means that we don't really talk straight up to each other.

By the way, I apologize for oversimplification of theological ideas for effect.”

“BTW...

EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE

The Ten Commandments holds that thou shalt not kill.

But some Christian denominations support just war theory. Others support access to abortion. Others support the death penalty. Most support self-defense.

The second you start putting qualifications on the absolute principle is the second you make your belief system relative.

So, THANK YOU JESUS for the existence of moral relativism.”

“lurker - Let me respond to two things at once here.

Regarding some other people interpreting the Bible for you - that can be a very bad thing. If you read the Bible it advocates no such thing, quite the contrary.

An example of where that can go wrong is when "somebody", let's say a "church", incorrectly translates a particular piece of Biblical text and then builds "rules" based on that interpretation. Take "thou shalt not kill" for example.

If you go to the root meaning of the translated word for "kill", you'll see it is distinctly not "kill", but "murder". The Bible allows killing (even God led people into battle) - but it does not allow "murder", which is unlawful killing. Again - that's a whole other discussion, but there is plenty of evidence to support this.

Just because people DO interpret things different ways does not mean that we are to do that. God does not go back and forth onto what is "right" from person to person. There is "good" and "evil", God doesn't have gray areas where He's just not sure where he stands on something.”

“Sarge, thank you for your thoughts.

I'm glad I don't know enough about the Bible to get into this discussion. It's a bottomless pit when it comes to interpertation. All I know is that there is a God. I'm not sure about all the details, but they don't seem to enter into my daily living, although what Sarge said about murder vs. killing would be very important to our soldiers who feel like it may be their duty to kill, but feel contadicted by what their religion tells them is right.

If the bible can be interperted to support going to war, then many soldiers would not come back with mental problems.”

“A perfect example of this would be the situation in Iraq. The American soldiers sent by the President must kill when ordered. If they shoot and kill enemy combatants they are doing what they are sent there for. It is not murder to kill armed enemy. To shoot helpless wounded or harmless children is murder. One the other hand, I think it is also justified for the citizens of Iraq to shoot back. It is their country and they have the right to defend it. I would definitely try to destroy any force that occupied my homeland by the most violent means possible. Just like the kids in the movie RED DAWN did back in the 80's. If citizens of Iraq kill armed American troops it is not murder. They are doing what we would do. To chop off the heads of helpless hostages is murder. Following unlawful orders would also be murder. If your commander says to kill all the old women and children, you cannot lawfully follow that order. All killing is a waste, unfortunately it is sometimes necessary.

Blessed are the peace makers.”

“Intelligent Design Theory has absolutely nothing to do with religion, in the same way the SETI project has nothing to do with religion. It is only recognizing intelligence in nature. It does not seek god or gods or God or aliens to worship them, it merely recognizes intelligence from otherwise random seeming situation thingy systems. Religion is worshipping a specific God and studying that God's precepts in order to obey the commands of God. Intelligent Design has absolutely nothing to do with worshipping and precepts. Archaelogists use intelligent design theory all the time when they search for clues of non-random things in nature that would signify intelligence (tools, buildings, writings, pottery, arrowheads, etc.). Recognizing something as probably intelligently designed is not always so difficult. SETI uses intelligent design to look for unnatural patterns from outerspace. Whether the "intelligence" in nature came from god or gods or God or starry councils or aliens from another planet, it does not matter scientifically.

And regarding the notion that amino acids were formed in a lab by scientists mixing various elements, that is not random, that is using the "intelligence" of scientists to "create" something in the lab. True macro evolution cannot be created in a lab or tested and replicated in nature, so origins is based on theory and we should not exclude one theory over another. Both should be taught, including their strengths and weaknesses.

As a backpacker, if I see something as simple as a pile of three rocks stacked upon each other while off-trail in the wilderness, why do I suspect it was an intelligently designed cairn? How much more complex is the natural world all around me, but I stop to look at a pile of three rocks? Many scientists see cairns even at the molecular level. Why automatically exclude the possibility of intelligence behind them? True science should not exclude anything just because it adamantly wants to stay on a certain path. Thank you, I have spoken, you may all be seated, you've been wonderful, thanks for being here this evening, thank you... and if any of you disagree with me, I'm leaving TT. Don't push me, man. I'm THAT close. Thanks again, you've been truly wonderful. Seriously, take your seats. Come on, sit down, you're embarrassing me. Thank you.”

“Sarge.

You are certainly correct with the interpretation of "Kill" and "murder." But this is just the kind of difficulty you get into when an imperfect text is the final arbiter. Some people will interpret is one way. Others will interpret in another way. Apparently, people will just have the correct interpretation pop into their heads.

Divine inspiration, eh?

The Bible was written by many different authors in many different historical contexts. It's text was solidified at different points in history and is composed of different books depending on what strain of Christianity you believe in.

It also is written in translation and in various writing styles.

The Bible is certainly the MOST IMPORTANT text for a Christian. However, to say that this is the only source of knowledge about God is a bit strange.

If God is at work with his people, then you will see God in other believers and in the world. A tradition within a community of believers can record this and accompany the Bible as a source for information about God.”

“Buck, you see cairns and others see, who was it, the Madonna (not the singer)in a piece of a sandwich that sold for big bucks? Now this guy on the news says he can see Jesus in his wood door by the way the wood makes a pattern on it, and is trying to sell it on ebay.

Then there is the stigmata, where people bleed from the same spots where Christ was nailed to the cross. Angela Jolie bleeds from the wrists, but I don't think it counts if you do it to yourself, lol.”

“lurker - I sort of cringe when another Christian says the word of God is imperfect. I hope your church did not teach you the Bible is imperfect. I would also encourage you to look up the study of 'sola scriptura' if you haven't already done so.

Because the Bible has been translated and mistranslated does not make it imperfect. If God is perfect and I make a clay model of Him (in clear violation of the 2nd Commandment) then that clay model is certainly imperfect - but that is in no way a reflection of God's state of perfection. If we were to take a copy of Moby Dick, and I were to translate it into Africaans, but I miss a whole chapter and mistranslate some of the words, is that a reflection of the original or of my works?

To clarify, I do not think the Bible is the only source of knowledge about God. I hope I didn't say that. I certainly do believe that I should question when a body of people create new texts years after Christ's death about His teachings and expects me to learn that and focus less on the Bible itself. Mormonism is another example of this tragedy.

Knowledge of God can also come from the Holy Spirit and through prayer. That does not mean you just believe anybody who prays and has "divine inspiration'. You must be prayerful yourself and prayerfully read God's scripture for meaning.

The further we get away from God (Jesus) the more deception creeps into our beliefs. There is one way to defeat Satan. Citing (understanding) the Holy Scripture. (look at the 40 days in the desert example)

ps - sorry this is getting sort of off topic. I guess that's not unusual for Trail Talk. : )
last edited: 12/19/04 9:28:58 AM”

“Since we're off-topic, here's my professional theory on the revelations of God and Scripture. Remember, this is only a professional opinion and should be weighted as such. The Bible is the "sole" inspired Word of God which provides the only litmus test for all doctrine, and it is the measuring stick that provides the standards.

That said, there are many ways God has revealed Himself to us and many ways we can learn about God. To me the biggest clues about God's nature, outside of the Bible, come from nature itself. A painting reveals a lot about the painter, and a sculpture reveals a lot about the sculptor. Anything created reveals aspects of the creator. Same with creation, the very works of God Himself. God is spirit and is neither male nor female, as both aspects of male and female are revealed in God. God is revealed in both a fragile butterfly and in a mighty grizzly bear. A delicate flower and a mighty sequoia. A gentle stream and thundering waterfalls. The soft kiss of a little girl and an 8.2 earthquake. Winter, spring, summer, and fall. The songs of birds. Music. The loyalty of a dog. The independence of a cat. The joy of birth, the grief of death. Oceans and mountains and deserts and stars. Mom, dad, brothers, sisters, friends, and strangers. Our sense of adventure, our desire to accomplish, our passions, our love, our anger. The taste of chocolate, the smell of roses, the touch of a lover. Hunger, thirst, satisfaction. Etc., etc. These are all things we can see, hear, touch, taste, smell, and experience and they are all things we can use to learn about the attributes and personality and nature of the God who created us. And I love this God more than anything else and nothing can separate me from that Love.

"For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." - Romans 8:38-39

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." - Romans 1:20”

“Buck - Nice!

You can tell you love and appreciate what He has created in your work. (pictures)”

“How did the Bible come to be?

God/Jesus didn't come down to Earth and say "Here's the Bible. Follow it."

No. Writers, with the divine inspiration of God, set the stories, songs, prayers, rules, etc. down on paper or papyrus or whatever.

Be aware also that some books of the Bible originally came out of an oral, storytelling tradition.

Over time, these books were found by a community of believers to be important. This community, through the politicial/spiritual act of councils codified the collection of most important texts.

Then, of course, time had to pass. Translations happened. The context of the writings became obscured.

It is, however, a miracle that we have the text we have today. However, there has been quite a bit of human involvement in the creation of the texts. In many ways, it was the experience and traditions of Christians through the generations that wrote, selected and promulgated the text.

Since God works within his people, I am perfectly comfortable saying that this is a divinely inspired text.

But to take the Bible in the most literal manner is to ignore the beautiful journey it has made to us.

I think the most important thing to remember with this conversation is the diversity that is present within Christianity. I would certainly not want you to abandon long held beliefs if they help you to know God and live a better life.

But there is much room in the church for believers who take a rich contextual approach to Biblical interpretation.”

“Then, of course, time had to pass. Translations happened. The context of the writings became obscured.

Hi reformed lurker®! It sounds like you know what you're talking about on the subject, but (as you are probably aware) it is a misnomer that the Bible has been "translated" in terms of being a translation of a translation of a translation, etc., giving the impressions that errors are comitted in translation.

We have the Biblical texts in the original ancient languages they were written in. Not translations. The Bible is the most preserved and historically documented piece of ancient writing we have. We need not look for translations, as we have the original ancient Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic languages they were written in. We have ancient Biblical texts from various parts of the world and from various times, which prove the accuracy of the Bible. The fact that texts from Alexandria, completely separate from texts from the Byzantine Empire, apart from texts from all other places, and from various historical times, all show the accuracies of the Bible is a GREATER testament to the accuracy of the Bible than if we had the actual original autographs. Why? Because original autographs can be tampered with, but you can't tamper with thousands of different documents from various ages from places all over the known world. So the Bible as a textual document, apart from whether anyone actually believes what it says or not, is accurate and wonderfully preserved. This comes not from religious people, but from the study of textual criticism that is applied to any and all ancient documents, religious or otherwise.

However, there has been quite a bit of human involvement in the creation of the texts. In many ways, it was the experience and traditions of Christians through the generations that wrote, selected and promulgated the text.

Of course there is human involvement in Biblical texts... God's redemption is all about humans. Jesus was God who came down in human form. This is all about humanity and God wants humanity to be a part of the whole story. God works through humans. God uses individual personalities and styles. But (at least according to most conservative Protestant Christians), the Bible is God-breathed, it is inspired by God, perfect, but written by the hand of man.

Personally I take the Bible very literally unless it is obvious otherwise, such as parables or when allegorical language is used. It is the most amazing Book in the history of mankind, not because a small group of Hebrews were such incredible writers and storytellers, but because it is the very Word of God.

I know Catholics say the Bible is one pillar and the Church is another pillar, but for the most part I disagree. Not to say God isn't working in the Church, of course He is, but the church is made up of fallible men (look at the corruption in both the Catholic and Protestant churches), so the only thing I can truly rely on is simply God and His Word. But that's me and of course I'm not saying it has to be that way for anyone else.”

“BTW, here's what's beautiful about that entire process.

The Biblical writers were touched by God. They wrote those experiences and that knowledge down.

The individual experience became the canon.

Today, God works in our lives. God has helped to make me a better brother, son and partner for my fiance. I try to be compassionate, loving and truthful.

God has helped me to do this.

In fact, this thread is a document that records our personal knowledge and experience with God. If our ideas are true, others will see them.

The ideas will spread, and just like the Biblical authors, our knowledge of God will become widespread. It will become tradition.

The Bible is the record of the struggle to understand God of those who came before Christ and those who walked the earth in his immediate time.

That struggle did not end. We add to the tradition every day. While the earliest record of this struggle is most important, it should not preclude the current generation's new insights about God's presence in the world.”

“Buck!

Thanks for the response.”

“One more point:

I have had the pleasure of visiting the papyrus fragment collection at the University of Michigan.

They have some of the earliest copies of Paul's epistles.

Papyrus was created by placing reeds of flattened grass together to create rudimentary paper.

When I visit those documents, I have two reactions. The first is how incredible it is that we have any knowledge of these texts today. It is a miracle in so many ways.

The second reaction I have is how fragile our understanding of what happened in that first century is. What papyrus fragments did we lose over time? What knowledge that might have been incorporated into the Biblical texts was lost? What have we gotten wrong when we look at our understanding of that period?

Faith is beautiful. But it should never take us away from the constant struggle to improve ourselves and our understanding.
God wants us to draw nearer.”

“One more point #2:

The problem with translation is not so much in "mistakes." It is simply that languages do not have equivalent structures, vocabularies, etc.

It is simply not possible to translate certain ideas from, say, French to English or whatever language. That's why we end up talking about schadenfreude and feng shui. We simple don't have words for certain ideas.

This is even true within English. When you look at the original Canterbury Tales and compare it with modern English, you are almost looking at two different languages.

Then, think about the impossibility of translating whatever communication system God would use into any one of the hundreds of human languages.

I do not, personally, believe that any book, not even one as great and powerful and important as the Bible would possibly do this.

So, we are left with the current situation: A philosophy filled with inconsistencies and holes.

But this is not a criticism. It is a beautiful attempt to do the impossible - replicate the mind of God.

It is beautiful in it's audacity and certainty of failure.”

“Hi again, reformed lurker! I guess we have different opinions on why the Bible was written in the first place and what the role of the Word of God is.

I do not agree with your statement that the Bible is a record of the struggle to understand God before Christ. Not at all. The Bible is a wonderful love story about the plan of redemption by God to man, not man trying to understand God. Each segment is another revelation in the story as it unfolds. The story of redemption culminated with the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, so now we have the final story in written form. The Bible is not just a history book, it is also just as current today as it was back then. The Bible itself says it is "living and active". It is not just in a historical context. And in fact the prophets of the Old Testament (such as Daniel and Ezekiel and Isaiah) and even John of the New Testament spoke of future events including the very end of the age and into all of eternity. So the Bible is current for today AND tomorrow and speaks to us of things yet to come. It is "complete" in and of itself. We don't need a Bible Part 2 to account for what happened since 1st century A.D. until today (or tomorrow), it's all already accounted for. At least that's how I see it, and how your typical conservative Christian Protestant would see it. I know most Catholics differ on the role of the Bible and the role of the Church and the Book of Revelation and prophecy and all that.

As for papyrus, the papyrus fragments we do have correspond to the various other Biblical texts from other parts of the world and from other times, so we didn't "lose" anything. The other papyrus would have just been other parts of the Bible as we have it today, if they were accurately copied as all the other documents were. Textual criticism has already proven this fact.”

“To get back sorta on topic of faith vs. fact in regard to science, here's an interesting quote from the foreward of Darwin's "Origin of Species" book itself. It was written by British biologist L. Harrison Matthews, in the foreward to the 1971 edition of Darwin's Origin of Species.

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science of a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."

The only reason I quote this is because it was actually in the foreward to THE book on evolution theory. Plenty of scientists, who are honest about methodolgies and facts, understand that evolution is not a scientific fact and is not the only way to explain the origin of species.”

“One more point #3:

Why do we limit God?

We like to make lists of rules and lists of qualities that we can attribute to God.

But can we reduce God to a simple list of clearly-defined right actions and wrong actions.

Is God that simple?

My belief - and it is my own - is that God is a being of great complexity and beauty. He's a read-between-the-lines kind of deity. Sure, the rules are there, but look beyond for the big picture.

I believe that it is impossible to truly understand God. And the rules that we make should be taken with a grain of salt. They are the best we can do under difficult circumstances. However, we are really just poor schmucks shuffling along, doing the best we can.

Given this, I find it difficult to damn anyone to Hell. I ain't got a clue how God will handle that one.”

“God tells us exactly how He will handle that one.

John 3:16”

“I gotta ask you lurker - What makes you think we limit God? Is this something you see happening at your church?

But can we reduce God to a simple list of clearly-defined right actions and wrong actions.

Is God that simple?

No He's not. We're that simple. God gave us the rules, not the other way around. I think your perspective on where the "rules" came from is different being in the Catholic church. God gave us simple rules because we're simple people. Look at all of the confusion we have with just the simplistic rules we do have.
last edited: 12/19/04 9:46:57 PM”

“I was actually gonna ask the same question as Sarge. What rules do "we" make about God? God makes all the rules, not us. I don't limit God in my mind in any way, God is infinite and I can barely begin to fathom God, so I don't limit God nor make up rules about Him myself.”

“But, Sarge, John 3:17 says that God did not send the Son into the world to condemn, but to save.

It was an inherently positive act. The stress is on saving, not condemning.

John (or, perhaps, the follower of John who recorded John's sermons) sets up some interesting dualities in this third book. John 3:18 seems to suggest that to be saved, one must believe in Jesus by name.

However, in John 3:36, The same duality is made, except that the condemning side of the argument only requires that people obey the Son. This does not require specific named belief. It requires good action.

If you look at John 3:21, you will also read "But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God."

This passage clearly outlines the idea that it is good actions that draw a person closer to God. So, it starts with good action, then belief, then salvation.

This passage also makes clear the idea that all good action comes from God. So, the good action of a non-Christian comes from God.

Now, for the "reduced God" argument.

In my life I have met people from many belief systems who make positive contributions to the world.

I could take the simple/absolute approach and say that despite a lifetime of good works that would fit all the rules of Christianity, this person is going to Hell simply because of the absence of a personal declaration of belief in Christ.

Or, I could take the complex/big picture approach and say that the conflicting Biblical passages are really calling us to live the life that Jesus taught. And that a good God would not condemn a person who follows his Son's rules and ideas so closely, absent a specific declaration of believe in Jesus Christ.”

“Finally, just a story.

I pulled out my trusty copy of the Bible for the last post. It still has compass holes in its cover from my freshman roommate at the University of Michigan.

The guy was a pot fiend and hated the fact that I didn't drink or smoke and that I was always heading to a Bible study or soup kitchen or whatever. So, he drilled holes into the front cover of my Bible.

The really funny thing is that the second I walked out of my dorm, I was often approached by someone from one of the evangelical groups on campus, asking if I had accepted Jesus as my personal lord and savior.

I always said, "Yes, I am a Catholic." This, of course, would lead into the "Yes, but have you been saved?" argument.

I would often invite these people to lunch at the Michigan Union. We'd eat French fries and we'd chat. I'm not sure I converted any of these people.

But I find it ludicrous that these evangelicals would continue to hammer away at someone who believes in Jesus Christ and tries to live a good life. I also find it ludicrous that evangelicals spend so much time trying to convert good-hearted Jews and agnostics when there are so many real problems out there.

God is a big picture God. God is not small.”

“...Thus sayeth Reformed Lurker!”

“I agree pretty much with "reformed lurker"”

“But, Sarge, John 3:17 says that God did not send the Son into the world to condemn, but to save.

It was an inherently positive act. The stress is on saving, not condemning.

You've asked twice about how God condemns. We're all condemned. The only thing left to do is to be saved. Read Genesis.

John 3:18 seems to suggest that to be saved, one must believe in Jesus by name.

Bingo.

However, in John 3:36, The same duality is made, except that the condemning side of the argument only requires that people obey the Son. This does not require specific named belief. It requires good action.

The good action is to believe in Jesus by name. There is no contradiction. It's the exact same thing.

If you look at John 3:21, you will also read "But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God."

This passage clearly outlines the idea that it is good actions that draw a person closer to God. So, it starts with good action, then belief, then salvation.

He already mentioned how to be saved right before that. This is not telling you how to be saved. This is explaining characteristics of saved versus non-saved people.

Now, for the "reduced God" argument. .....

What you seem to be doing is looking this from a non-Christian perspective. A Christian will look at things from a God centered perspective, not a self-centered perspective. Our purpose in life is to love God. Loving God is doing things for God, not for us. Just because you think something is "good" does not mean it is. What is good is what is done for God. For example a person can give needy people blankets for selfish reasons, or they can do it for God out of love. Look at the parable of the rich man who was not willing to give up his fortune for God. A "good" man by worldly standards, but not willing to go all the way with loving the Lord. That man will not receive mercy.

But I find it ludicrous that these evangelicals would continue to hammer away at someone who believes in Jesus Christ and tries to live a good life. I also find it ludicrous that evangelicals spend so much time trying to convert good-hearted Jews and agnostics when there are so many real problems out there.

Again, read the parable of the rich man. Mark 10:17-31 ... Thus sayeth the Lord.
last edited: 12/20/04 6:07:46 AM”

“Now I know we’ve been over the whole literal word thing before Buck but we must remain intellectually honest and admit there are some huge and gross inaccuracies and mistranslations in the Greek texts. It all goes back to “Who translated the Hebrew/Aramaic to Greek?”, and “How was it done?”, and “What are some of the problems that arose from this?”. There are even some minor errors in the Jewish writings where numbers were recounted later from earlier books.

Here’s a link about the accuracy of the Torah:

http://www.aish.com/holidays/shavuot/Accuracy_of_Torah_Text_p.asp

Here is a link to info covering how and who translates Hebrew and the problems that can arise:

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/12_thought.html

One of the biggest and farthest reaching mistranslations in the Greek writings is cause by one single word. The entire holiday of Christmas is based upon this one single mistranslation. It happens in Matthew 1:22-23 where the word translates alma in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin.”. “Alma” does not mean virgin but they translated it as “virgin”. The surrounding text around Isaiah 7:14 not only does not support a virgin birth but it also disproves it. So either it was a mistranslation or Matthew didn’t know his Hebrew.

Virgin birth:

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/alma.html

But does this bring the whole house of cards down around our ears? No. It’s what you do with the general message and how it plays out in your life that counts.”

“Nigal - Allow me to translate your first paragraph using BabelFish from English to German to French to English again:

I know now that we were more literal thing of word of l'entier, before the dollar does not remain however on the honest intellectual level owes us and that to allow there are some inaccuracies and defective translations very large and coarse towards the Greek texts. All it goes from return " ;, that which it Hebrew/Aramaic in Griechen?" ; translated, and " ;, like him getan?" ; was, and " ;, what some-of problems is which of this one? entstanden" ;. There are even some small disturbances in the Jewish letters, in which numbers of the old books were told later.

Lots of mistakes, right? Not what you originally wrote, is it?

Do my actions somehow take away from the original text? Would you now argue there is something inaccurate with your paragraph because of my translation?

I don't think anybody disagrees there is no perfect translation of the original text. I've never heard that claim before.

That is why scholars study the original languages to learn their intended meaning.

When a Christian claims the Bible is inerrant, they aren't referring to translations of the text. They are referring to the message of God.”

““Do my actions somehow take away from the original text?”

Actually it does. Because my original words and meaning were changed. The whole meaning was lost.

“Would you now argue there is something inaccurate with your paragraph because of my translation?”

No because it is the original text. It is the translation that is wrong. Now had the greek text made minor errors where the meaning was not changed there would be little to discuss. But when the mistranslation changes the whole context and draws conclusions completely counter to the intent of the original text; THAT is where things go wrong.

The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible stated, " A study of 150 Greek [manuscripts] of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings... It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the [manuscript] is wholly uniform.".

Some scholars have reported some 200,000 variants in the NT writings. 400 of which change the meaning of the text and 50 of these change it significantly. Comparing this to the Torah which contains 304,805 letters, making up some 79,000 words, there are but 9 variances from the original text (remember, we have always had the original text in our possession to refer to). All 9 of these variances do not change the meaning and are simply different ways of spelling the same words. Such as “color” and “colour”.”

“Nigal - Who have you heard argue that the translated texts are accurate, inerrant readings of God's word?”

““Nigal - Who have you heard argue that the translated texts are accurate, inerrant readings of God's word?”

Sorry for the confusion Sarge. My first post was directed at Buck. “Now I know we’ve been over the whole literal word thing before Buck...".”

“Sorry for interrupting your personal discussion Nigal.”

“That’s OK Sarge. Buck and I go through this from time to time.”

“Buck - Ask Nigal "Who have you heard that the translated texts are accurate, inerrant readings of God's word?"

: )
last edited: 12/20/04 9:14:37 AM”

“Is that an ear piece in your ear Buck? LOL! To answer your question Sarge Buck has always claimed the bible to be the unerring word of G-d. He says it, I dispute it and then we go our seperate ways. :)”

“Buck, is that correct? Do you claim that the translated texts are accurate, inerrant readings of God's word?”

“Why do I feel like I'm sitting in the priciple's office after a fight on the playground? :)”

“Just kidding around Nigal.”

“Oh I know. You just sound like the reasonable person arbitrating for two dunderheads. :)”

“Nigal is dancing with someone else? I feel so rejected.”

“But how can God's "mind" be translated into something as woeful and imperfect as a human language?

Not that I believe that is what God intended with the Bible. Not that I believe that God ever intended there to BE a Bible.

And, Sarge, I am a lifelong, commmitted, active Catholic. I attend mass weekly. My dad is a minister. I might consider that route when I get older. I've read the Bible throughout my life.

My faith in Jesus has been one of the core principles of my existence. Nothing is more important.

I was raised to question and believe with all my heart. Our family holiday conversations were rolling debates about almost everything.

All in good fun. All in the family.

And that's what this is. Family members like to keep tabs on how their sisters, cousins and uncle's are treating everyone else in the community.

We are Christian brothers and sisters. Let's hammer out the dishes before out dirty laundry is exposed to everyone.”

“lurker - When Jesus referened the Bible as the Word of God, was He mistaken? Are those parts of the Bible not correct ... wishful thinking on man's part?

Nehemiah 8:3-6, 10.

Exodus 24:7

2 Peter 1:19-21 **

Luke 24:45

2 Corinthians 3:13-16

Acts 17:11 **

2 Chronicles 34:21 **

Proverbs 3:5

If what you say is true, I suppose it is okay to make up our own religion since we have no other guide. What would you teach if you were a minister? Would you teach anything in particular?”

“It was the word of god until corporate sponsors took over and made it flashier to in crease sales.”

“Sarge.

Everything I have said is within accepted Catholic discussion on this topic. There is nothing "made up" about it.

That is offensive.

I respect your viewpoints because they come out of a tradition of believers. My views come out of a tradition that is thousands of years old. Should you not respect them?

Finally, which Bible was Jesus talking about here. The New Testament did not exist in his lifetime. Perhaps he wants us only to follow the Old Testament. Perhaps he wants us to read in the original Greek and Hebrew. How about the apocryphal stories that Protestants have not yet accepted as true? What did Jesus mean?

The Bible is the Word OF God. It's not necessarily everything that God has to say. Some of it, likely, is not from God.

BTW, read my posts. That is what I would teach - a complex world with a compassionate God.”

“I did not say that what the Catholic church teaches is "made up". I wasn't even thinking of the Catholic church when I wrote that. I said what I said.

Regarding respect. I respect your beliefs. That does not mean I agree with them.

For the final answer, you'd need to look up the canon. You say some of it is likely not from God. Let me ask you something. Why believe any of it? If it's likely just a fallable text from man, why believe any of it? If you read a history book in school and you felt as if it was full of mistakes, would you even consider any of it? You wouldn't be able to trust it would you? Why bother reading it?”