I think I was pretty clear.

Pancake recipes that are in the Dead Sea Scrolls, while truly remarkable, need not be included in the Bible.

However, the Dead Sea Scrolls do contain religious, scriptural writings including additional psalms, the book of Enoch and others. If you're going to use the Dead Sea Scrolls as a litmus test for the Bible, then you have to explain why those other scriptures (found in the Scrolls) are not included in the Bible. If you reject them out of hand as not legitimate, then you bring into question the legitimacy of using the Dead Sea Scrolls as a standard.

It's not religion here, it's logic.

As I said, there is no scientific reason to assume or conclude that the text Bible has been preserved intact throughout history. That being said, you are free to believe that it has been, but there is no proof and to imply that there is is misleading at best and dishonest at worst.

Why do you think he was perfect at the outset of the book of Job? Did he grow to become perfect, or was he born such ? If he grew to be perfect, than at some point he wasnt and if he was born that way and maintained perfection he was without sin, which the Bible says no one is.
I cannotprove the Bible wrong. Many have tried to find errors and problems only upon deeper study to find themselves wrong. Science will never be able to prove or disprove the Bible's accuracy.
If we look to science and the techniques of man to try to prove certain things of 1,000's of yrs ago, we will only have theories instead of proof.
It is faith in God and faith in God's being perfect that one can beleive the scriptures to be infallable. If you dont beleive in the whole thing how can you beleive in any of it? It seems to me to be all or nothing. Either JOh 3:16 is true and the rest of it is as well or it is isnt and none of it is. You cant pick and choose what you believe and make it fit your own religion. If for instance, you dont beleive in the miracle of the virgin birth(not a physical act), than every thing that follows is a lie as well. It is faith and believing the Word to be THE WORD OF GOD COMPLETE AND INFALLABLE.This is the basis of Christianity.

Faith is clearly not logic, it is faith. if christianty were logical everyone would be saved and going to heaven. if christianity could be proved beyond a shadow of doubt with science or logic faith would not be needed.There is much within scripture that is completely logical and prophecy fulfillment strengthens one's faith when logic is not visible. Be careful not to look strictly for logical things. Our ways are not God's ways and we will never know his wisdom in this lifetime(or any other time).
Nabster

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Science will never be able to prove or disprove the Bible's accuracy.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Agreed

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why do you think he was perfect at the outset of the book of Job? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">because Job 1:1 says so. Even if you take "tam" to mean "blameless" or "Moral completeness" it is essentially the same thing. To be blameless is to be without fault ergo perfect. To be Morally complete, means that in all your handlings you are completely moral ergo perfect. It's really all semantics. You do bring up a good point though. Was Job perfect throughout his life or through repentance and faith did he reach a state of perfection? Good point! Haven't thought about that, all I know is that whoever wrote Job 1:1 was inspired by God to write that he was perfect. Whether or not he was perfect before or after is up to debate, but as of Job 1:1 he was perfect.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you dont beleive in the whole thing how can you beleive in any of it? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">well you don't believe the part that says Job was perfect

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If for instance, you dont beleive in the miracle of the virgin birth(not a physical act), than every thing that follows is a lie as well. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't believe that Jesus was concieved through a physical act. I do believe that God is literally his Father. I think we all know that there are ways of becoming pregnant without having sex. God simply knew of them earlier than we did. I mean Jesus did say he was the "Son of God" so I guess </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you dont beleive in the whole thing how can you beleive in any of it? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">:p In what other way do you define sonship other than being an immediate male descendant of someone?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is faith and believing the Word to be THE WORD OF GOD COMPLETE AND INFALLABLE.This is the basis of Christianity.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You see, this is the kind of thing I don't get. There was no New Testament when Christ walked the earth. It had yet to be written. And yet Christianity was founded. So to state that believing the Bible to be infallable is the basis of Christianity, just doesn't jive with the historical facts. Christianity was (and I suggest it still is) about the Atonement of Jesus Christ. A true knowledge of that Atonement has always come to man by God speaking through his prophets and apostles and when Christ was on the earth, through Christ himself.

I do know that the Bible shows again and again that God speaks to man through prophets. Sometimes, those prophets write stuff down and somebody somewhere decided to Canonize it. Not all of it, but the parts they liked.

There was much that had to happen with the new churches after Christ was gone before scripture could written. Pauls letters to the churches were often about how the church shoyuld act or respond or do business. You cant write things about correcting a people or a church before the people or church exist. After christ was gone from this world is when when much of the Bible was written. I believe that the men who wrote the book s now included in what we call the bible, did not know there writings would be included along with O.T. writings.The men living during christs generation were knowledgeable in the acts of Christ, firsthand. Matthew, Mark, Luke ,John, Peter, Paul(and mary...hehee),Timothy(discipled by paul).


yes, God decided it should be written down by prophets. and prophets words must tested against the Word of God to not be in conflict. Any prophet who contradicts himself or the Word of God is by definition not a prophet, but a false prophet or a liar, depending on their intent.

Who decided what books/letters/writing/revelations were to be included in the New Testament? Who tested their words against the previously revealed word of God?

We all know the answer to this - it was the Catholic Church. You're so certain that as they assembled the Bible, they were completely unbiased as to what they included. All men are generally victims of their own bias (as you so often accuse me) why wouldn't they have been? So I guess the further question is - if they were good enough for you to unquestioningly accept their version of the Bible, then why oh why aren't you Catholic?

Most Evangelicals lump Catholicism in with Mormonism as misguided and yet, the most fundamental elements of the Evangelical system of belief are purely Catholic, starting with the accepted canon of scripture (minus the apocrypha) and ending with the doctrine of the Trinity. (UKC, I'm not criticizing Catholics here). So if your most fundamental doctrines are Catholic, why aren't you?

I'm really serious here, I mean, I just don't get why you're not Catholic.

See, you beleive the Catholics could pick and choose, I believe God assembled it through man. I do not believe that man could alter that which God had planned in regards to the scriptures. I dont care if there was bias or not, i am sure there was, but God knew as well, and in His sovereignty the Bible is as He would have it.

The beginning Catholic Church was probably very much like evangelical fundamental christianty. However over the many yrs the Catholic church has changed DRAMATICALLY. The Catholic church of today is not the same at all as the Catholic church of the beginning of Catholicism. I do not lump catholicism in with MOrmonism, nor am i very critical of Catholics. IMHO many of the practices and emphases within the ritualism of the catholic church are misguided and place deity on people who should not receive it. MY opinion here.
Nabster

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">don't believe that the men who assembled the various holy writings that existed around 300 AD or so (when the Bible was first canonized) were without an agenda.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hey Joel, what were your thoughts on what their agenda might have been, since around 300 AD the catholic church was essentially pure.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So I guess the further question is - if they were good enough for you to unquestioningly accept their version of the Bible, then why oh why aren't you Catholic?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I for one did not unquestioningly accept the tennants of Christianity. I studied, I even researched the cannonization process and found that through prayer I agreed with the results. Also Nabster is right. The Catholic church is drastically different than the foundational church. In Martin Luther's time you could pay the equivilent of $1000 to get forgiven of almost any sin. The 99 Thesis is an interesting read. I realize that things in Catholocism have changed for the better since then but there are still large points of disagreementfor my beliefs. (echoing Nab)

Steve,

If as you say, the Catholic Church was essentially pure in 300 AD, I wonder if you also agree that Peter was indeed the first pope as is the claim of the Catholic Church?

The Catholics and the Mormons share some common ground when it comes to the issue of authority. In short, both us and them believe in an ordained priesthood that can trace its authority back to God. They trace their authority through the popes back to Peter who recieved that authority from Christ himself. Apparently, you, nabster and I all agree that over the years Catholicism has gone astray. I actually consider it a dubious claim to state that Peter was the first pope and believe that the Catholic Church, or it's forbear, was already impure around 150 AD.

At any rate, when you say it was essentially pure, do you also think that it was fully authorized by God as his Church on the earth?

Protestants arose, because they thought the Catholic church could be fixed through reformation (I know this is a simplification, but you guys know what I mean). Mormons would contend that as the Catholic Church proceeded to alter doctrine and practice they essentially lost that authority - it's kind of like when your dad gives you the keys to the car and you abuse that privilege and he revokes the keys. Because that authority is lost, a mere reformation is insufficient because the line of authority tracing back to Christ has been broken.

So that's where the Mormons come along, we claim there was a restoration of Priesthood authority to the earth through the Prophet Joseph Smith. Restoring the direct line of authority to Christ.

but this belongs in another thread.

When christ sacrificed himself, he gave us authority. Yaknow sonship? heirs of the father ?
we have what is called the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer. it means we go straight to God for forgiveness and communication. we dont need a priest or a mediator. i am not sure about this authority and bloodline stuff, cuz to me it dont matter. I understand the refotmation stuff, are you saying Joseph Smith is of the bloodline of Christ?literally?
Nabster

I refuse to hijack this thread any longer. Go to the Mormon thread for my response.

Great discussion, guys. Got a little input here. Hope it hasn't been said in quite the same way allready...I tried to read everything before posting...

Starting from THE BEGINNING:

It started with a covenant. The penalty for breaking a covenant is death. God had a covenant with Adam and Eve. They had eternal life, free reign of earth and open communion with God on one condition. They broke the condition. Penalty -- death of the body (no more free reign of earth) and separation from God (death of their spirit). When they broke the covenant, they took the freedom God had given them and gave it to Satan.

Satan now had free reign of the earth. Sin overtook the land. This is why God needed a new covenant with Abram. Abraham (his new name post covenant agreement) made the covenant with God that his descendants would be God's chosen people and eventually bear God's Son.

God tested the Abraham's faithfullness by asking him to sacrifice his son. This was foreshaddowing at it's finest. Abraham proved faithful, and God spared his son. Through Abraham's descendants Jesus was born , lived a sinless life, and crucified, giving us a new blood covenant sacrifice in remission for the sins of the world. He then descended into the depths, but because he was sinless, Satan couold not keep him there. Jesus took back the right that satan had on the earth and rose again.

God then was able to give us the Holy Spirit to be with us until He returns. Through Jesus' blood we have a new covenant with the Father that anyone who knows and obeys Jesus' comandments and has a relationship with the Father through the Son and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, or the Spirit of Truth, will have eternal communion with God and life in Heaven. So it ends in eternal life with an unbreakable covenant.

what took you so long. nice post, sums it up in sim ple terms.
applause!!!!!!!!

I don't think that answers the greater question. Which is: Why did an all-powerful God set things up that way?

Because God gave Himself one major limitation when He created man: He gave man a CHOICE. If they choose to live in communion with Him forever, they will do so. If they choose not to, then they will reside with the fallen.

That also doesn't answer the question.

Why did he give man choice?

Was he constrained in some fashion to set up the world, the atonement, everything in the manner he did? He's all-powerful so he could have done anything, right? Jesus didn't really have to die, but God chose that system? I'm not saying it's a bad system.

He didn't give angels a choice. They loved Him. Lucifer rebelled, started a mutiny, and the angels who rebelled with him were cast out of Heaven.

God wanted someone to love Him for who He is not because they had no choice. Enter man.

In this scenario, which love would mean more to you:

1. You have so many shortcomings that you can't figure out why anyone would love you, but you have this one friend who hangs out with you no matter what, who stands by your side and fights your battles with you...who holds your head up when you're down...who loves you no matter how many times you hurt them -- because they are under a magic spell and have no choice.

OR

2. Same as above except for sans the magic spell -- your friend chose to love you for who you are despite all the bad.


I know that the second scenario means far more to me. And I know that I am made in my Creator's image. So knowing this, I also know that my Creator has a desire to be loved out of choice. You choose to love Him or you don't. You choose to be with Him eternally or you don't. He gave Himself limitations that we will never understand. I have long tried and will continue to try to unravel the mysteries. But there are just some things that God will not do even though He can. He could force Himself on us...but instead He CHOSE to give us a living example, a blood sacrifice to seal the covenant.

Nope, it was almost like a grand experiment in my thoughts. The angels do not have a savior (that we know of) but aside from lucifers transgression we do not here of them having free will as a group. Ergo when you are created to serve there is no glory when you do. We were given choice, Glory comes to God when we chose to serve Him.


You are correct Jesus did not have to die, but if He did not then where would the example for us lie? What would we stretch for. It was all for us and our growth that God did it that way, not for Him. He could have spoken our salvation into being just as He did the earth and stars.

why God chose this "system" does not really matter. It is what it is. We cant opt out of His system , we can only choose whether or not we will serve him or not.