Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Guest Mr. Thomas

PROVEN: Biblical Inerrancy

Recommended Posts

Guest Mr. Thomas

Sorry for the clickbait title, but this is something that has really been weighing on me for a few years. I've sought answers from everyone I know, from Catholics to Evangelicals, and have never received a satisfactory answer. I'm in danger of losing my faith here and I really need help.

So faith, especially for us Baptists is predicated on Biblical Inerrancy. The argument goes (and please don't get hung up on the details to follow, I'm just setting up my problem; I'm okay being wrong for now in my history or some other minor aspect of my setup, instead I'd like you to treat the thing that is sucking my soul out) that God would never allow all knowledge of himself to be lost from the earth. But at the same time he doesn't want to mess with free will, so he couldn't just make everybody teach their kids and remember for all time. His solution in the old testament was to pick one particular race (The Isrealites) to hammer it into, never letting them forget so the true faith wouldn't be lost without hope to us. Now the old jewish covenant was completed with Jesus, so God doesn't create many prophets or appear with divine revelations very often to hammer to true faith into us like he did the jews, and in their absence a billion different denominations, pseudo-Christian cults, ect. have shown up. Now the pro-Inerrancy argument is that God wouldn't have let the truth die out, so he made sure to leave an absolute reference for us so we can distinguish the true faith from the fake. That reference is the Bible, and for example the only way we know that these churches are wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_affirming_LGBT , or these churches: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women_in_Protestant_denominations are the Bible verses Leviticus 18 & 20 and 1 Timothy 2 respectively. Now I've stuck to my guns for biblical inerrancy my entire life, which causes alot of problems in my personal life (I bet you can guess how the dating scene is when you have a reputation as a misogynist for believing in the 'no women teaching in church' thing). I don't hold these views because I like them, I hold them because the Bible tells me to. I hate having confrontations with every gay rights activist or abortionist who comes near me, and I hate how hard it is to find a job because of my extremely non-PC beliefs, but I do it anyways because I love the truth and want to follow it.

Imagine my chagrin when I then read verse combinations like Matthew 27:5 (Judas hanged himself) and Acts 1:18 (Judas died by falling down in a field) or 1 Chron 21:5 vs. 2 Sam. 24:9 (number of fighting me in Isreal) or in 2 Chron 36:9 and 2 Kings 24:8 (was King Jehoiachin 8 years old or 18 when he was crowned). I've heard a half-butt explanation for Judas (maybe he hanged himself and then fell down?), but nothing at all for the other two or for literally dozens more. Apparently, as much distress as it causes me to admit, the Bible is not strictly speaking inerrant, because some books contradict others. I've heard it theorized that God made it this way on purpose, that he made the Bible slightly errant for the same reason Jesus spoke in parables instead of speaking plainly; God doesn't want any more Pharisees who become so attached to a law that they forget their God in their fervor for keeping rules. This way, everybody has to do what they genuinely think is right because no one will be able to agree to a set of rules to worship instead of God. And after all, the theory continues, the saints and prophets may not have been inerrant in an absolute sense, but they were still directly chosen (and often directly spoken to) by God, and they will always be much better authorities than you, so you can be confident enough in their teaching to trust what they say. Well, ok, that does make me feel a little better, but I'm the type to sweat the details. If some specific things are said by one prophet/saint/author (is Luke a saint?) that seem out of alignment with the rest of scripture and are never confirmed by other saints/prophets/authors or Jesus himself (like Paul's 'No women teaching men in church" policy seems kinda harsh, I mean shouldn't mothers teach their male children, and aren't most women going to be a better Christian than at least one man they know?), how do we know that they are giving us a Godly policy instead of making another error that no one else happened to contradict? But you can't just ignore the Bible altogether and do whatever you think is right; you wouldn't be believing in God anymore, just yourself, and you would just be doing whatever you already wanted to do anyways, but with a self-righteous feeling and a vaccination against Godly correction.

This is really, really messing me up inside, and I am very close to losing my faith all together, because I have no idea at all what to believe; if we can't trust Mathew and Luke to record accurately or even agree with each other, how do we even know what Jesus said and what he didn't? What if the whole truth really has been lost, or worse yet none of it was ever true at all? I'm pleading with you, please, does anybody have an answer?!?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Faith comes by hearing His Word friend, never by intellectual exercise or argument. If you are truly serious and truly searching for Him, then do this.

BREAD OF LIFE

There is no other way nor intellectual reasoning that will prove Him to you beyond all shadow of doubt.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Peter 1:21 (KJV) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

These two scriptures speak to the issue of God being the author of scripture. Men penned the words, but God gave the information He wanted to impart. He cannot contradict himself because to do so He would have to deny himself.

You post causes me to wonder what bible you read and what church affiliations you have been exposed to. I think in your post I am seeing different denominational teaching and leaning. You indicate you are Baptist, but seem very unfamiliar with Baptist teaching and doctrine. You speak of saints as Roman Catholics do when they indicate that only people like the men who wrote the gospels were saints because the church said so. The reality is that all who are believers are saints.

Lastly you talk about losing your faith, but there is no indication in what you wrote to indicate that you are indeed saved. It may help us some if you went over to the introduction forum and told us a bit about yourself and your religious background. So please help us to help you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have gone through plenty of topics that seemed to contradict to me. But I inevitably found a way to reconcile Apparent discrepancies. I learned from those not to worry too much about things and accept that sometimes I wont always understand things.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Longer answer than I intended, so sorry about that, but if you are really interested you will read it all. 🙂

 

 

As Wretched said, if you are looking for a 100% kind of thing, then you are looking to do without faith.

Heb 11:6

(6)  But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

 

 

However, to address the three examples you cite:

First of all, we must confirm that you are talking about the KJV. Most of the other versions have some pretty gross errors in them, and the rest are less obvious but still notable.

Secondly, I am taking this as a genuine question, although these are the three most common “issues” that people bring up…….

Thirdly, if you take single verses in isolation, then it is very easy to become “disoriented” from the account. As a result, I will quote passages in most cases rather than single verses.

 

“Matthew 27:5 (Judas hanged himself) and Acts 1:18 (Judas died by falling down in a field)

Mat 27:4-8

(4)  Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.

(5)  And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

(6)  And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.

(7)  And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.

(8)  Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

 

 

Act 1:18-19

(18)  Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

(19)  And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

 

 

There are actually 2 issues with this passage: the one you mentioned (the manner of his death), and the purchase of the field.

Judas didn’t purchase the field, as Acts 1 18 says, but Matthew 27:7-8 tells us that the chief priests purchased the field – but they did so with the money they paid to Judas, so in effect they purchased it for him. Neither is in error. It was the money of Judas, and therefore he paid for it, although the transaction was not done by Judas himself, but on his behalf. I point this out, because it shows that things stated in different ways can correctly refer to the same event.

Now in regard to your actual issue with this passage, Matthew 27 tells us that Judas hanged himself. This would be the manner of his death.

Acts 1:18 doesn’t actually mention his death at all – you are assuming it is how he died, but the verses do not say that. If you look at the verse it says that he purchased the land, then fell over and his bowels gushed out. But if you look in Matthew 27 you see that he hanged himself, THEN the land was purchased in his name. Paupers who died in those days were thrown into a rubbish pile outside the city walls, and if he was dropped over the wall into that rubbish pile I would think that he would likely burst asunder and his bowels would gush out…… Of course, the money was used to buy “the Potter’s Field” so that practice (Bodies on the rubbish pile) should have ceased after Judas, for then there was a place to bury strangers in. But only after this event, for even in those days it would take time to find, purchase, and organise the land for this purpose.

The order of events, and an understanding of history is enough for us to address this "problem".

 

 

“1 Chron 21:5 vs. 2 Sam. 24:9 (number of fighting me in Isreal)”

1Ch 21:1-7

(1)  And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

(2)  And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it.

(3)  And Joab answered, The LORD make his people an hundred times so many more as they be: but, my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? why then doth my lord require this thing? why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel?

(4)  Nevertheless the king's word prevailed against Joab. Wherefore Joab departed, and went throughout all Israel, and came to Jerusalem.

(5)  And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.

(6)  But Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them: for the king's word was abominable to Joab.

(7)  And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel.

 

 

One million one hundred thousand men in Israel (Northern Kingdom), and four hundred and seventy thousand men in Judah (Southern Kingdom).

 

 

2Sa 24:1-10

(1)  And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

(2)  For the king said to Joab the captain of the host, which was with him, Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beersheba, and number ye the people, that I may know the number of the people.

(3)  And Joab said unto the king, Now the LORD thy God add unto the people, how many soever they be, an hundredfold, and that the eyes of my lord the king may see it: but why doth my lord the king delight in this thing?

(4)  Notwithstanding the king's word prevailed against Joab, and against the captains of the host. And Joab and the captains of the host went out from the presence of the king, to number the people of Israel.

(5)  And they passed over Jordan, and pitched in Aroer, on the right side of the city that lieth in the midst of the river of Gad, and toward Jazer:

(6)  Then they came to Gilead, and to the land of Tahtimhodshi; and they came to Danjaan, and about to Zidon,

(7)  And came to the strong hold of Tyre, and to all the cities of the Hivites, and of the Canaanites: and they went out to the south of Judah, even to Beersheba.

(8)  So when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days.

(9)  And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.

(10)  And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.

 

 

Eight hundred thousand in Israel, and five hundred thousand in Judah.

A seeming difference of three hundred thousand in Israel and thirty thousand in Judah.

 

 

My first thought is that in 1 Chron 21:6 it says that Joab didn’t count the Levites nor the Benjamites, so we would expect a difference in the numbers, with the 1 Chron 21 being the lower number, because it specifically says that some were not counted. That might explain the difference from Judah, but the difference in Israel is the wrong way for that simple explanation. We must therefore cast our net a little wider.

 

 

And we come to this passage:

1Ch 27:1

(1)  Now the children of Israel after their number, to wit, the chief fathers and captains of thousands and hundreds, and their officers that served the king in any matter of the courses, which came in and went out month by month throughout all the months of the year, of every course were twenty and four thousand.

 

 

It seems that there was a system of “reserves” called up each month 24000 from each tribe, which equals a total over the year of 288000.

For me, that is close enough to 300000 to make up the difference.

 

 

So Joab refused to count the Levites and the Benjamites – I assume they were associated with the Temple and with Jerusalem – I can happily assume that takes care of the 30000 of Judah missing from 1 Chron 21, and if the count from 2 Sam 24 didn’t include all those who were “already on the books” as it were as soldiers of the regular rotation, then we have a close enough number on the second figure to explain it as a “rounding to the nearest….”

 

 

 

 

 

 

“2 Chron 36:9 and 2 Kings 24:8 (was King Jehoiachin 8 years old or 18 when he was crowned).

 

 

This is one of the most common issues we hear – I think that there is a thread from some time ago about this on this site…..

 

2Ch 36:8-10

(8)  Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and his abominations which he did, and that which was found in him, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah: and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead.

(9)  Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

(10)  And when the year was expired, king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of the LORD, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem.

 

 

2Ki 24:6-9

(6)  So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers: and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead.

(7)  And the king of Egypt came not again any more out of his land: for the king of Babylon had taken from the river of Egypt unto the river Euphrates all that pertained to the king of Egypt.

(8)  Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

(9)  And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father had done.

 

 

This at first seems like a problem, but in this case we need to look at the situation and see if we can find a solution.

In cases like this it would be easier for us if God made it super clear, but He does tell us to 2Ti 2:15

(15)  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

 

….so we really can’t complain if we have to put some effort in……

What was the situation in which he became “king”.

In the first place it is interesting that in 2 Chron 36 it says he was 8 when he began to reign in Jerusalem.

But in 2 Kings 24 it says he was 18 when he began to reign in Jerusalem.

Both accounts mention the same length of reign – I don’t see the 10 days being an issue.

In fact aside from the 8 vs 18 the only other difference is the mention of the mother in 2 Kings 24. The point about that is that in the passage which says he began to reign when he was 8 it doesn’t mention his father’s death, and in the passage where it mentions 18 and his mother, it specifically mentions his father’s death.

If you look at the situation of his father’s reign, you see Babylon was all around the place causing trouble and laying on pressure.

And in fact the last few verses 2 Kings 24 tells us that when Jehoiachin was taken to Babylon the Babylonian king put someone else as King over Jerusalem.

This is why he reigned only three months.

So is this an indication that Jehoiachin was appointed by his father as co-regent or heir in waiting? With the unsettled nature of the rule under Babylon (see the early part of that chapter), and the resultant replacement soon after Jehoiakim’s death, it is entirely reasonable to think that he may have appointed his son as co-regent in the hope that his claim to the throne would be established.

Therefore, he began to reign with his father at the age of 8, but began to reign in his own right 10 years later. In any case, he reigned only 3 months before he was taken by the Babylonians and put into a prison in Babylon, and another man put into the place of  king instead of him, thereby proving his father’s wisdom in making him co-regent, but that not succeeding in its plan.

Now, none of these is a watertight answer, but each of them gives a satisfactory answer to the problems presented.

Edited by DaveW
typos......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy, I'm Mr. Thomas, but I couldn't figure out how to edit my earlier post or reply directly to each of your posts, so I'll have to take them one at a time:

To Mr. Wretched: One of the New Testament Saints (I believe it was Peter) said that every man should have an apologia, a strict logical defense of their faith. But more importantly, in other parts of the Bible God constantly presses the importance of truth, in fact that's even one of the names of Jesus (The way, the truth, and the life). I think that God makes it pretty clear that truth and tool he gave us to search for it (logic) are not only important but holy. Also, to my knowledge God very rarely asked for people to believe in anything without a logical reason to. Jesus didn't just show up and demand people worship him without any explanation at all, he reasoned with people and did a lot of miracles to provide physical proof for people who couldn't be reasoned with. In fact most of God's saints and prophets also acted in a similar manner; by a combination of logic and divine feats. I respect your single-minded determination, but like CS Lewis said: faith is not a move into wholly unknown territory, its remaining calm when the surgeon puts the anesthesia to you. You know that the surgeon is practiced and capable, and your logic dictates that you have no reason to fear, but it's not logic that keeps you confident or brave, it's your faith and trust in what you know to be true. In short, faith is believing in what you already know to be true. I believe that the kind of blind faith you advocate is not only a (unintentional) perversion of the principle of faith, but also a rejection of God's holy gifts of logic and the quest for truth. this I am unwilling to do.

To Mr. Jim Alaska: I was raised Baptist and thoroughly understand the Baptist belief system. Also, you might notice that I used the word Saint not only in my original post, but also many times in this response. I stand by my original usage of the term, I believe you are using it incorrectly, not me. The word "Saint" is not synonymous with "Christian" or "Saved" any more than the work "Prophet" is synonymous with "Jew". Both words do, and has always been a special title of reverence for our elders/superiors in the faith, especially those directly spoken to by God or given miraculous abilities. Furthermore, I am not a Catholic, nor does the use of the word "Saint" specifically advocate for the process or procession of Catholic Canonization (which again, I can assure you I am not a fan of). One more time: I use the word "Saint" in it's common, informal sense as a general term of respect (not a formal title) for the great men of God. Also, I don't think you read my question thoroughly (although I do admit it is pretty long), because you did not address the passages I referenced that do, indeed, contradict. in fact, you completely sidestepped my question entirely to instead insult my intelligence and my grammar. To reiterate, this is my problem: As you pointed out in your paragraph, if the Bible was shown to have contradictions it would seriously jeopardize the legitimacy of our faith (I'm not sure in exactly what sense he would 'deny himself', but your point is nevertheless well taken). I believe to have found such passages, and as you predicted, this has led to much emotional and spiritual turmoil that is causing me to lose my faith. If you have any genuine help for this lost soul on this issue I would very much genuinely appreciate hearing it.

To Mr. Jordan Kurecki: Yeah, that's pretty much where I sat for a long time (~10 years), but I can't hold back the doubt and despair any longer. Though, even while my beliefs are being stripped from me, I still wholeheartedly cling to the pursuit of the truth. I figure that if God is going to rescue me, he won't do it while I'm sitting in an easy chair; I've got an obligation to seek him as hard as I can, wherever I can. For me, this takes the form of many, many logical debates with anybody who will humor me. I figure that if the Bible is somehow inerrant and true after all, or if Bible-less Christianity can survive, then God will have given someone somewhere the knowledge and skills to convince me and settle my heart.

To Mr. DaveW: I can't tell you how much I appreciate your long and detailed answer; your effort has greatly moved me, and I am very grateful to you for your time and thoroughness! I have heard these answers or ones similar to them over years of asking these kinds of questions, but I am still uneasy; they are ad-hoc, or like you said, 'put together' and 'not watertight', and some are still strictly speaking errant (even if rounded in the inconsistent way suggested, the numbers of soldiers in the army are still not the same, and couldn't be referenced in an exact sense, like in a scientific paper or a court of law, to which standards surely God's own word should meet). This doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the strict Biblical Inerrancy either, and as I'm sure you're aware there are many more contradictions in various degrees to be found through out the texts. However, like I said before, I am very, very grateful to you for your effort and dedication, and any more insight from you would be most welcome!

Edited by Guest Mr. Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will address the scriptures you have listed as supposed contradictions. But before I do, I would like to exhort you, and say that there are many things in the scriptures that cannot be simply explained, or at times may not make sense, and seem to be contradictions. My suggestion to you is 1) Take what the scripture says as it reads. If you do not understand it or think there is a contradiction, give it time, and pray to God to reveal to you what the meaning is. 2) Keep your heart sincere. If you are truly seeking for the truth, and not proof there are errors, then God will either show you the answer through the Holy Ghost by opening your eyes to it, or he will show it to you through the Holy Ghost by using a preacher and teacher. Just as he used Philip to preach and teach the Ethiopian eunuch. 3) Accept and receive the truth you already have. If you cannot accept and receive the truth you already know, why would God reveal more to you? You must first be able to handle the milk of the word before you can handle the meat the word, or even the strong meat of the word.

I personally always default to the fact that I am the one that is not smart enough to figure it out or to understand it, and so I ask God to reveal it to me with sincere prayer, much study, and seeking preachers and teachers.

If you are sincere in your desire to know the truth, God will show it, and hopefully you will learn that when we think the scripture is wrong, that, eventually, God will reveal that the scripture is ALWAYS true, and we are the liars. (Rom 3:4)

EXAMPLE #1

Matt. 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

As far as the example you gave above, you say that you were given a “half-butt” explanation, but if I may say, it was a PLAUSIBLE explanation. Is there not some cases where people hanged were decapitated or the rope broke, or what they were tied off to broke? (See the deaths of George Painter 1894, Tom Ketchum 1901, and Eva Dugan 1930 for a few examples)

OSHA says that a man tied off in a safety harness must be attached to an anchorage point that can withstand 5,000 lbs of force. They have determined that the average 200 pound man “falling” and then immediately stopping (in this case, very likely, a rope around the neck probably tied to a tree branch?) generates just under 5,000 lbs of weight. So basically his fall is generating enough force to turn him into the weight of a pickup truck if he were to suddenly stop. So yes it is very plausible that he BOTH hanged himself and when the rope tightened the weight he generated from his inertia broke either the limb, the rope, or his head, and he falling headlong burst asunder when he hit the ground.

So the question is, is the scripture contradicted or is it just giving some information here by one man's account, and a little more information from another man's account? This is no different than a detective interviewing more than one witness to piece the entire story together. And so it is with the bible...a little here, and a little there. And you are to be the workman studying and rightly dividing to fit the pieces together to make the whole puzzle fit together.

 

EXAMPLE #2

1 Chron 21:5 And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.

2 Sam. 24:9 And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.

Notice the wording. 1 Chron. 21:5 is a total all men that drew the sword while 2 Sam. 24:9 is a number of valient men that drew the sword – It would be the same if you were to say the total number of the US army was 1 million fighting men, but the number of Green Berets that are a part of the 1 million, was 100 thousand men.

And then again look at the words of the scripture with the number of men from Judah. The total number of men that drew the sword was 490,000, while the total of the entire army was 500,000.

 

EXAMPLE #3

2 Chron 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

2 Kings 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

Let us start at the beginning. Nebuchadnezzar began to reign, and had been reigning for 5 years before Jehoiakim became his servant for 3 years, and then he rebelled. Then Nebuchadnezzar took Jehoiakim captive, which put Jehoiachin reigning the throne by default, with his mother acting as queen and reigning by proxy. This reign only lasted for 3 months and 10 days because according to scripture, he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord. Which means he (his mother by proxy) was rebelling against Nebuchadnezzar (See 2 Chron. 36:13 when talking about Zedekiah “And he ALSO rebelled against king Nebuchadnezzar…”) Therefore, because of this rebellion, he took him and his mother captive and carried them away to Babylon in the 8th year of his reign (2 Kings 24:12). Nebuchadnezzar then puts Zedekiah on the throne, which lasted only 11 years. Now notice, while Jehoiachin was still 8 years old, Zedekiah started his reign. Which means that when Zedekiah was taken off the throne after 11 years, Jehoiachin was 18, not 19, because Jehoiachin was 8 all during the first year of his reign. So with some simple math you can see that when Zedekiah was removed from the throne, Jehoiachin is now 18. So he was given the throne a second time by Nebuchadnezzar. Giving the “18 year old” with FULL reigning authority, and no mother to reign by proxy, an opportunity to show he can be in subjection to him. But this reign only lasts 3 months, because he was right back doing what his father had done (rebelling against Nebuchadnezzar). And so he was taken into captivity once again, being released in his 37th year of captivity (2 Kings 25:27) making him 44 years old. Which coincides with Nebuchadnezzar’s reign of 43 years. So, the way I interpret it, is as the scripture states with no contradictions. It just takes believing the bible is true, even when it seems it isn’t, diligent study, and having the patience to piece the puzzle together.

 

Hopefully, these explanations are clear enough for you to see, and has given you some more faith in believing that the bible is truth from cover to cover. It just needs to be studied and rightly divided in order to make sense of it, otherwise you could fall into a ditch. I am not sure what materials you have to help you in your studies, but if you are serious about learning the bible, may I suggest a vast library of commentaries and books by Dr. Peter S. Ruckman to help you with getting to know your bible. He has actually done an extensive and exhaustive work entitled “Problem Texts” that could assist you with these supposed contradictions within the scriptures.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Guest Mr. Thomas said:

Howdy, I'm Mr. Thomas, but I couldn't figure out how to edit my earlier post or reply directly to each of your posts, so I'll have to take them one at a time:

To Mr. Wretched: One of the New Testament Saints (I believe it was Peter) said that every man should have an apologia, a strict logical defense of their faith. But more importantly, in other parts of the Bible God constantly presses the importance of truth, in fact that's even one of the names of Jesus (The way, the truth, and the life). I think that God makes it pretty clear that truth and tool he gave us to search for it (logic) are not only important but holy. Also, to my knowledge God very rarely asked for people to believe in anything without a logical reason to. Jesus didn't just show up and demand people worship him without any explanation at all, he reasoned with people and did a lot of miracles to provide physical proof for people who couldn't be reasoned with. In fact most of God's saints and prophets also acted in a similar manner; by a combination of logic and divine feats. I respect your single-minded determination, but like CS Lewis said: faith is not a move into wholly unknown territory, its remaining calm when the surgeon puts the anesthesia to you. You know that the surgeon is practiced and capable, and your logic dictates that you have no reason to fear, but it's not logic that keeps you confident or brave, it's your faith and trust in what you know to be true. In short, faith is believing in what you already know to be true. I believe that the kind of blind faith you advocate is not only a (unintentional) perversion of the principle of faith, but also a rejection of God's holy gifts of logic and the quest for truth. this I am unwilling to do.

To Mr. Jim Alaska: I was raised Baptist and thoroughly understand the Baptist belief system. Also, you might notice that I used the word Saint not only in my original post, but also many times in this response. I stand by my original usage of the term, I believe you are using it incorrectly, not me. The word "Saint" is not synonymous with "Christian" or "Saved" any more than the work "Prophet" is synonymous with "Jew". Both words do, and has always been a special title of reverence for our elders/superiors in the faith, especially those directly spoken to by God or given miraculous abilities. Furthermore, I am not a Catholic, nor does the use of the word "Saint" specifically advocate for the process or procession of Catholic Canonization (which again, I can assure you I am not a fan of). One more time: I use the word "Saint" in it's common, informal sense as a general term of respect (not a formal title) for the great men of God. Also, I don't think you read my question thoroughly (although I do admit it is pretty long), because you did not address the passages I referenced that do, indeed, contradict. in fact, you completely sidestepped my question entirely to instead insult my intelligence and my grammar. To reiterate, this is my problem: As you pointed out in your paragraph, if the Bible was shown to have contradictions it would seriously jeopardize the legitimacy of our faith (I'm not sure in exactly what sense he would 'deny himself', but your point is nevertheless well taken). I believe to have found such passages, and as you predicted, this has led to much emotional and spiritual turmoil that is causing me to lose my faith. If you have any genuine help for this lost soul on this issue I would very much genuinely appreciate hearing it.

To Mr. Jordan Kurecki: Yeah, that's pretty much where I sat for a long time (~10 years), but I can't hold back the doubt and despair any longer. Though, even while my beliefs are being stripped from me, I still wholeheartedly cling to the pursuit of the truth. I figure that if God is going to rescue me, he won't do it while I'm sitting in an easy chair; I've got an obligation to seek him as hard as I can, wherever I can. For me, this takes the form of many, many logical debates with anybody who will humor me. I figure that if the Bible is somehow inerrant and true after all, or if Bible-less Christianity can survive, then God will have given someone somewhere the knowledge and skills to convince me and settle my heart.

To Mr. DaveW: I can't tell you how much I appreciate your long and detailed answer; your effort has greatly moved me, and I am very grateful to you for your time and thoroughness! I have heard these answers or ones similar to them over years of asking these kinds of questions, but I am still uneasy; they are ad-hoc, or like you said, 'put together' and 'not watertight', and some are still strictly speaking errant (even if rounded in the inconsistent way suggested, the numbers of soldiers in the army are still not the same, and couldn't be referenced in an exact sense, like in a scientific paper or a court of law, to which standards surely God's own word should meet). This doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the strict Biblical Inerrancy either, and as I'm sure you're aware there are many more contradictions in various degrees to be found through out the texts. However, like I said before, I am very, very grateful to you for your effort and dedication, and any more insight from you would be most welcome!

Well no surprises here my friend. You seem to display tremendous faith in your "doubts". 

Your fatal error is how you view God's Word. As with most of the religious you regulate it as merely a reference for yours or others theology and not the Bread of Life. Until you decide that true life can come only from it, you will remain in doubt. 

MATTHEW 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Mr. Wretched: In what sense can you believe in something that you don't believe to be true? How would you, for instance, have faith that the sky is orange and not blue? That doesn't make any sense. You write as if faith and truth are disconnected, but I don't see how. Perhaps you use "faith" to mean something else than I do. Applying my sky analogy to my case, I see an orange sky, not blue. How do you convince me the sky is blue ..  without convincing me the sky is blue? I don't see how faith in biblical inerrancy is possible without believing in biblical inerrancy. I would very, very much like to be convinced, but you can't get me there by sidestepping the logic. I have unfortunately been beset with some fairly strong evidence that the bible is errant, and faith in inerrancy is intrinsically impossible without both strong evidence to support inerrancy and a strong disproof of the offending evidence. I don't think brainwashing myself into obedience is the same thing as faith, and I don't think God would approve of it either (if that was an option he could have just done it himself, but instead he goes to pretty extreme lengths to properly convince people). I'm not calling the 'Bread of Life' method you suggested self-brainwashing, but I think it's definitely a determined step in the wrong direction, so I won't be doing that. I am genuinely grateful for your attempt to help me though, I just don't think God would approve of me using that method.

To Mr. SAB76: I wrote a reply to you earlier today, but I guess it didn't go through. It was similar in tone and context to my earlier reply to Mr. DaveW. First, I am extremely grateful for your effort and long reply, so thank you! However, a lot of these explanations seem pretty contrived. True, you might be able to work out a way where technically the explanations you provided could work. Yeah, Luke could have been describing Judas' body falling from a noose, but it really seems like he was talking about him walking around then tripping or something. When was the last time you heard someone say something like 'Oh he fell head-over-heels and broke his tailbone' about a dead body? If that's what he meant wouldn't he say 'the body fell down and burst' or something like that? Why would he use the word 'he' instead of 'it', or use the word 'headlong' instead of just 'down'? It seems to me that these words indicate the lateral motion of a man walking or running in a field, not a body in a tree. But anyways, even if the specific wording isn't inescapable, it is still very disquieting, because it definitely doesn't live up to the kind of clarity and precision you would expect from God. I don't find those explanations satisfying or relieving at all, but like I said, I do really appreciate the effort, and would appreciate any more comments or references you can provide!

Edited by Guest Mr. Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Guest Mr. Thomas said:

To Mr. Wretched: In what sense can you believe in something that you don't believe to be true? How would you, for instance, have faith that the sky is orange and not blue? That doesn't make any sense. You write as if faith and truth are disconnected, but I don't see how. Perhaps you use "faith" to mean something else than I do. Applying my sky analogy to my case, I see an orange sky, not blue. How do you convince me the sky is blue ..  without convincing me the sky is blue? I don't see how faith in biblical inerrancy is possible without believing in biblical inerrancy. I would very, very much like to be convinced, but you can't get me there by sidestepping the logic. I have unfortunately been beset with some fairly strong evidence that the bible is errant, and faith in inerrancy is intrinsically impossible without both strong evidence to support inerrancy and a strong disproof of the offending evidence. I don't think brainwashing myself into obedience is the same thing as faith, and I don't think God would approve of it either (if that was an option he could have just done it himself, but instead he goes to pretty extreme lengths to properly convince people). I'm not calling the 'Bread of Life' method you suggested self-brainwashing, but I think it's definitely a determined step in the wrong direction, so I won't be doing that. I am genuinely grateful for your attempt to help me though, I just don't think God would approve of me using that method.

 

Friend, it is your only hope. What do you have to lose? Besides everything that is. You claim to be truly seeking Him and all who truly seek Him will find Him but only through His Word. Your choice but choose wisely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Mr. Wretched: I'm only skittish because I believe that is away, not towards God. That's the sort of thing pagans and Muslims have to do alot; memorization and recitations for salvation, but to my knowledge that's never something God has asked or required.

Edited by Guest Mr. Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your beginning premise is wrong.

Your beginning is that the Bible is NOT TRUE, and you are asking people to prove to you that it is true.

This is you (and I suspect why you have chosen that name....):

Joh 20:24-25
(24)  But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
(25)  The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
 

This is the clear attitude that you have displayed in your answers.

In contrast to your dismissing of Wretched's comments, I point you to what Jesus said to Thomas:

Joh 20:29
(29)  Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Thomas said he would not believe unless he had 100%solid proof, but the Lord said it is more blessed to believe WITHOUT THAT 100% solid proof.

I can show you verse after verse after verse after verse that are absolutely 100% true and accurate, and you are sweeping aside any explanation that you do not like for three passages that YOU find doubtful. 

You are beginning from the premise that the Bible is in error, and asking people to prove to you that what you have already decided is false, is true.

From that starting point, you cannot come to real faith in either the Lord or in His Word.

I am not asking you to believe in "blind faith", but to start from a position of faith, not a position of opposition.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Mr. DaveW: I chose this name ironically because I predicted that accusation would come out at one point or another. The truth is that I'm not like doubting Thomas, who saw Jesus perform miracles on countless occasions, and personally heard his sermons and speech 24/7 (including the parts where Jesus said he would die and be resurrected) only to abandon his faith the week things looked bad. Doubting Thomas did have proof of the things he believed, then turned away out of fear. The difference is that I have no such proof. I desperately want to believe in biblical inerrancy; my fear is pushing me towards blind acceptance, not away like Thomas. I wouldn't be on this forum asking for help if that wasn't so. But where Thomas abandoned what he knew to be true out of fear, I am reluctantly remaining in this position because I love truth and will not move out of fear or any other emotion, just logic. My heart won't move my brain, I will only move when I think it is right. And I think this is how Christians are supposed to act (remember Jeremiah's 'the heart is deceitful above all things' line?). But to humor you, I'll perform a little exercise.

1. Ok, I now believe in inerrancy

2. Oh wait, here are some passages that contradict, does this mean the Bible is errant?

3. Let's pray, study, and ask some people for help:

4. Ok, I hear some kinda-sorta explanations, but they all rely on the authors suddenly talking in weird, unnatural ways or having strange secret meanings that mean the opposite of what words used in that combination usually mean. Either way, these explanations clearly don't jive with the author's obvious meanings.

5. Huh, well that was no help, I wish somebody had a real explanation that didn't involve grammatical gymnastics, or failing that, could prove that faith is valid even without the Bible, because I'm feeling pretty lost

6. Oh, well here we are in the exact same place as before

I did start from a position of faith, that's exactly why I'm in this unenviable position. Now I don't know how to verify that anything in the Bible is true. Maybe it's like CS Lewis said about Genesis and Job, or what Jordan Peterson says about it all, that they're all just stories like Aesop's Fables. Holy no doubt, and full of knowledge and life lessons, but fictional all the same. That's a very discomforting thought to me; in fact almost torturous, but the one thing I do know is that God loves truth and hates lies, if it is possible to find the way, the truth, and the life, I must cling only to things I know are true and not follow anything that I don't. However badly I want it to be, the Bible is not something I know to be true, but that's why I'm asking to be convinced in a logical, truthful, un-deceptive manner. I feel like the answers you have given me are deceptive; reliant on little tricky plays on words and foggy/unclear. However, like I said, I'm in a really tough spot, and I really do appreciate the effort you've put in to read and respond to my posts, even if I do end up finding them unhelpful sometimes.

P.S. As to your comments regarding Mr. Wretched... I mean, come on. I do appreciate his attempt to help, but do you really think repetition of full books will resolve this issue?

Edited by Guest Mr. Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Guest Mr. Thomas said:

But to humor you, I'll perform a little exercise

Nuff said..... I am out.

28 minutes ago, Guest Mr. Thomas said:

chose this name ironically because I predicted that accusation would come

No accusation - your starting position is the same as Thomas - I  WILL NOT BELIEVE...….

This attitude displayed in your responses to anyone who has tried to help, and displayed further in the quotes above tells me that you are not actually after answers You are convinced that the Bible is not true, and until you move from that premise you cannot make any forward progress.

You need to worry less about what men like CS Lewis or Peterson say and try studying the Bible in order to answer your own questions.

You are obviously not interested in what other people have to say (because you reject it without consideration), so the ONLY course of action for you to take is to diligently study the Word of God and find the answers for yourself.

If you are indeed in any way interested in getting the answers...….

Have fun, but I will take no further part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2019 at 12:57 PM, Guest Mr. Thomas said:

clickbait

You said enough in the first sentence for me to know not to waste my time replying, except to say its clear from your replies that you already have enough information to make a decision one way or another. You just need to make it.

1 Kings 18:21a And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him:...

Edited by John Young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Mr. DaveW: I think you might have understood my position a little bit better if you did read the 'humour you' part. Look, I can't help it if your answers don't make sense. They're no good to me if they're no good. I do appreciate your effort, and I'm sorry you're heading out, but all I can do is point out the errors and hope for an explanation that does pass muster. Sincere thanks for your effort though.

To John Young: If I had to make a decision right this minute with the best information available to me, it would be that the Bible is errant and therefore can't be relied on. Is that the decision you recommend to me? If the Lord be God, follow him. Well the Lord be God, and God commands us to follow truth. The doctrine of inerrancy seems untrue, so to follow God I must abandon the doctrine of inerrancy.

To All: I would like to believe in inerrancy, but the Bible seems errant.If you can prove inerrancy, please do, but don't get mad at me if you cannot. From Job (which John Young also has as his signature): "Teach me, and I will hold my tongue: and cause me to understand wherein I have erred."

Edited by Guest Mr. Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Mr. SAB76: I wrote a reply to you earlier today, but I guess it didn't go through. It was similar in tone and context to my earlier reply to Mr. DaveW. First, I am extremely grateful for your effort and long reply, so thank you! However, a lot of these explanations seem pretty contrived. True, you might be able to work out a way where technically the explanations you provided could work. Yeah, Luke could have been describing Judas' body falling from a noose, but it really seems like he was talking about him walking around then tripping or something. When was the last time you heard someone say something like 'Oh he fell head-over-heels and broke his tailbone' about a dead body? If that's what he meant wouldn't he say 'the body fell down and burst' or something like that? Why would he use the word 'he' instead of 'it', or use the word 'headlong' instead of just 'down'? It seems to me that these words indicate the lateral motion of a man walking or running in a field, not a body in a tree. But anyways, even if the specific wording isn't inescapable, it is still very disquieting, because it definitely doesn't live up to the kind of clarity and precision you would expect from God. I don't find those explanations satisfying or relieving at all, but like I said, I do really appreciate the effort, and would appreciate any more comments or references you can provide!
1. Ok, I now believe in inerrancy
2. Oh wait, here are some passages that contradict, does this mean the Bible is errant?
3. Let's pray, study, and ask some people for help:
4. Ok, I hear some kinda-sorta explanations, but they all rely on the authors suddenly talking in weird, unnatural ways or having strange secret meanings that mean the opposite of what words used in that combination usually mean. Either way, these explanations clearly don't jive with the author's obvious meanings.
5. Huh, well that was no help, I wish somebody had a real explanation that didn't involve grammatical gymnastics, or failing that, could prove that faith is valid even without the Bible, because I'm feeling pretty lost
6. Oh, well here we are in the exact same place as before 


Mr. Thomas,
I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt concerning your truthfulness in your desire to be shown the bible is truth. I am not sure I will help, as it really does seem that you have made up your mind on this subject, and are now desiring proof, and dismiss “technically true” explanations. 
Let me begin with the assumption that, due to your knowledge of the scriptures, and fretting over their inaccuracy, you are a saved, born again, Christian believing in Paul’s gospel. I am assuming you realized that you were a sinner, that Christ died for your sins, and that he rose again the 3rd day to offer all that believe on him eternal life. I am assuming you have received Christ as your savior, and believe on him to save you from hell.
If this is the case, how did you come to this faith? That a resurrected man could forgive your sin, and save you from hell. You received it from the scripture, correct? How do you know the Lord be God? From the scripture, correct? So, how are you choosing which scriptures are true, and which are not? Maybe I am off on this assumption, but you seem to be double minded, and unstable. It seems you have been drawn away from the faith you once had, when you believed the scriptures at salvation, and have been listening to the Devil, as Eve, “Yea, hath God said?” The Devil has not changed his tactics since then, and why should he? They still work. May I suggest (James 1:5-8 & 2 Peter 3:16) as exhortation to what I said in my previous post about how to approach the scriptures. I’m not sure you realize what you, or many others, are holding in your hands. The bible is not just a book. It is a living book (Heb. 4:12) and discerns a man’s heart (Heb. 4:12) before that man ever reads the first verse, and will answer that man, according to the idols in his heart. (Eze. 14:4) This is why I tried to exhort you previously, and now admonish you…If you are saved, and are truly serious, and truthful about your desire for truth, then I strongly suggest you approach the scriptures with a clean, pure intentioned heart, and seek the truth by prayer, study, and preachers & teachers that believe that book AS IT READS, preachers and teachers that don’t dismiss “insignificant” words as not being an issue. Or try to take you back to some dead  language that God does not use any longer. The word of God is preserved, and perfect in the KJV. The “originals" do not exist any where on this earth. Besides the “originals" being dead and gone, they have been TRANSLATED (See Col. 1:13 & Heb. 11:5 for the biblical definition of TRANSLATED…it is always BETTER than the original) into a better and more accurate language.


I chose this name ironically because I predicted that accusation would come out at one point or another. The truth is that I'm not like doubting Thomas, who saw Jesus perform miracles on countless occasions, and personally heard his sermons and speech 24/7 (including the parts where Jesus said he would die and be resurrected) only to abandon his faith the week things looked bad. Doubting Thomas did have proof of the things he believed, then turned away out of fear. The difference is that I have no such proof. I desperately want to believe in biblical inerrancy; my fear is pushing me towards blind acceptance, not away like Thomas. 

So, let me first address the above quote, and perhaps shed some light on what faith is and how it works. And then I will address your latest questions on the Judas “death" issue. You said that you don’t have the miracles that Thomas saw, and have nothing but the word and you are leaning to blind acceptance. But what you call blind acceptance , Peter called…
2 Peter 1:16-19 
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:


The bible says that “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Heb 11:1)  I do not ascribe to “blind” faith, nor do I expect anyone to “just believe”. BUT...faith is just that, faith. Faith is not in things, or your understanding or reasoning. Faith is in...people, and what they say…A very simple example, you go to the doctor, and he says you have cancer. He says you must take chemotherapy in order to survive. You say yes, and begin treatments. Why? Because you believe the doctor. Your faith is not in the chemotherapy, it is just the medicine. You believe the doctor has told you the truth, and therefore put your faith in HIM to know what he is talking about, and how to apply the medicine. And since the bible is the word of God, and the Word is God (Jn. 1:1 & 1 Jn. 1:1), then “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Rom 10:17)
God always tells us what the end is, BUT he does not tell us every detail up to it…This is what makes it faith, and also tests our obedience. For example: (1 Kings 17:1-16) The widow of Zarephath and her son were starving and on their last meal when up pops the preacher Elijah, he was very healthy and had been fed and watered by God for 3 years without missing a single meal. He was fat compared to the widow and her son. So the Lord puts her to the test and show a great example of faith. How? He told the preacher to tell her (How would you like to be put in that position?) to give him the last biscuit, and that if she did that God would supply her with an endless supply of meal until the drought was over. So while it was not blind faith, it was no doubt a hard pill to swallow, when this fat preacher shows up and promises a blessing if you feed him before you feed your starving son. And this is why she is known for her GREAT faith. But her faith was not in the biscuit, oor even in her own reasoning, for surely any mother would feed her starving child before feeding a fat preacher, but her faith was in the preacher, and because she believed him to be the man of God and that he spoke the truth when he made the promise of never ending food IF she trusted the words he spoke. She believed what she was told, and the blessing came afterward…not before. And so, it seems to me, that you are asking for the blessing, before you put faith in the wword.If this is the case, you unfortunately have it backwards.

Now, onto the further information on Judas' death to help clarify your latest questions...
You make suggestion that all 3 explanations were contrived, yet you only gave a few examples of wording you disagree with in the one about Judas. So I will address the Judas issue, as I assume you are still searching for error on the other 2. I believe I showed very clearly in the 2nd and 3rd examples without any funny math or changing words or their definitions to show the scripture may LOOK contradicted, but is in almost every case of these supposed contradictions or funny math situations, the real problem is the scriptures are just not read correctly.


Firstly, you say technically my explanations could work, yet you believe Peter (Peter said this by the way, not Luke - Acts 1:15) would have said “it” or “body” instead of “he”. But you make this claim by assuming that either… 
1) Judas was dead when he fell, (Remember, Matt. says he went and hanged himself…you assume death, but it is not confirmed) (2 Sam. 17:23 speaks of a hanging and confirms death) 
or 
2) that his body cannot be referred to as he, if he were dead when he fell. Although, it is perfectly acceptable in common everyday conversation for people to use this terminology when speaking of dead men. “HE looks so natural”; “HE is buried in Arlington cemetery”; “I want to bury HIM in his favorite suit”. Even scripture uses this terminology…(Josh. 10:26 says “they” when speaking of dead men) (2 Sam. 4:12 says “them” when speaking of dead men) (2 Sam. 18:17 says “Absalom” when speaking of the body of Absalom) 


Another point is that the bible is written in common everyday language. It is not a legal document, nor is it a stenographer’s record. It was the intent of the translators to make it that way…“If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy who drives a plough to know more of the scriptures than you do.” William Tyndale when speaking to an educated clergyman. It is a book that gives its own details and lack of details as it sees fit. 


Secondly, what definition are you ascribing to HEADLONG? The word shows up 3 times in scripture and the other 2 times, it does not mean “head first" it means…1. Rashly; precipitately; without deliberation. 2. Hastily; without delay or respite. How would a body fall headfirst from hanging? 


Thirdly, just because something is NOT in the scriptures doesn’t mean that it isn’t or couldn’t be there. Such as, what caused his bowels to gush out? Well scripture doesn’t say exactly,  but gives enough information to come to a LOGICAL conclusion. He must have fallen from pretty high up in order to gush out OR he must have been hanging dead for a few days, maybe 3, and then a great earthquake so strong that it rent rocks (Matt. 27:51) was strong enough to break the tree he was hanging from, and his decomposing body burst when it hit the ground.


As I said before the bible is full of “evidence" that tells the MAIN story. It is up to the detective (you) to search for it (a little here and a little there, line upon line, precept upon precept) piece it together and come up with the truth. 
Lastly, IF you are really sincere, then I suggest you turn off CS Lewis and Jordan Peterson, and give Dr. Peter S. Ruckman a try. Turn off the influence that questions what God says (Gen 3), and have faith in what you already understand, and allow God the TIME to teach you the rest, as he sees fit, so that you are established and grounded in the milk of the word, and eventually be able to digest the meat and strong meat of the word.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, thank you for reading my post with such detail! I really appreciate it!

Taking things in order and starting first with your first (and incidentally also your last) stanza: I'm not really sure why I became a Christian; I grew up in a good Baptist household, and I was baptized when I was very young. However, I can tell you why I stayed in: exposure to the works of CS Lewis. I know he's just a man, but he was probably the most good, wholesome, and honest Christian from whom I have ever read, excepting of course the apostles and Paul. He, like the great St. Thomas Aquinas and Plato the ancient Athenian, believed that not only nature and the moral laws contained evidence of Christ, but logic itself too. He was a great boon to my Christian life, because he provided such compelling logical arguments that I became totally convinced of the validity of God's word in my mind as well as in my heart. He was wrong about some things no doubt, but he was undoubtedly a great man of God; I would stake my life on that. If you ask why I still manage to cling to God even as I doubt the Bible (and the earth might as well have collapsed for how stressful that is) it is because of the straightforward and Godly logic and teachings of CS Lewis. I'll try anybody you think will help, including Dr. Peter Ruckman, but CS Lewis is the one man I most hold responsible my salvation. He's not a source of doubt Jordan Peterson I can take or leave, I just mentioned him because he seemed relevant.

As to your second set of paragraphs, the one that references 2nd Peter: I don't really doubt God, I just doubt that the Bible is his word. You don't really need to talk about proof of God, I'm already there.

As to the set that referenced 1 Kings: Yes, the widow might have doubted that the command "give your last biscuit" was really from God, but she had the prophet Elijah there, who she did know spoke on behalf of God, to verify and back the claim up. She didn't take it as blind faith either; she had a verified mouthpiece of God to confirm. I, in perhaps a similar situation, might (reasonably I think) doubt that the Bible is really from God, so like the widow, I think I should have a verified mouthpiece of God to confirm. Now, I don't know anyone God has trusted enough to perform miracles and speak for him like he did Elijah, so I have to resort to other verified mouthpieces of God to confirm the Bible. The only other mouthpiece I know of is truth, which God confirms to us by way of logic. If you (or anyone) can logically prove to me that the Bible is inerrant, then I will accept that as Godly verification. I want that proof, so that's why I'm out searching for it, but if I can't tell if God wants me to give away my starving son's last biscuit to a fat man, then I think I should feed my son.

As to the part about Judas: Yes, we do use "he" in that manner, but we still don't say 'he broke his arm' or 'he fell down on his face' about cadavers, and I think this usage of "he" falls closer to that usage. As to the use of "headlong", yes I agree, just like you said, how could a hanged body fall headfirst? Well this is the definition of headlong:

Capture.PNG.c8192b261ad008b5787590cb97e86cef.PNG

And that makes it seem like he wasn't hanging. I'm think it's pretty clear the author here meant "headfirst" because saying a body fell "in an impetuous manner", "rashly", "without deliberation" or "without respite" makes even less sense than the other meaning.

Finally, to touch back on your last paragraph: Piecing the truth together from the Bible is exactly what I am trying to do, with your (plural) help. The problem is that the closer you look, the more disjoints you find between the pieces.

Also, as a mostly irrelevant aside; even if you believe the Bible is inerrant, there's still lots of passages that you can't believe in literally. The Catholics loved to use the passage from Psalms 19:6 about the sun: "It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is deprived of its warmth." as supposed "proof" that the sun revolved around the earth, and there's plenty of other, darker passages like Psalms 137:9, which gives a blessing to any man who would snatch a Babylonian baby from its mother and bashes it's brains out on the ground. That clearly don't align with God's will. Those passages don't necessarily mean the Bible is errant, it just means that some books (like Psalms) are meant as just holy poetry and not serious theological teachings. In those cases, it would be just as wrong to take them literally as it would to take some other passages symbolically, because it's wrong to use parts of the Bible outside their intended purposes, and the intended purpose of those passages is only related to music and worship. CS Lewis didn't think Genesis and Job were symbolic/fictional because he believed they were in error, he just thought they were meant to be passages like Psalms and taken symbolically, not literally. As far as I know he still believed in biblical inerrancy, that part is my own 'discovery', not his. I think Jordan Peterson does think the Bible is all a myth though, (in a way that is less reverent towards the Bible than me). In that way Peterson is pretty sacreligious, but he seems to be an admirer nonetheless, and he has studied the Bible so thoroughly that sometimes he extracts lessons that you probably would have otherwise missed, and he still sometimes (inadvertently) provides teachings genuinely useful to a Christian life. Like I said, I don't approve of his attitude though, so I wouldn't call myself a fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are told to study God's word...not C. S. Lewis. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God...not the word of C. S. Lewis.

Your issues with doubt are easily explained, yet you are looking through secular eyes instead of the eyes of faith. Your faith is in C. S. Lewis and your own secular reasoning.

Israel had personally experienced great signs, wonders, and miracles, yet despite that, God asked...

And the LORD said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them?

"Physical" proof won't convince you. 

...and as for "dead languages"...the King James was translated from them.

Some English words have changed meanings since 1611...

What did "headlong" mean in the 1600's?

Was George Washington a real person? If so, why do you believe that? You never experienced him in life...all you have are the things written about him. How do you know it's true? You have no proof other than to accept what history tells you. For all you know, everything written and painted about him could have been one great big lie...unless you can go back in time and verify its authenticity.

Can you do that...or do you accept what you know about him...because it's written down in a history book?

We also have a history book.

You have been given the answers to your questions, yet you shrug them off.

Judas purchased a field (at some point) with the money he gained through sin; after all, he was a thief. He hanged himself somewhere in that field. At some point thereafter, the rope broke, and his body fell (for whatever reason) headlong and burst...not that hard to understand...it snaps, his feet hit the ground first, and he falls forward...headlong. It's not a discrepancy; it's just more information as to what all happened.

If you are sincere in your endeavor to know the truth, then study God's word. The Holy Spirit is the one who will illuminate you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To No Nicolaitans: I don't think you have read my posts through.

1. There's no need to put the phrase 'dead languages' in quotes, I've never made that argument or even used the phrase in any of my posts. in fact, I don't think I've even used the word 'language' at all, but you acted so confidentially that I went back and checked my own posts. If you had read the thead you would have seen that the dead language thing Mr. SAB76 kinda randomly interjected on his own, but I never made or even thought about that point, and I don't contest it.

2. I also have never contended that the authors of the New Testament didn't exist, or even cast aspirations on their motives. I believe like you do that they both existed and tried their best to give an honest, godly account. There's no need for the George Washington bit, I already agree with you there.

3. As I've discussed before, I think it's pretty clear that's not what Luke was trying to say about Judas, but even if you waive that potential error, there are plenty more that I have referenced in earlier passages, and plenty more that I didn't reference yet at all.

4. It's kinda difficult to study God's word if you're not sure what God's word is, don't you think? The question here is whether or not the Bible is God's infallible word or not. If the question is "are these God's words", then I don't think it's valid to say "these words say they are God's words", because that's not exactly a robust proof. However, I am extremely open (and a little desperate at this point) to be convinced in any manner, so I'm willing to go along with you if you try.

5. CS Lewis is not really relevant to my argument, I just felt like defending him because I think he was a good guy. I think it's clear that I don't hold holy 'the word of CS Lewis', I just think he was a good christian who was helpful in my spiritual life.

It seems like for the most part you have responded to questions and challenges that I never posed, which is not super helpful.

I'm grateful for you taking the time to post, but it's pretty clear that you don't understand the exact nature of my question. I know it's long, but if you don't read through all the posts, you won't know what has been said before or understand the position and trajectory of the conversation now. If don't have time for that, if you would at least read my first post through I think you would understand my position alot better. Again, sincere thanks for your attempt, but if you're going to take the time to respond I think we should make sure the time is productive and well-spent.

Edited by Guest Mr. Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To  No Nicolaitians: Well, you've proven me wrong about the read through part; thanks alot for doing so!

For the 'dead languages' thing: Oh, ok then.

For the 'believe the same as you' part: Well, I know it's splitting hairs, but we do both believe that they tried their best, but you just believe they succeeded and I am in doubt. I did have that in mind when I claimed we did, but I understand your objection.

For the 'debate' part: Well, I think the King James uses 'debate' here to mean 'quarrel', not what is going on here, but I understand your point. I also understand how you could think (despite my best efforts) that I'm trolling or just looking for a fun debate; but I'm not, I truly am looking to be convinced, on peril of my very soul.

On the 'study the Bible' part: I do study the Bible, and I have all my life, which is why the inerrancy question disturbs me so. But I don think regardless that God loves truth and knowledge, and that reason is something holy designed by him for that purpose, so I do read as much as I can on my own so I can try to find the truth, for the same reason I'm writing to you.

In conclusion: I don't believe that true logic or debate can lead you away from God. The truth is God's domain, and reason is his creation. If something is truly logical, then it is truly godly. Emotions on the other hand, do often lead people astray. Remember Jeremiah's warning: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?". If you allow your emotions to determine your decisions, you are leading an ungodly life. The bible often reprimands those without self-control, and that is exactly what that is: self control is your minds ability to prevail over your emotions. Your emotions are meant for pleasure, not to rule you.

Thank you for your time!
 

Pot- Script Edit:

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 says "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Matthew 19 3-8 says: "The Pharisees also came unto him [Jesus], tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Here we have a situation where God gave a commandment in the Bible that was not a real commandment; it was only the approximation or dialing back of a real, greater commandment. In the old testament passage it says that divorced people can remarry (as long as it is not to each other), but Jesus says you cannot remarry at all (unless your wife cheated on you). Was the Mosaic text in error? It certainly did not tell the truth; the truth was nearly the opposite in fact. If God sometimes presents semi-true or semi-accurate commandments, only to retract them later, then how do you know if any of the passages in the current Bible are not also semi-true or semi-accurate? How do you know that when Paul says women shouldn't be preachers, God isn't giving us a bad commandment "because of the hardness of [our] hearts"? How do we know anything is the real, true, inerrant commandment when God sometimes puts untrue ones in the Bible?

 

Edited by Guest Mr. Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, thank you for reading my post with such detail! I really appreciate it!

Taking things in order and starting first with your first (and incidentally also your last) stanza: I'm not really sure why I became a Christian; I grew up in a good Baptist household, and I was baptized when I was very young.

So you have realized that you were a sinner, in need of the Savior, and have asked Christ to save you from hell? Is this what you mean by “became a Christian”? Or are you depending on your good upbringing and baptism?

However, I can tell you why I stayed in: exposure to the works of CS Lewis. I know he's just a man, but he was probably the most good, wholesome, and honest Christian from whom I have ever read, excepting of course the apostles and Paul. He, like the great St. Thomas Aquinas and Plato the ancient Athenian, believed that not only nature and the moral laws contained evidence of Christ, but logic itself too. He was a great boon to my Christian life, because he provided such compelling logical arguments that I became totally convinced of the validity of God's word in my mind as well as in my heart. He was wrong about some things no doubt, but he was undoubtedly a great man of God; I would stake my life on that. If you ask why I still manage to cling to God even as I doubt the Bible (and the earth might as well have collapsed for how stressful that is) it is because of the straightforward and Godly logic and teachings of CS Lewis. I'll try anybody you think will help, including Dr. Peter Ruckman, but CS Lewis is the one man I most hold responsible my salvation. He's not a source of doubt Jordan Peterson I can take or leave, I just mentioned him because he seemed relevant.

As to your second set of paragraphs, the one that references 2nd Peter: I don't really doubt God, I just doubt that the Bible is his word. You don't really need to talk about proof of God, I'm already there.

You must not have understood the passage in 2nd Peter, which is part of the problem you are having. The passage quoted in 2nd Peter was not a proof of God, but a proof of the word of God, and how great it is.

Please read the passage carefully:

2 Peter 1:16-19

“For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” – Firstly, he starts out describing that he was an eyewitness to the evidence to the truth of the scriptures when he SAW the glory of the second coming of the Lord upon the Mount of Transfiguration. He is stating that he has SEEN a great wondrous sight with his own eyes.

Also, a side note….notice that Peter is stating that we are NOT following fables (I believe this to be the opposite as what CS Lewis teaches, correct? That Genesis and Job are fables?)

“For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

“And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.” – Secondly, he goes on to say that we have also HEARD the evidence of God’s voice confirming the truth about the Messiah on the Mount of Transfiguration.

So the set up for the next verse, is “I am telling you that I and a few others have seen the GLORIFIED transformation of Jesus, and heard the very AUDIBLE voice of God himself, and these great signs are less SURE than the very scriptures that you hold in your own hands.”

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:”  - I have enlarged it, bolded it, underlined it, and italicized it for you to READ, SEE, and HEAR. This is the context of the passage in 2nd Peter. The written word of God is MORE SURE than the SEEING, and HEARING God himself.

The Lord holds his word in such high esteem that he said the following: “I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” (Ps. 138:2)

As to the set that referenced 1 Kings: Yes, the widow might have doubted that the command "give your last biscuit" was really from God, but she had the prophet Elijah there, who she did know spoke on behalf of God, to verify and back the claim up. She didn't take it as blind faith either; she had a verified mouthpiece of God to confirm. I, in perhaps a similar situation, might (reasonably I think) doubt that the Bible is really from God, so like the widow, I think I should have a verified mouthpiece of God to confirm. Now, I don't know anyone God has trusted enough to perform miracles and speak for him like he did Elijah, so I have to resort to other verified mouthpieces of God to confirm the Bible. The only other mouthpiece I know of is truth, which God confirms to us by way of logic. If you (or anyone) can logically prove to me that the Bible is inerrant, then I will accept that as Godly verification. I want that proof, so that's why I'm out searching for it, but if I can't tell if God wants me to give away my starving son's last biscuit to a fat man, then I think I should feed my son.

Please show me where she knew who Elijah even was when he showed up? The widow was a Gentile woman that lived in Zidon. She never heard Elijah preach or seen him perform one miracle her entire life. The miracle came AFTER she believed him, and the word he preached to her. Again the blessing and miracle comes after faith.

This is the point I was trying to make….Until you receive the word of God to be the word of God, the word of God cannot work effectually in you. For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” (1 Thess. 2:13) The blessing and miracles come AFTER the faith in the word.

You have been corrupted by Thomas Aquinas, Plato, and even CS Lewis to think it is received any other way. These men did not receive nor believe the word of God, and have instead instilled in you and countless others a doubt just as the Devil put into the ears and heart of Eve when he asked just one question…”Yea, HATH GOD SAID…????” This has been the tool of the Devil from the beginning and continues to this day.

As to the part about Judas: Yes, we do use "he" in that manner, but we still don't say 'he broke his arm' or 'he fell down on his face' about cadavers, and I think this usage of "he" falls closer to that usage.

I have shown you from scripture that this statement is not true. 

And ten young men that bare Joab's armour compassed about and smote Absalom, and slew him.

And Joab blew the trumpet, and the people returned from pursuing after Israel: for Joab held back the people.

And they took Absalom, and cast him into a great pit in the wood, and laid a very great heap of stones upon him: and all Israel fled every one to his tent.

You have chosen to ignore the scripture, and set yourself as the authority to determine what words God should have used. 

As to the use of "headlong", yes I agree, just like you said, how could a hanged body fall headfirst? Well this is the definition of headlong:

And that makes it seem like he wasn't hanging. I'm think it's pretty clear the author here meant "headfirst" because saying a body fell "in an impetuous manner", "rashly", "without deliberation" or "without respite" makes even less sense than the other meaning.

I did give the wrong definition of the word headlong, and I apologize for that. I should have kept reading and would have seen the correct definition. (HEADLONG, adjective Steep; precipitousWebsters 1828 dictionary) (PRECIPITOUS, adjective Headlong; directly or rapidly descending; as a precipitous fall Websters 1828 dictionary) Again, I apologize for giving the wrong definition in the first post, but it was this definition that I was trying to convey.

So, I have done all that I can to show you the truth of this supposed discrepancy...I still hold to what I originally said: Judas hung himself, and either died from hanging, and then hung for 3 days till the great earthquake caused his fall, or hung himself, and something broke immediately and he fell to his death. Either way it happened….Judas died, just as scripture says he did.

 

Finally, to touch back on your last paragraph: Piecing the truth together from the Bible is exactly what I am trying to do, with your (plural) help. The problem is that the closer you look, the more disjoints you find between the pieces.

What disjoints are you speaking of? I have shown you the supposed disjoints of the last 2 examples you gave. The first I showed was due to a simple skimming over words (Man shall live by EVERY word of God) that added more detail to the numbering of the army. You saw them being in error because you wanted to believe the scripture was in error. If you truly wanted to believe the word, you would have studied EVERY word and compared EVERY word, and would have saw the DIFFERENCES in the scripture not as error, but as more detail. And then the second example was in 2 parts: 1) You assumed the 2 scriptures were the same event, even though there was clearly a difference in the two scriptures with one being him at the age of 8 and the other at 18, and if that wasn’t enough to show you that they were different events the scripture gave you further proof they were not the same event with one saying 3 months and 10 days and the other being just 3 months. And 2) You failed to perform simple arithmetic which would have led you to the same conclusion that the two verses were not the same event. You saw them being in error because you wanted to believe the scripture was in error. If you truly wanted to believe the word, you would have studied EVERY word and compared EVERY word, and would have saw the DIFFERENCES in the scripture not as error, but as more detail.

I say again…Heb. 4:12 & Ezek. 14:4 – The scripture read your heart and answered you according to your idols (CS Lewis, Aquinas, and Plato)

Also, as a mostly irrelevant aside; even if you believe the Bible is inerrant, there's still lots of passages that you can't believe in literally.

You have already determined in your heart that the scripture is wrong and that you are right.

You can’t believe the Lord….I can believe, I can believe every passage as literal, unless the scripture says otherwise. If the scripture said the sky was orange, I would believe the scripture no matter what my eyes, or science, or any other outside source told me. Because scripture is from God’s point of view NOT mine. This is not blind faith, this is believing in the written word, that I can see, hold, hear, and read. I believe God to be true and EVERY MAN a LIAR…including my own self.

The Catholics loved to use the passage from Psalms 19:6 about the sun: "It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is deprived of its warmth." as supposed "proof" that the sun revolved around the earth, and there's plenty of other, darker passages like Psalms 137:9, which gives a blessing to any man who would snatch a Babylonian baby from its mother and bashes it's brains out on the ground. That clearly don't align with God's will. Those passages don't necessarily mean the Bible is errant, it just means that some books (like Psalms) are meant as just holy poetry and not serious theological teachings. In those cases, it would be just as wrong to take them literally as it would to take some other passages symbolically, because it's wrong to use parts of the Bible outside their intended purposes, and the intended purpose of those passages is only related to music and worship.

As to Ps. 19:6, I will admit that I am not 100% sure what this verse implies. I see what it says, I don't fully understand it, but just because I do not understand it, doesn’t make it untrue or not literal. I point back to my prior statement. If God said the sky was orange then I would believe it was orange, because that is the way he sees it. Whether I believe it or not does not change what God said. I would pray over it, study it, and seek teaching. And even IF I never know for sure what it is saying, I would not question God’s view on the matter. BECAUSE does it really amount to a hill of beans if I know whether the sun is still or moves? What does that have to do with me living an everyday life that he is pleased with, or how will knowing this make me a better preacher of the gospel to lead sinners from hell to the Savior, or how will having this knowledge gain me any mercy at my eventual giving account for what I did in the body at the Judgment seat of Christ? God is interested in how big my heart is, not how big my head is.

As to the Ps. 137:9, I’m not sure where you see that God blesses a man for dashing babies. That is not what I read. I read a sad song of when Israel was carried away to Babylon, and the Psalmist prophesying against Babylon that when they get destroyed they will be done as they did to the Israelites. The Babylonians came in to Israel and were happy to dash the Israelite’s babies against the rocks. So when Babylon’s time was come to be destroyed, then the Meads and the Persians would be happy to dash the Babylonian babies against the rocks.

But I suppose this is what happens when you go back to the “original” language to get a “better” definition of an already translated and PLAIN English word. You end up turning “happy” into “blessed”. The KJV translators had enough sense to know that God wouldn’t bless any man that dashed babies to death, and therefore did not translate that word into “blessed”. But you better believe that man can become so depraved, and cruel that he would get some sick twisted enjoyment from dashing babies. So they translated it “Happy shall he be”.

So, I would once again suggest that you start reading EVERY word AS IT IS WRITTEN, and quit CHANGING what the scripture actually says to thereby further yourself in your unbelief.

CS Lewis didn't think Genesis and Job were symbolic/fictional because he believed they were in error, he just thought they were meant to be passages like Psalms and taken symbolically, not literally. As far as I know he still believed in biblical inerrancy, that part is my own 'discovery', not his. I think Jordan Peterson does think the Bible is all a myth though, (in a way that is less reverent towards the Bible than me). In that way Peterson is pretty sacreligious, but he seems to be an admirer nonetheless, and he has studied the Bible so thoroughly that sometimes he extracts lessons that you probably would have otherwise missed, and he still sometimes (inadvertently) provides teachings genuinely useful to a Christian life. Like I said, I don't approve of his attitude though, so I wouldn't call myself a fan.

 

As I said before…Cut off CS Lewis, Peterson, Aquinas, and definitely that putrefying, unsaved, wicked reprobate Plato, and turn your heart to God. If you continue to reject the truth you have been given, you will find yourself exactly where Herod found himself in Luke 23:9. God will completely ignore you. Herod had chance after chance, and the last thing he heard from the Lord before his terrible, and excruciating death (Acts 12:23) was silence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To SAB76: I think 'reprobate' is a little harsh for poor Plato, he advocated for the existence of One God even though he grew up in a pagan country and never heard of Christ or Judaism, and he was a big scholar of justice. In fact once, he described what society would do if a truly perfect and just man appeared like this: "our just man must have the worst of reputations even though he has done no wrong. So we shall be able to test his justice and see if it can stand up to unpopularity and all that goes with it; we shall give him an undeserved and lifelong reputation for wickedness, and make him stick to his chosen course until death … The just man, then, as we have pictured him, will be scourged, tortured, and imprisoned, his eyes will be put out, and after enduring every humiliation he will be crucified." That's pretty close to what actually happened when Christ appeared, which I think is pretty neat. Also, my understanding is that he was beaten and sold into slavery himself (and his friend Socrates was executed) for fighting corruption and paganism in Greece. Sure, he was not a Christian, but he also died 300 years before Christ was born and never met an Israelite so I think we ought to give him a pass on that one.

Also, to say CS Lewis taught that Genesis and Job were fables is a little strong, I think it might be more accurate to say that he tried to logically prove the existence of God and some other primary Christian principles, like the existence of miracles and the trinity, but didn't think he could prove Genesis or Job. And some of his more famous quotes include things like "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.", and " Once people stop believing in God, the problem is not that they will believe in nothing; rather, the problem is that they will believe anything. ". I think those are pretty cool sayings, and his books often had subjects like how to overcome temptations and such. He wrote a lot of christian stuff in a manner specifically to bring stubborn highbrows like me to Christ, which I think is pretty commendable.

And I think Aquinas probably would have agreed with everything you have said, I only mentioned him because he also thought Biblical principals could also be affirmed logically (that a logical person would have to eventually believe in God, because God's word is the only thing that is logical).

I'm don't think you can take any of these guy's word without question, but I think they might have been better men than you think. I think you'll definitely see Lewis and Aquinas in Heaven though, so you probably shouldn't talk so bad about them. I think Peterson is the only one you wouldn't like if you met him, but I think he might be a better man than you think too (he became famous for refusing to obey Canada's new "gender pronoun" law, and he tours around the world promoting truth and a return to traditional values). I get that I might be irritating (though I swear I don't mean to be), but I don't think any of those guys deserved to be talked down to.

But that's not really relevant to my questions, I just thought I ought to not give them a bad name.

So what's your opinion on the divorce law thing I mentioned in my last post?

Edited by Guest Mr. Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me this is a classic case of majoring in the minors. I do not mean this sarcastically or to insult, it is just how this all appears in this thread. It is all very reminiscent of encounters Christians have when witnessing door to door. Of course, this is only my personal assessment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...