Ask the Christian...................

[-Cp]

I think it's clear, not just from Revelation but from the Gospels, that those who die without salvation from Jesus can expect to be sentenced to hell, which is a place in which souls are punished through fire.

Right - and what's the greek-word for Hell? Ghenna? Wasn't that a place outside of Jeresulem where they dumped their garbage?

Again - no answer to my question - if "the lost" are tossed into torment - is it for all eternity? If so, where does it say that in the Bible?

 

[-Cp]

Because a day is coming soon when you will be asked to surrender your allegiance to satan. He will seem like a great guy. He will be a world leader. He will unify the world after a coming war, and after America has been devastated by tsunamis generated by asteroids. You will be asked to swear allegiance to his new world religion, and to accept an chip into your body, that will be your account number in the global commerce system, which he will control. If you resist you must have a plan to survive, a connection to an underground community, to help you survive.

You choose your fate at this point. If you accept the chip, you are condemned to hell. The other way leads to god.

www.rif.org

So does accepting a chip invalidate your salvation? I thought the only "unforgiveable sin" was blashpemy of the Holy Spirit?

 

[manu1959]

if the cradel of civilization is the middle east...and that is where the garden of eden was...and if all that exists came from there...why is it the the bible is assuemd to be the only correct teaching of the creation of man....what if .....

 

[-Cp]

if the cradel of civilization is the middle east...and that is where the garden of eden was...and if all that exists came from there...why is it the the bible is assuemd to be the only correct teaching of the creation of man....what if .....

The Bible is not "assumed to be" - it IS the only correct teaching...

Obviously, a vast amount of time has passed since the Bible was first penned. So, how do we know that the Bible is reliable?

The Bible is a historical document. Interestingly enough, if you subject it to the same tests that you subject other historical documents to, you’ll discover that the Bible proves itself to be far superior to any other ancient writing.

First, let’s look at the New Testament which, incidentally, was originally written in the Greek language between 50 and 100 A.D. Although we don’t have the original autographs, there are presently some 5,000 Greek manuscripts in existence, with as many as 25,000 more copies. Just as amazing is the fact that the earliest manuscripts can be dated back as far as 120 A.D. This is tremendous when you consider that only seven of Plato’s manuscripts are in existence today — and there’s a 1,300-year gap which separates the earliest copy from the original writing! Equally amazing is another fact; and that is, that the New Testament has been virtually unaltered. This has been demonstrated by scholars who have compared the earliest written manuscripts with manuscripts written centuries later. And remember, the accounts in the New Testament were recorded directly by eyewitnesses, (or by those who were associated with them) and in fact had close contact with the events themselves.

But what about the Old Testament? Let’s take a quick look at one of the most incredible finds of the century — the Dead Sea Scrolls. With the discovery of these manuscripts at Qumran in 1946, texts were found that were about 1,000 years older than any previously-known Old Testament manuscript. And when compared with the later texts, these writings proved to be virtually identical.

With every turn of the archaeologist’s spade, we see further evidence of Scripture’s trustworthiness. Such renowned and historical scholars as William Albright and Sir Frederick Kenyon have clearly testified that the findings of archaeology have served to underscore the authenticity of the Bible. Well, is the Bible reliable? I believe the evidence speaks for itself. And with that, I rest my case.

 

[-Cp]

No more comments on this thread eh? gop_jeff??

 

[MJDuncan1982]

The Bible is not "assumed to be" - it IS the only correct teaching...

Humans are fallible and if it were this easy, Christianity would have done away with all other religions a long time ago.l

The fact that the historical aspects of the book are correct does not mean that all the aspects of it are correct as well. I could write a book today involving history and make some pretty wild claims - 2000 years from now someone would be saying: "hey, his history is right...rest my case"

 

[-Cp]

Humans are fallible and if it were this easy, Christianity would have done away with all other religions a long time ago.l

The fact that the historical aspects of the book are correct does not mean that all the aspects of it are correct as well. I could write a book today involving history and make some pretty wild claims - 2000 years from now someone would be saying: "hey, his history is right...rest my case"

Many people agree that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but is it exclusively inspired? What about the Upanishads? Or the Koran?

If the Bible is truly inspired by God, then it follows that it is trustworthy and authoritative in every area it covers (including matters of history and theology). It simply doesn’t make any sense to acknowledge that the Bible is God’s revelation to mankind and at the same time hold that its message is unreliable.

However, if we’re to take the Bible very seriously, we also need to realize that its claims conflict with other works that many people deem to be inspired as well. For example the Upanishads — which are part of the Hindu scriptures — teach that the world is God, of course the Bible says exactly the opposite. Also, while the Tripitaka, the sacred writings of Buddhism — prescribes morality, meditation, and wisdom as solutions to suffering, the Bible points to Jesus Christ and His finished work on the cross as the only real answer to man’s deepest problems including suffering. And while the Bible centers on Christ’s death on the cross and resurrection, the Koran for example — Islam’s holy book — denies Christ’s crucifixion.

As it stands, the Bible is clearly at odds with the sacred writings of the world’s religions. And while, of course, it’s logically acceptable for someone to believe that one of the writings is inspired, it makes absolutely no sense at all to believe that they’re all inspired, since their claims and statements are in many cases mutually exclusive. If we are to regard the Bible as being truly inspired by God, we can only conclude that he had no hand whatsoever in these other writings. To profess otherwise is to mischaracterize God as someone who Himself is full of contradictions and inconsistencies. Now, I want to make it absolutely clear that the Bible alone gives us the answer for living successfully in this life and the life to come. In fact the Bible says, “These things are written that you may know that you have eternal life.” The Bible is the only answer, and the Bible alone is the inspired Word of God.

 

[dmp]

duane, how about YOUR words, not words you copy and paste

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No more comments on this thread eh? gop_jeff??

Why not?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So does accepting a chip invalidate your salvation? I thought the only "unforgiveable sin" was blashpemy of the Holy Spirit?

I would say yes, according to this paradigm.

 

[-Cp]

duane, how about YOUR words, not words you copy and paste

What's that supposed to mean?

 

[-Cp]

I would say yes, according to this paradigm.

So when the Bible says that the "ONLY Unforgivable Sin is Blashpemy of the Holy Spirit" - it's lying?

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Many people agree that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but is it exclusively inspired? What about the Upanishads? Or the Koran?

If the Bible is truly inspired by God, then it follows that it is trustworthy and authoritative in every area it covers (including matters of history and theology). It simply doesn’t make any sense to acknowledge that the Bible is God’s revelation to mankind and at the same time hold that its message is unreliable.

Well of course it makes no sense to not believe the Bible if you think it is inspired by God. I thought you were saying that because the Bible is historically accurate, it is accurate in relation to its religious claims.

 

[Said1]

What's that supposed to mean?

http://www.equip.org/free/CP0208.htm

 

[MJDuncan1982]

http://www.equip.org/free/CP0208.htm

Nice find - however, you sure he didn't write on that site as well?

 

[Said1]

Nice find - however, you sure he didn't write on that site as well?

I don't know.

http://www.jesuskeeps.com/bible1e.html

 

[-Cp]

I don't know.

http://www.jesuskeeps.com/bible1e.html

It doesn't matter who wrote it - it's truth in what it says is the same regardless...

 

[Said1]

It doesn't matter who wrote it - it's truth in what it says is the same regardless...

Yes, actually it does matter. Quote your sources, what's the big deal?

 

[-Cp]

Yes, actually it does matter. Quote your sources, what's the big deal?

No.. it doesn't matter.....

That's like saying if you quote a Bible verse w/o saying which one it is - negates its truth...

 

[-Cp]

Anywho......

This thread has gone way off topic (as I suspected it would) ......