Why Trust the Bible?

[betsy]

2 hours ago, TTM said:

Sure am. The point is that saying "Thou shalt not kill" while sentencing to death 90 percent of the human population is pretty inconsistent. 

 You have to consider what other statements I'd made.  Don't edit my post, and disregard the rest like as if nothing was explained.. 

Edited June 1, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

2 hours ago, TTM said:

So the old rules don't matter any more? Including the 10 commandments?  Or are only some of the rules still in effect? How do you decide which ones?  Seems pretty inconsistent and open to interpretation.  

 

So, you hardly know anything about the New Testament at all?  Otherwise, why would you even think that the 10 Commandments are obsolete?

Edited June 1, 2017 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, betsy said:

 

So, you hardly know anything about the New Testament at all?  Otherwise, why would you even think that the 10 Commandments are obsolete?

 

Jesus sad: I have not come to change the laws but to fulfill them.

Guess what that means, exactly....

[betsy]

1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Jesus sad: I have not come to change the laws but to fulfill them.

Guess what that means, exactly....

 

Matthew 5

¹⁷ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

¹⁸ For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

 

 

Quote

Christ did not suggest here that the binding nature of the law of Moses would remain forever in effect. Such a view would contradict everything we learn from the balance of the New Testament (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15).

Of special significance in this study is the word rendered “abolish.” It translates the Greek term kataluo, literally meaning “to loosen down.” The word is found seventeen times in the New Testament. It is used, for example, of the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Romans (Matthew 26:61; 27:40; Acts 6:14), and of the dissolving of the human body at death (2 Corinthians 5:1). The term can carry the extended meaning of “to overthrow,” i.e., “to render vain, deprive of success.” In classical Greek, it was used in connection with institutions, laws, etc., to convey the idea of “to invalidate.”

It is especially important to note how the word is used in Matthew 5:17. In this context, “abolish” is set in opposition to “fulfill.” Christ came “...not to abolish, but to fulfill.” Jesus did not come to this earth for the purpose of acting as an opponent of the law. His goal was not to prevent its fulfillment. Rather, He revered it, loved it, obeyed it, and brought it to fruition. He fulfilled the law’s prophetic utterances regarding Himself (Luke 24:44). Christ fulfilled the demands of the Mosaic law, which called for perfect obedience under threat of a “curse” (see Galatians 3:10, 13). In this sense, the law’s divine design will ever have an abiding effect. It will always accomplish the purpose for which it was given.

If, however, the law of Moses bears the same relationship to men today, in terms of its binding status, then it was not fulfilled, and Jesus failed at what He came to do.

On the other hand, if the Lord did accomplish His goal, then the law was fulfilled, and it is not a binding legal institution today. Further, if the law of Moses was not fulfilled by Christ—and thus remains as a binding legal system for today—then it is not just partially binding. Rather, it is a totally compelling system. Jesus plainly said that not one “jot or tittle” (representative of the smallest markings of the Hebrew script) would pass away until all was fulfilled. Consequently, nothing of the law was to fail until it had completely accomplished its purpose. Jesus fulfilled the law. Jesus fulfilled all of the law. We cannot say that Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial system, but did not fulfill the other aspects of the law. Jesus either fulfilled all of the law, or none of it. What Jesus' death means for the sacrificial system, it also means for the other aspects of the law.

https://www.gotquestions.org/abolish-fulfill-law.html

Edited June 1, 2017 by betsy

[TTM]

3 hours ago, betsy said:

 You have to consider what other statements I'd made.  Don't edit my post, and disregard the rest like as if nothing was explained.. 

You explained how the rules and philosopy in the old testament are inconsistent with that of the new testament (I.e. the old testament laws used to be Good, but now they are not, because apparently absolute morality was different in the past). My point was that the old testament was inconsistent with itself (thou shalt not kill anyone, but please kill 90% of the human population).

[TTM]

3 hours ago, betsy said:

 

So, you hardly know anything about the New Testament at all?  Otherwise, why would you even think that the 10 Commandments are obsolete?

We cannot say that Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial system, but did not fulfill the other aspects of the law. Jesus either fulfilled all of the law, or none of it. What Jesus' death means for the sacrificial system, it also means for the other aspects of the law.

Your quote.  Either all of the law was "fulfilled" or none. No picking and choosing.

[betsy]

18 hours ago, TTM said:

You explained how the rules and philosopy in the old testament are inconsistent with that of the new testament (I.e. the old testament laws used to be Good, but now they are not, because apparently absolute morality was different in the past). My point was that the old testament was inconsistent with itself (thou shalt not kill anyone, but please kill 90% of the human population).

I didn't say they're inconsistent with the New Testament.  The Old Testament is filled with prophecies about the coming Messiah, and the changes that would come from it.  That some of the Mosaic Law - like killing an animal for worship, as an example - no longer applies because of the Messiah. 

Go back and read the explanations again.

[betsy]

On 6/1/2017 at 6:49 PM, TTM said:

We cannot say that Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial system, but did not fulfill the other aspects of the law. Jesus either fulfilled all of the law, or none of it. What Jesus' death means for the sacrificial system, it also means for the other aspects of the law.

Your quote.  Either all of the law was "fulfilled" or none. No picking and choosing.

My quote, which you take out of context.   You picked and choose, and neglected to post all the other explanations that came with it.

You've got to know the New Testament, so you'll understand which laws still stand.  Jesus summed it up:  Love of God, and love of neighbors.

 

Matthew 22:36-40

³⁶ Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

³⁷ Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

³⁸ This is the first and great commandment.

³⁹ And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

⁴⁰ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

19 hours ago, TTM said:

You explained how the rules and philosopy in the old testament are inconsistent with that of the new testament (I.e. the old testament laws used to be Good, but now they are not, because apparently absolute morality was different in the past).

 

EHHHH?  

 

I said no such thing!  You're putting words in my mouth.  Cite the post where I said that.

 

How is it inconsistent with the New Testament when it's been prophesied.....and the prophecy came true!

 

Edited June 2, 2017 by betsy

[taxme]

23 hours ago, betsy said:

You're going circular.  We've discussed that already.

Probably due to the bible. 

[blackbird]

On 2017-05-29 at 0:19 AM, JamesHackerMP said:

Not to get off topic, but I don't think the KJV is the best translation if you want modern English and you're not a regular chuch-goer (who would already knot what it says).  There's plenty of other translations about into English.

I find it rather curious when someone says "I'll pray for you..."  Kind of like they're trying to sound polite about something.

The King James Bible (1611) is the only version that is wholly based on the "received text" for the New Testament.  Modern versions are based on some corrupt manuscripts discovered around 1880.  The were used by two English clergymen, Westcott and Hort, around that time, to produce a corrupt modern version and have been used ever since to produce the over 100 modern corrupt versions.  If you want to know the details, I would suggest you get the book "New Age Bible Versions" by Gail Riplinger.  They have a website where you can order it.   I think it is called avpublications (dot) com   or you can order it through Amazon.   It goes into the various topis as to why the modern versions cannot be trusted.  The KJV (1611) is a 100% accurate version and can be completely trusted.  You can't say the same thing about modern versions.  The book I mentioned gives many, many examples where they are corrupted.  The NIV and NASB are exposed frequently.  Modern version translators have often taken great liberties in the translation process.  Some versions are paraphrases and not word for word translations for example.  Modern translators did not believe in the inspiration or inerrancy of the KJV or manuscripts it is based on.  Most churches believe only the original manuscripts were inspired (which no longer exist).  This is contrary to verses in the KJV which say God would preserve his word, every word.  Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away he said.

Edited June 3, 2017 by blackbird

[blackbird]

On 2017-06-01 at 3:42 PM, TTM said:

You explained how the rules and philosopy in the old testament are inconsistent with that of the new testament (I.e. the old testament laws used to be Good, but now they are not, because apparently absolute morality was different in the past). My point was that the old testament was inconsistent with itself (thou shalt not kill anyone, but please kill 90% of the human population).

Parts of the Old Testament are historical in nature and give the history of Israel and God's dealing with them.  Yes, he did treat them differently than New Testament christians because Israel was God's chosen people.  So when you read the O.T. you have to read it in that context.  What happened then, does not necessarily mean that is how things should be today.  That would be taking it entirely out of context.  Things that happened between Israel and God were unique for that particular time and circumstances and only apply to them.  As for example, the various ceremonial laws given to Israel.  There are certain eternal principles of morality that are applicable for all time, as for example the sanctity of life and the ownership of private property.

Edited June 3, 2017 by blackbird

[TTM]

On 2017-06-02 at 11:30 AM, betsy said:

My quote, which you take out of context.   You picked and choose, and neglected to post all the other explanations that came with it.

The quote was in context, you just don't agree with its implications. Regardless, I could point to a number of Christian sites that reject the whole "fulfill" argument specifically so they can keep the 10 commandments.  Either way it is not very clear what rules stand.  Probably best to ignore the old testament rules entirely, and yet they are constantly being brought up as justifications by christians and thier priests to this day (see abortion, same sex marriage, etc). All a great deal of confusion for a "perfect document. 

Also, you have yet to address the inconsistency in the old testament itself: thou shalt not kill, except for these groups making up over 90% of humanity

Edited June 3, 2017 by TTM

[TTM]

On 2017-06-02 at 11:37 AM, betsy said:

 

EHHHH?  

 

I said no such thing!  You're putting words in my mouth.  Cite the post where I said that.

 

How is it inconsistent with the New Testament when it's been prophesied.....and the prophecy came true!

You never said it, but implied it.  The rules changed between the old and new testament. What was moral in the old testament is no longer moral in the new. I'm not sure how that works in a framework of absolute morality.  Regardless, it's inconsistent messaging at the least.

[TTM]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

What happened then, does not necessarily mean that is how things should be today.  That would be taking it entirely out of context. 

Yet what happened then contines to be used to justify current christian beliefs.

 

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

There are certain eternal principles of morality that are applicable for all time, as for example the sanctity of life and the ownership of private property.

the sanctity of life was obviously not believed in in the old testament, as the old testament condemns to death the vast majority of the human population, along with describing God and his chosen people wiping out various other peoples, man woman and child

Edited June 3, 2017 by TTM

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, TTM said:

Yet what happened then contines to be used to justify current christian beliefs.

 

the sanctity of life was obviously not believed in in the old testament, as the old testament condemns to death the vast majority of the human population, along with describing God and his chosen people wiping out various other peoples, man woman and child

To make generalizations like that  is an indication you don't understand the Old Testament.   As far as justifying christian beliefs, it depends what part of the Old Testament you are talking about and be sure you are not taking something in the Old Testament out of context.  That would take some study and investigation and can't be done by simply pulling a verse out of the Old Testament. You might be able to delve into it on certain websites but you could also be easily misled. 

Edited June 3, 2017 by blackbird

[betsy]

19 hours ago, TTM said:

You never said it, but implied it.  The rules changed between the old and new testament. What was moral in the old testament is no longer moral in the new. I'm not sure how that works in a framework of absolute morality.  Regardless, it's inconsistent messaging at the least.

What implied?   

You're just hunkering now and digging in.  You even ignored my explanation.  No sense trying to discuss with you any further.....unless you've got something that's worth responding to.

Edited June 4, 2017 by betsy

[JamesHackerMP]

On 6/3/2017 at 0:31 PM, blackbird said:

The King James Bible (1611) is the only version that is wholly based on the "received text" for the New Testament.  Modern versions are based on some corrupt manuscripts discovered around 1880.  The were used by two English clergymen, Westcott and Hort, around that time, to produce a corrupt modern version and have been used ever since to produce the over 100 modern corrupt versions.  If you want to know the details, I would suggest you get the book "New Age Bible Versions" by Gail Riplinger.  They have a website where you can order it.   I think it is called avpublications (dot) com   or you can order it through Amazon.   It goes into the various topis as to why the modern versions cannot be trusted.  The KJV (1611) is a 100% accurate version and can be completely trusted.  You can't say the same thing about modern versions.  The book I mentioned gives many, many examples where they are corrupted.  The NIV and NASB are exposed frequently.  Modern version translators have often taken great liberties in the translation process.  Some versions are paraphrases and not word for word translations for example.  Modern translators did not believe in the inspiration or inerrancy of the KJV or manuscripts it is based on.  Most churches believe only the original manuscripts were inspired (which no longer exist).  This is contrary to verses in the KJV which say God would preserve his word, every word.  Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away he said.

Actually, I was told the KJV makes some rather erroneous mistranslations.  For example, it still says the RED SEA was parted.  This is agreed by modern biblical scholars to be one of the worst mistranslations in the Bible.  The children of Israel crossed the SEA OF REEDS not the Red Sea.  But the mistranslation stuck.

Catholics insist that the Challoner revision of the Douay-Reims version is the most accurate.  They believe that St Jerome's Vulgate is more accurate because it was completed closer in time to the authorship of the original sources.  More of them still existed at the time, and some of these languages were still at that time being spoken as "living" tongues, not dead languages, like Latin, Ancient Greek, etc. are today.

And yet, the Protestants claim that that particular belief of the Catholics is B.S.  I don't have the time to read that book, though thank you for citing it for me.  However, I must point out that I am aware that the most conservative Christians in the US believe the KJV to be the only "uncorrupted" translation of the Bible.  Needless to say, I am very skeptical of their claim.  I admit there are Christians that are more widely-read by myself, but everybody has his/her own views on what is an uncorrupted translation.  If I may ask, do you or Betsy speak Ancient Greek, Coptic, Ancient Hebrew, or Aramaic?

[JamesHackerMP]

Also, what modern Christians do not understand is that the Old Testament is written by Jews.  I don't know too many Christians who observe Jewish law.  If you want to know the most accurate interpretation of the OT, why ask a Christian cleric? Wouldn't you be better served by asking a rabbi?

[TTM]

On 2017-06-03 at 1:52 PM, blackbird said:

To make generalizations like that  is an indication you don't understand the Old Testament.   As far as justifying christian beliefs, it depends what part of the Old Testament you are talking about and be sure you are not taking something in the Old Testament out of context.  That would take some study and investigation and can't be done by simply pulling a verse out of the Old Testament. You might be able to delve into it on certain websites but you could also be easily misled. 

"You just don't understand" and "it doesn't mean what it says" is pretty weak sauce, but typical.

There was quite obviously no sanctity of life in the old testament  Further example: the flood.  In sure all of the men, women, children, unborn children, pets, livestock, wild animals, etc. equally deserved to be drowned.

[blackbird]

8 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Actually, I was told the KJV makes some rather erroneous mistranslations.  For example, it still says the RED SEA was parted.  This is agreed by modern biblical scholars to be one of the worst mistranslations in the Bible.  The children of Israel crossed the SEA OF REEDS not the Red Sea.  But the mistranslation stuck.

Catholics insist that the Challoner revision of the Douay-Reims version is the most accurate.  They believe that St Jerome's Vulgate is more accurate because it was completed closer in time to the authorship of the original sources.  More of them still existed at the time, and some of these languages were still at that time being spoken as "living" tongues, not dead languages, like Latin, Ancient Greek, etc. are today.

And yet, the Protestants claim that that particular belief of the Catholics is B.S.  I don't have the time to read that book, though thank you for citing it for me.  However, I must point out that I am aware that the most conservative Christians in the US believe the KJV to be the only "uncorrupted" translation of the Bible.  Needless to say, I am very skeptical of their claim.  I admit there are Christians that are more widely-read by myself, but everybody has his/her own views on what is an uncorrupted translation.  If I may ask, do you or Betsy speak Ancient Greek, Coptic, Ancient Hebrew, or Aramaic?

No, I do not speak Ancient Greek, Coptic, Ancient Hebrew, or Aramaic.  I know what you are driving at with that question though.  I have heard that type of argument made by a minister I had as a kind of response to my claim that the KJV was the only completely accurate and true version.  He claimed he had studied Greek in seminary.  What he didn't say but I have read is that ministerial students study some Greek but they don't speak the language.  Apparently ancient Greek was primarily a spoken language.  So people who hang their hat on that argument have missed the point entirely.  The point is God promised to preserve his WRITTEN word.  That means not in some obscure ancient language that 99.9 percent of people do not know, but in the a language they can understand.  In the west that is English.  KJV only people, such as myself, are talking about the translation in English.  We realize other translations in other languages could be very accurate as well.  However, to go to church today in the town I live, I must go where they use a modern version.  There is no KJV church here.

I doubt the claim of mistranslations in the KJV.  I have never heard of the "sea of reeds".  I accept the wording "the Red Sea was parted" if that is what it says in the KJV.  There are many verses or phrases that I do not understand but that is human shortcomings or lack of knowledge, not the fault of the Bible.  When you mention "modern" biblical scholars, I am immediately on guard.  In many cases those are the people who have adopted the modern versions and do not believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of today's KJV.  Right there I would be on my guard about anything they say.

I can't comment much on Catholic versions or their history as I haven't studied that.  Would have to spend a lot of time researching that.  Not sure if I have time for that right at the moment.  Maybe later.  I have studied quite a bit about Roman Catholicism over the years and have some good references.  I grew up in the RCC and left it about 37 years ago.  I believe much of their core doctrines are unbiblical. 

[TTM]

13 hours ago, betsy said:

What implied?   

You're just hunkering now and digging in.  You even ignored my explanation.  No sense trying to discuss with you any further.....unless you've got something that's worth responding to.

No.  Your "explanation" is the second covenant with Jesus negates all the nasty business that came before.  My rebut is that this implies that morality has changed between the old and new testament. This is an inconsistency: what used to be moral is no longer. This is also moral relativism; morality which depends on context (The context being which covenant).  I also pointed out the old testament is inconsistent with itself, ex. thou shalt not kill, except for condemning the vast majority of the human population to a death sentence.

Edited June 5, 2017 by TTM

[blackbird]

8 minutes ago, TTM said:

"You just don't understand" and "it doesn't mean what it says" is pretty weak sauce, but typical.

There was quite obviously no sanctity of life in the old testament  Further example: the flood.  In sure all of the men, women, children, unborn children, pets, livestock, wild animals, etc. equally deserved to be drowned.

You are incorrect with your assumptions.

As I recall, God destroyed everyone except Noah and his family because the thoughts and intents of their hearts were only evil continually.  They didn't believe Noah and mocked him when he said there was going to be a flood. 

[TTM]

51 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You are incorrect with your assumptions.

As I recall, God destroyed everyone except Noah and his family because the thoughts and intents of their hearts were only evil continually.  They didn't believe Noah and mocked him when he said there was going to be a flood. 

The babies and the unborn children and the animals had only evil in their hearts too?

[blackbird]

17 minutes ago, TTM said:

The babies and the unborn children and the animals had only evil in their hearts too?

God sent the flood to wipe out everything except Noah, his family, and animals on the Ark.  God created everything so who is to question what God does? Does God owe anyone anything?  I think not.  We are kept alive on this earth only because God allows it to be so.   Some people die of cancer young, babies dies at birth,  people of all kinds are killed in wars.  We can't explain everything.  The world is not an equal opportunity job.  We can't understand everything, but God is good and merciful.

 

Edited June 5, 2017 by blackbird