So You Believe Everything In The Bible?

Quote: (Originally Posted by Faust)
To get back on topic, " So you believe everything in the Bible is literally true?
If everything in the Bible is taken as literally true then it disproves itself in reference to Christianity.
In the first book of the new testament , first page, the lineage of Jesus is laid out from Abraham to Joseph.
The old testament prophets said that Jesus would be a direct descendant of King David and this part of the Bible shows that. Only one problem. According to Christianity Jesus is the son of God, not Joseph.
If Jesus is who they say he is he can't be who they say he is.
Now, if the author of Mathew had traced the lineage of Jesus from Abraham through David to Marry, then it would lead directly to Jesus, But the lineage in the Bible follows the Patriarcal line not the Matriarcal line.
So if Jesus is the son of Joseph, then he isn't the son of God. And if he is the son of God, then he isn't the descendant of Joseph as the prophets said he would be , as the author of Mathew tried to prove.

true blood:
The father of Mary was named Josheph (sic).

The blood link comes from Mary, I believe. But the "house of" is a strange concept - Onan, the second son, would have sired a successor for the dead brother (please reference the first few verses of Genesis 38) had he copulated with Tamar. Onan's refusal prompted Tamar to incest as a prostitute with Judah so her son(s) could claim the lineage all in the name of the House of Judah. It seems that, not only is sinful sex rewarded, but "Houses" can be established by the wife of the first born when she has sex (or becomes pregnant) by most anybody.

I'd say Mary's loving husband was cuckolded all around.

The answer by true blood really doesn't help.

-pah-

The Father of Mary was Joseph?
Matthew Chapter 1 verse 16; And Jacob begat Joseph the "husband" of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, Who is called Christ.
Are you suggesting incest here ?

pah said:

Quote: (Originally Posted by Faust)
To get back on topic, " So you believe everything in the Bible is literally true?
If everything in the Bible is taken as literally true then it disproves itself in reference to Christianity.
In the first book of the new testament , first page, the lineage of Jesus is laid out from Abraham to Joseph.
The old testament prophets said that Jesus would be a direct descendant of King David and this part of the Bible shows that. Only one problem. According to Christianity Jesus is the son of God, not Joseph.
If Jesus is who they say he is he can't be who they say he is.
Now, if the author of Mathew had traced the lineage of Jesus from Abraham through David to Marry, then it would lead directly to Jesus, But the lineage in the Bible follows the Patriarcal line not the Matriarcal line.
So if Jesus is the son of Joseph, then he isn't the son of God. And if he is the son of God, then he isn't the descendant of Joseph as the prophets said he would be , as the author of Mathew tried to prove.

true blood:
The father of Mary was named Josheph (sic).

The blood link comes from Mary, I believe. But the "house of" is a strange concept - Onan, the second son, would have sired a successor for the dead brother (please reference the first few verses of Genesis 38) had he copulated with Tamar. Onan's refusal prompted Tamar to incest as a prostitute with Judah so her son(s) could claim the lineage all in the name of the House of Judah. It seems that, not only is sinful sex rewarded, but "Houses" can be established by the wife of the first born when she has sex (or becomes pregnant) by most anybody.

I'd say Mary's loving husband was cuckolded all around.

The answer by true blood really doesn't help.

-pah-

Click to expand...

The blood link comes from men. The lineage of Mary would come from her father, Joseph

Faust said:

The Father of Mary was Joseph?
Matthew Chapter 1 verse 16; And Jacob begat Joseph the "husband" of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, Who is called Christ.
Are you suggesting incest here ?

Click to expand...

No I'm suggesting "husband" is actually "father". Translators made an error. Easy to do I suppose, since Mary's husband was also named Joseph. Therefore two men named Joseph, one is the father or Mary and one was the husband of Mary.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Nicky_uk)
The letter killeth but the Spirit gives it life! 2 Cor 3:6

In other words, in order to understand what you read in the Bible, you need to interpretation of the Holy Spirit, or, the revelation of the understanding from the Holy Spirit, otherwise, you will wrap yourself up so much, you will not only confuse yourself, but everyone else.

Click to expand...

Holy circular argument, batman!

Click to expand...

The Voice of Reason said:

Nicky -

I totally miss the point of this post. Remember, I'm just a hillbilly from KY, so you'll have to explain some things to me. What is it that you are saying in this post?

TVOR

Click to expand...

It was the Batman bit that triggered my response. I'm Batgirl!

Nicky_uk said:

It was the Batman bit that triggered my response. I'm Batgirl!

Click to expand...

Thanks, I needed the help.
TVOR

No I'm suggesting "husband" is actually "father". Translators made an error. Easy to do I suppose, since Mary's husband was also named Joseph. Therefore two men named Joseph, one is the father or Mary and one was the husband of Mary.

True Blood,
You list your "Religion" as "Truth" yet you seem to go to extremes to avoid truth.
I'm sorry if I seem harsh here but it's all too convenient to say "oh thats just an error in translation".
I thought this thread was dealing with literal belief in the printed word of the Bible.
If you want to use literal where it's convenient and claim an error in translation when it conflicts with your point then there is no way to pursue a logical debate with you.
The Bible in the book of Matthew gives the lineage of Jesus from Abraham through David to Joseph the "HUSBAND OF MARY", thus erroneously linking the prophets in the old testament pertaining to Jesus being a direct descendant of King David to Jesus the son of Mary and the "Holy Spirit".
You can't have it both ways. If Jesus is who they (Christians) say he is then he can't be who they say he is!

The Voice of Reason said:

Thanks, I needed the help.
TVOR

Click to expand...

Well, u did ask.

Faust said:

No I'm suggesting "husband" is actually "father". Translators made an error. Easy to do I suppose, since Mary's husband was also named Joseph. Therefore two men named Joseph, one is the father or Mary and one was the husband of Mary.

True Blood,
You list your "Religion" as "Truth" yet you seem to go to extremes to avoid truth.
I'm sorry if I seem harsh here but it's all too convenient to say "oh thats just an error in translation".
I thought this thread was dealing with literal belief in the printed word of the Bible.
If you want to use literal where it's convenient and claim an error in translation when it conflicts with your point then there is no way to pursue a logical debate with you.
The Bible in the book of Matthew gives the lineage of Jesus from Abraham through David to Joseph the "HUSBAND OF MARY", thus erroneously linking the prophets in the old testament pertaining to Jesus being a direct descendant of King David to Jesus the son of Mary and the "Holy Spirit".
You can't have it both ways. If Jesus is who they (Christians) say he is then he can't be who they say he is!

Click to expand...

If you think translators haven't made errors, added to, etc...you are the one making it convenient for yourself. The oldest texts contain father. I do not search for error as you do. I search and study for the truth. If I'm going to believe that the original manuscripts contained the Word of God then yes I will go to extremes in finding it. Plus I have the gift of the spirit to guide me unto those truths. The fact is the rightly-divided Word of God has "father".

Translators made an error. Easy to do I suppose,

Click to expand...

ERROR? There`s an...error..in a Bible?
And their easy to do?
Does this mean there may be...more errors?
Who woulda thunk it?

Jensa said:

You know, the 'They're not true Christians!' argument bothers me so much. People seem to use it as an excuse for whenever someone of the same faith disagrees with them.

'They're for gay marriage! They're not true Christians!'

'They don't think the Pope speaks with God! They're not ture Christians!'

'They don't think everything in the Bible is literal! They're not true Christians!'

Acknowledge that there are some nutcases in your religious group, good lord.

Click to expand...

We may have our own separate faiths, but I do agree with you on this one. First off, I want to say that if the government were to make an amendment banning gay marriage they would then be offending another one of their great philosophies, "Separation of Church and State" The government cannot dictate one's affectionate feelings towards others. And I frankly don't see why the Government should care about this at all. How is it in any shape or form bad for the economy. People have their God given rights and no government can change that.

About the pope, that was also another arguement of Luther's in the Reformation who believed that all people of faith are equal and all share the same direct and equal connection with God. Anybody can speak with the Lord whenever they went. It is wrong to say that only a select privelaged few have a direct connection with God.

It makes me mad when people try to categorize Christians into certain groups based on their religons. As I have stressed before, a Christian means to Love God and Love oters, not disapprove of Gay marriage etc. etc......

true blood said:

No I'm suggesting "husband" is actually "father". Translators made an error.

Click to expand...

To make your comment meaningful, could you please tell us which word in which language in which version/manuscript you think is mistranslated?

Nestle-Aland's Greek "ton andra Marias" can only be interpreted as "Mary's husband".

linwood said:

ERROR? There`s an...error..in a Bible?
And their easy to do?
Does this mean there may be...more errors?
Who woulda thunk it?

Click to expand...

Do you take everything you read at face value? Scripure teaches that one must study it to be approved before God. I know you do not study it, rather, you take word for word at face value or you search forums or websites for their interpretation and compare it to your own. The rightly-divided Word of God cannot be broken and contains zero error. I see behind your words and the mockery involved.

Linwood do you have any form of "hope" for the future of mankind and for those who lay dead in their graves?

true blood said:

Do you take everything you read at face value?

Click to expand...

Pretty much ..yep.
Except for poetry, prose, or parable.
But with those you must infer your own meaning, from that point they no longer maintain the consistency I need for them to influence my morality.

I know you do not study it, rather, you take word for word at face value or you search forums or websites for their interpretation and compare it to your own.

Click to expand...

You know nothing of me or my studies.
If you mean I do not study the Bible with a preconcieved basis of faith then you are correct.
I study the Bibe as I study any other book because I have found no reason to approach it in any special way.
If I do not comprehend the Bible in the way you comprehend it don`t fault me fault the book.
I can take much from the Bible by means of metaphorical interpretation but I cannot take a single bit of moral direction from it because much of it is immoral by my standards and the standards of my society.
I cannot take spiritual guidance from it because I will not entrust my spirituality to a book that is morally corrupt.

The rightly-divided Word of God cannot be broken and contains zero error.

Click to expand...

When do we get to see the "rightly-divided" word of God?
Because if it contains zero error it can`t be this book.

I see behind your words and the mockery involved.

Click to expand...

I can see how you can believe in the magic of this book if you can correctly discern my sarcasm in a post that was overtly sarcastic then imply I was attempting to hide my sarcasm.

Your perception is indeed divine.

Well teach me something Linwood. What is up? If you know something share it. Why bash me for my beliefs? Why cry, error! Does the simple act of me believing in my God and the hope that my faith will be counted unto me for righteousness trouble you? If you know any great knowledge please inform me. It really doesn't matter if you point out 100 errors contained in the latest "bible" version. I have God in Christ in me as my guide unto understanding, and I will trust that source within rather then be lead to and fro by every wind of doctrine. That's the basis where I'm coming from, I have the spirit of the living God within. Does my believing that there is no condemnation to me in Christ Jesus and that the law of the God of life in Jesus Christ has made me free from the law of sin and death, offend you? Does my effort to live not after the flesh but after the spirit and not to be carnally minded but to live spiritually minded unto life and peace, bother you? Is there a problem if I believe in whatever book I choose to believe in, whether it contains errors or not? Is there a problem that I believe I am a son of God? Does it trouble you if I try to abhor that which is evil and cleave to that which is good? Is it wrong for me to believe in passages of scriptures that say to be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love in honour preferring one another, not slothful in business, to be fervent in spirit, rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, etc.. I've been honest in my faith from the very beginning. Do you know of a better way for me to try and live?

Odd...I missed this earlier.

Linwood do you have any form of "hope" for the future of mankind and for those who lay dead in their graves?

Click to expand...

I have much hope for the future of mankind.

Much of my hope relies on the opposition to religion of having any educational, legal, moral, or scientific power over mankind.
The only hope mankind has is is through social, educational, governmental, and scientific secularism.
Unlike religion secularism doesn`t degrade a persons or mankinds beliefs, knowledge, or ability on the basis of "blind faith".
They describe it as "Blind" for a reason.

I find it much more than coincidence that the thousands of years the Church ruled the world is now described as "The Dark Ages" and the era when mankind freed itself to explore the possibilities of science, philosophy, and spirituality is now known as "The Enlightenment".

That is no coincidence my friend....think about it.

As far as hope for those dead in their graves there are the lives they left behind.
There are the souls they have touched and taught and learned from.
There is the love, belief, and morality they`ve left behind in this world.

I don`t understand how anyone can believe that "Golden Castles in the Sky" can even compare to that.

Why bash me for my beliefs?

Click to expand...

Please show me where I have bashed you for your beliefs.

Why cry, error!

Click to expand...

Because this is a thread specifically designed to discuss Biblical errancy?

Does my effort to live not after the flesh but after the spirit and not to be carnally minded but to live spiritually minded unto life and peace, bother you?

Click to expand...

Yes it does to some extent because I believe in living for the spirit instead of the physical is throwing away the one chance you have at a life.
I can understand how this might bother you since you don`t share my beliefs but at least now you know how I feel when a believer says they worry about me throwing away my eternal soul because I have no belief in the after life.

Is there a problem if I believe in whatever book I choose to believe in, whether it contains errors or not?

Click to expand...

It`s your spirituality, feel free.
However I do feel kinda funny being admonished for speaking of Biblical errors in a Biblical errancy thread.

Does it trouble you if I try to abhor that which is evil and cleave to that which is good?

Click to expand...

That depends upon what defines "good" and "evil" for you and whether or not you believe it should also define it for me.

Actually, after re-reading this entire thread the error we were refering to is not an error at all.

Your interpretation of that error however is without a doubt the most outlandish harmonization of Biblical verse I have yet to stumble across.

My hats off to you trueblood...you take the cake.

I believe the Bible is true and it should be taken literally, yet i still eat pork and think there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is that you don't really understand the Bible, and it has nothing to do with your understanding of Greek or Hebrew, it stems from an ignoranc about God. God taught His people through prophets, he has guided them and directed them for their good always. God's fundamental ideals and purpose never change, yet the way He accomplishes that goal does and should as the needs of different people change. the direction for Noah to build an ark, did not guide Isreal out of Egypt, and the direction of Moses in the wilderness did not guide the apostles in building the church. The fundamental teaching of the Bible is the need to continually look to God and to receive teachings for our time. Moses was given a law of carnall commandments for his people at that time that is what they needed, alot of the specific requirements of the law were not taught by previous prophets, because those people needed different direction. They were taught to worship the same God, they were taught the same fundamental principles, but the direction given to each time to meet each individual condition and problem change to meet their needs.

I am sorry if this is in the wrong place and it may be a bit off topic, but if one does not believe in God or any reward or punishment for that matter after death, what motivates them to live a moral life? What keeps them from doing the most evil and outlandish things in the world if they feel they shall not be judged for it? What reason is there for living at all but just to survive? I am just confused that if you have no faith in God, why live a moral life at all? Sorry but I have been bugged by this question for a while now!