Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
NewGuy - The Bible is Invalid
- Thread starter mattskramer
- Start date
5stringJeff
Senior Member
OK, Matt, I'll bite at the ORIGINAL post in this thread.
A misinterpretation of the Romans passage. In context, Paul is referring to the celebration of feasts and/or festivals, much like many Christians today celebrate Christmas and/or Easter, but some do not. It does not refer to the Sabbath at all.
First, here's the Ecclesiastes text in context (vv. 2-7):
"'Meaningless! Meaningless!'
says the Teacher.
'Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.'
What does man gain from all his labor
at which he toils under the sun?
Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.
The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.
The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.
All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again."
You'll notice the poetry here. Solomon is comparing the brevity of man's life to the contrasted longevity of the Earth, the sun, the wind, and the rain, and that, in the light of man's comparatively short life, everything seems meaningless. This is not a contradiction at all, because in many places (Peter's epistle just one of them) the Bible speaks of the eventual destruction of the Earth, when God judges the world and creates a new heaven and earth (see Revelation 21).
Again, if you read these in context instead of pulling out sound bites, you would get a better understanding of the meanings. The Genesis quote is from Jacob/Israel, after he wrestles with God, who had taken the form of a man. This was not God in His full glory, which no one is able to see (see Exodus 33:18-20).
I think it's very obvious, reading this in context, that the "he" is Judah, not God.
The first Scripture here is part of the OT law which laid out punishments for various crimes. Jesus is talking about the moral law by which Christians should live; i.e. we should not seek out revenge, because it is God's place to avenge. Apples and oranges.
Circumcision was mandated by the OT Law as a sign of the OT covenant. The new covenant, established by Jesus's death and resurrection, does not require circumcision. However, there were many Jews in Galatia who argued that circumcision was necessary to be a Christian. Paul argues throughout the letter that circumcision is not necessary.
See http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1997/4/4sins97.html for an explanation of this "contradiction." Final paragraph from that page: "The Scriptures tell us that the son cannot be punished for the sins of the father. The son can be punished, however, if he commits the same sin as his father even if he does so only because that is what his father taught him to do. The son can also suffer from the consequences of his father's sin. Sin can be pervasive and its effects far reaching." (Emphasis mine - this is the main gist of the argument.)
Every other translation of the Bible except the King James Version (which you have used exclusively here) uses the word "test" for the Genesis verse. Maybe in 1611, tempt and test had very similar conotations; in 2004, they do not, and so you have (probably inadvertently) twisted this verse into something it is not. I will say, though, that nowhere does it say that God will never test us, or allow us to be tested.
One of the most frequently brought up verses. Nowhere in His ministry does Jesus suggest that we hate people. What He is saying is that our dedication to Christ should be so huge that it should shadow the love for our families, and even our wives (or husbands), in comparison.
Again, you omit words that lend understanding to the meaning of the passage. Here's the Job verse, in context:
"Remember that my life is a breath;
my eye will never again see good.
The eye of him who sees me will behold me no more;
while your eyes are on me, I shall be gone.
As the cloud fades and vanishes,
so he who goes down to Sheol does not come up;
he returns no more to his house,
nor does his place know him anymore."
Job states that those who go down into "Sheol" will not come up. Sheol was the Hebrew netherworld, something like hell and/or purgatory. It was a place where the unrighteous went after death, where there was no more hope of life. It does not refer to natural (physical) death; it refers to spiritual death. The verse in John, however, clearly refers to physical death.
This is a widely debated passage, but the most reasonable interpretation is that the "generation" is the age of Christianity; that Christianity will not die out before Christ's return. See Psalm 24 for a similar rendering of the word "generation."
I'm going to refer you to (and quote from) http://www.tektonics.org/prayfor.html because he does a much better job of explaining this: "...the person with faith does not ask for that which God would not or does not will; prayer is a two-way street, not a request hotline for all that we want."
"Finally, let us note that limitations are clearly set by the context. The Lord's Prayer instructs us to pray for daily needs (Matt. 6:11) -- it does not say, "Give us this day a Rolls Royce.""
"This leads to 1 John 5:14-15, which was written to Gentile readers, and thus it is appropriate that John added the qualifying phrase, "according to his will" -- such a qualifier would have been unnecessary for Jesus' Jewish audience. It would go without saying that that mountain (even a literal one) would go nowhere without God's approval implied. Indeed, the rabbinic use of the same verbiage which we have noted confirms this. Matthew does indicate this limitation when he notes that the context is what is asked for in prayer -- thus limiting requests to what is within the will of God."
"The bottom line: These passages are not magical mantras, and should not be used as such."
Consider the following blatant contradictions:
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." -- Exodus 20:8
"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." -- Romans 14:5
A misinterpretation of the Romans passage. In context, Paul is referring to the celebration of feasts and/or festivals, much like many Christians today celebrate Christmas and/or Easter, but some do not. It does not refer to the Sabbath at all.
"... the earth abideth for ever." -- Ecclesiastes 1:4
"... the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." -- 2Peter 3:10
First, here's the Ecclesiastes text in context (vv. 2-7):
"'Meaningless! Meaningless!'
says the Teacher.
'Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.'
What does man gain from all his labor
at which he toils under the sun?
Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.
The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.
The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.
All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again."
You'll notice the poetry here. Solomon is comparing the brevity of man's life to the contrasted longevity of the Earth, the sun, the wind, and the rain, and that, in the light of man's comparatively short life, everything seems meaningless. This is not a contradiction at all, because in many places (Peter's epistle just one of them) the Bible speaks of the eventual destruction of the Earth, when God judges the world and creates a new heaven and earth (see Revelation 21).
"... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30
"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18
Again, if you read these in context instead of pulling out sound bites, you would get a better understanding of the meanings. The Genesis quote is from Jacob/Israel, after he wrestles with God, who had taken the form of a man. This was not God in His full glory, which no one is able to see (see Exodus 33:18-20).
"... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26
"...The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19
I think it's very obvious, reading this in context, that the "he" is Judah, not God.
"...thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. " -- Exodus 21:23-25
"...ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." -- Matthew 5:39
The first Scripture here is part of the OT law which laid out punishments for various crimes. Jesus is talking about the moral law by which Christians should live; i.e. we should not seek out revenge, because it is God's place to avenge. Apples and oranges.
"This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised." -- Genesis 17:10
"...if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." -- Galatians 5:2
Circumcision was mandated by the OT Law as a sign of the OT covenant. The new covenant, established by Jesus's death and resurrection, does not require circumcision. However, there were many Jews in Galatia who argued that circumcision was necessary to be a Christian. Paul argues throughout the letter that circumcision is not necessary.
"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20
"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5
See http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1997/4/4sins97.html for an explanation of this "contradiction." Final paragraph from that page: "The Scriptures tell us that the son cannot be punished for the sins of the father. The son can be punished, however, if he commits the same sin as his father even if he does so only because that is what his father taught him to do. The son can also suffer from the consequences of his father's sin. Sin can be pervasive and its effects far reaching." (Emphasis mine - this is the main gist of the argument.)
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." -- James 1:13
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." -- Genesis 22:1
Every other translation of the Bible except the King James Version (which you have used exclusively here) uses the word "test" for the Genesis verse. Maybe in 1611, tempt and test had very similar conotations; in 2004, they do not, and so you have (probably inadvertently) twisted this verse into something it is not. I will say, though, that nowhere does it say that God will never test us, or allow us to be tested.
"Honor thy father and thy mother..."-- Exodus 20:12
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. " -- Luke 14:26
One of the most frequently brought up verses. Nowhere in His ministry does Jesus suggest that we hate people. What He is saying is that our dedication to Christ should be so huge that it should shadow the love for our families, and even our wives (or husbands), in comparison.
"...he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. " -- Job 7:9
"...the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth...." -- John 5:28-29
Again, you omit words that lend understanding to the meaning of the passage. Here's the Job verse, in context:
"Remember that my life is a breath;
my eye will never again see good.
The eye of him who sees me will behold me no more;
while your eyes are on me, I shall be gone.
As the cloud fades and vanishes,
so he who goes down to Sheol does not come up;
he returns no more to his house,
nor does his place know him anymore."
Job states that those who go down into "Sheol" will not come up. Sheol was the Hebrew netherworld, something like hell and/or purgatory. It was a place where the unrighteous went after death, where there was no more hope of life. It does not refer to natural (physical) death; it refers to spiritual death. The verse in John, however, clearly refers to physical death.
Here are a couple of broken promises:
Verily I [Jesus] say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things [the end of the world] be fulfilled." (Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32)
Uh...I think that practically everyone within Jesus' generation has died.
This is a widely debated passage, but the most reasonable interpretation is that the "generation" is the age of Christianity; that Christianity will not die out before Christ's return. See Psalm 24 for a similar rendering of the word "generation."
"And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive." (Matthew 21:22)
Oh how I used to believe as an impressionable young child and oh how I wish the above passage were true. Ha.
I'm going to refer you to (and quote from) http://www.tektonics.org/prayfor.html because he does a much better job of explaining this: "...the person with faith does not ask for that which God would not or does not will; prayer is a two-way street, not a request hotline for all that we want."
"Finally, let us note that limitations are clearly set by the context. The Lord's Prayer instructs us to pray for daily needs (Matt. 6:11) -- it does not say, "Give us this day a Rolls Royce.""
"This leads to 1 John 5:14-15, which was written to Gentile readers, and thus it is appropriate that John added the qualifying phrase, "according to his will" -- such a qualifier would have been unnecessary for Jesus' Jewish audience. It would go without saying that that mountain (even a literal one) would go nowhere without God's approval implied. Indeed, the rabbinic use of the same verbiage which we have noted confirms this. Matthew does indicate this limitation when he notes that the context is what is asked for in prayer -- thus limiting requests to what is within the will of God."
"The bottom line: These passages are not magical mantras, and should not be used as such."
Hobbit
Senior Member
That is it! the idea that we can make those sins and then pray to make it better, it is ruining us. Christ didn't die so we could abuse our privelige to dump our burden on him.
You're right. The concept of "once saved, always saved," is bad for the spirit, as well as the idea that God forgives everything upon request. However, the New Testament calls for repentance, and the word repentance, along with the Greek word it was translated from, implies not only a feeling of guilt, but a desire to keep from sinning again. It isn't repentance if you ask for forgiveness with the intention of performing the same sin again. It is repentence if you try to never sin that way again, even if you mess up and do it again, anyway, which almost always happens.
Still, one thing we have to remember is that Jesus is the only way to heaven, and man cannot save himself. It's like a race between you and Michael Phelps (world record, 400m IM) from New York to London. Neither of you is going to make it, even though Micahel Phelps is the best in the world. Jesus isn't helping us because we're worthy, he's helping us because we need it.
As for the hypocrites, every church has them, but I Corinthians actually has a method for confronting them, involving sharing your concerns with them individually, then confronting them in a group, then bringing it before the pastor. The last, most desperate step is, to put it simply, excommunication. However, unlike Catholic excommunication, the next step is to try to convince them to give up their old ways and come back to the church, just like you should do with a non-Christian. Right now, many churches have noticed the inherant flaws in the way they do things, and are trying to reform. I'm actually a part of the college organization "Chi Alpha" that is supposed to spearhead the reform of the Assemblies of God missions program, the largest missionary program in the world (yes, we even beat the Mormons).
- Moderator
- #104
Wanted to comment on a few
Well if you could read the verse correctly you really wouldnt have a problem. This Generation Christ was refering to wasnt his. This generation that shall not pass till all these things are fulfilled is the generation in which the signs he was talking about the entire chapter happened. It really doesnt take that much thought.
Also regardless there is in some circle the belief that John the Revelator did not die. An idea suggested ambiguiously at the end of the Gospel of John, so if John is still alive then not everyone within Jesus' generation is dead. But as thats a stretch and answer is obvious if you take like half a second to read the chapter in context its a moot point.
I should point out that Christ here was talking to the Apostles. Were you an Apostle as a young child? Have you ever dedicated yourself to Christ and exercised your faith enough to show the faith to recieve? Faith is more than just a passive believe, its an active belief, you do things to show faith.
Verily I [Jesus] say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things [the end of the world] be fulfilled." (Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32)
Uh...I think that practically everyone within Jesus' generation has died.
Well if you could read the verse correctly you really wouldnt have a problem. This Generation Christ was refering to wasnt his. This generation that shall not pass till all these things are fulfilled is the generation in which the signs he was talking about the entire chapter happened. It really doesnt take that much thought.
Also regardless there is in some circle the belief that John the Revelator did not die. An idea suggested ambiguiously at the end of the Gospel of John, so if John is still alive then not everyone within Jesus' generation is dead. But as thats a stretch and answer is obvious if you take like half a second to read the chapter in context its a moot point.
"And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive." (Matthew 21:22)
Oh how I used to believe as an impressionable young child and oh how I wish the above passage were true. Ha.
I should point out that Christ here was talking to the Apostles. Were you an Apostle as a young child? Have you ever dedicated yourself to Christ and exercised your faith enough to show the faith to recieve? Faith is more than just a passive believe, its an active belief, you do things to show faith.
mattskramer
Senior Member
- Thread starter
- #105
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." -- Exodus 20:8
"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." -- Romans 14:5
You said that there is a misinterpretation of the Romans passage. In context, Paul is referring to the celebration of feasts and/or festivals, much like many Christians today celebrate Christmas and/or Easter, but some do not. It does not refer to the Sabbath at all.
There is no disclaimer or further clarification by Paul that he speaks of yearly events or weekly events. It looks as though you are reading stuff into there Bible that is not there.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"... the earth abideth for ever." -- Ecclesiastes 1:4
"... the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." -- 2Peter 3:10
You said that Solomon is comparing the brevity of man's life to the contrasted longevity of the Earth, the sun, the wind, and the rain, and that, in the light of man's comparatively short life, everything seems meaningless. That may be true. It still does not resolve the issue of the earth's eternal existence. In small stage of melancholy, did Solomon say something that was not technically correct, or is Peter wrong? Either the earth exists forever or it does not.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30
"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18
You said that the Genesis quote is from Jacob/Israel, after he wrestles with God, who had taken the form of a man. Okay. I read the entire chapter. God took the form of a man. It is still reasonable to conclude that even as a Man, God would be all powerful. Yet, as weak as Jacob was, we was so able to overpower the God/Man that this God/Man practically asked to be released. Wow. Was this a dream or was God that weak? Your answer leads to more unanswered questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"...thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. " -- Exodus 21:23-25
"...ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." -- Matthew 5:39
You said that the first Scripture here is part of the OT law which laid out punishments for various crimes. Jesus is talking about the moral law by which Christians should live; i.e. we should not seek out revenge, because it is God's place to avenge. God change his mind and declare the old law null and void? Is Matthew 5 merely a recommendation or is it as important as the OT law. You said that we should not seek revenge. Yet, are we allowed to seek revenge? Imagine what would become of our justice system if everyone followed this rule or recommendation? After a very short time, no one would have any unsmited cheeks. No, Your comment does not clarify the issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised." -- Genesis 17:10
"...if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." -- Galatians 5:2
You said that circumcision was mandated by the OT Law as a sign of the OT covenant. The new covenant, established by Jesus' death and resurrection, does not require circumcision. However, there were many Jews in Galatia who argued that circumcision was necessary to be a Christian. Paul argues throughout the letter that circumcision is not necessary.
Again, it is as though God/Jesus changed his mind. It used to be that people had to be circumcised but that it no longer a requirement. Wow. How many rules and laws do those who wish to be saved no longer have to observe?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Honor thy father and thy mother..."-- Exodus 20:12
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. " -- Luke 14:26
You said that nowhere in His ministry does Jesus suggest that we hate people. Yet, even in the New International Version the word hate is used in the Luke 14:26 passage.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. " -- Job 7:9
"...the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth...." -- John 5:28-29
You sand that Job states that those who go down into "Sheol" will not come up. Sheol was the Hebrew netherworld, something like hell and/or purgatory. If such were the case, wouldn't the Bible translators have been careful enough to use the correct term? I have heard that those early translators of the Bible were so devout and careful not to make any errors. Were they led by God to translate the original scriptures carefully?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verily I [Jesus] say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things [the end of the world] be fulfilled." (Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32)
Uh...I think that practically everyone within Jesus' generation has died.
You said that the most reasonable interpretation is that the "generation" is the age of Christianity; that Christianity will not die out before Christ's return. See Psalm 24 for a similar rendering of the word "generation." I think that this is a "cop-out" meant to create consistency where there was no consistency. The definition of a "generation" (All of the offspring that are at the same stage of descent from a common ancestor) is far from the definition of "Christianity". I grant you that as I glanced at Psalm 24, I didn't find a reference to "generation". Please quote the specific passage.
"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." -- Romans 14:5
You said that there is a misinterpretation of the Romans passage. In context, Paul is referring to the celebration of feasts and/or festivals, much like many Christians today celebrate Christmas and/or Easter, but some do not. It does not refer to the Sabbath at all.
There is no disclaimer or further clarification by Paul that he speaks of yearly events or weekly events. It looks as though you are reading stuff into there Bible that is not there.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"... the earth abideth for ever." -- Ecclesiastes 1:4
"... the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." -- 2Peter 3:10
You said that Solomon is comparing the brevity of man's life to the contrasted longevity of the Earth, the sun, the wind, and the rain, and that, in the light of man's comparatively short life, everything seems meaningless. That may be true. It still does not resolve the issue of the earth's eternal existence. In small stage of melancholy, did Solomon say something that was not technically correct, or is Peter wrong? Either the earth exists forever or it does not.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30
"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18
You said that the Genesis quote is from Jacob/Israel, after he wrestles with God, who had taken the form of a man. Okay. I read the entire chapter. God took the form of a man. It is still reasonable to conclude that even as a Man, God would be all powerful. Yet, as weak as Jacob was, we was so able to overpower the God/Man that this God/Man practically asked to be released. Wow. Was this a dream or was God that weak? Your answer leads to more unanswered questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"...thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. " -- Exodus 21:23-25
"...ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." -- Matthew 5:39
You said that the first Scripture here is part of the OT law which laid out punishments for various crimes. Jesus is talking about the moral law by which Christians should live; i.e. we should not seek out revenge, because it is God's place to avenge. God change his mind and declare the old law null and void? Is Matthew 5 merely a recommendation or is it as important as the OT law. You said that we should not seek revenge. Yet, are we allowed to seek revenge? Imagine what would become of our justice system if everyone followed this rule or recommendation? After a very short time, no one would have any unsmited cheeks. No, Your comment does not clarify the issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised." -- Genesis 17:10
"...if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." -- Galatians 5:2
You said that circumcision was mandated by the OT Law as a sign of the OT covenant. The new covenant, established by Jesus' death and resurrection, does not require circumcision. However, there were many Jews in Galatia who argued that circumcision was necessary to be a Christian. Paul argues throughout the letter that circumcision is not necessary.
Again, it is as though God/Jesus changed his mind. It used to be that people had to be circumcised but that it no longer a requirement. Wow. How many rules and laws do those who wish to be saved no longer have to observe?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Honor thy father and thy mother..."-- Exodus 20:12
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. " -- Luke 14:26
You said that nowhere in His ministry does Jesus suggest that we hate people. Yet, even in the New International Version the word hate is used in the Luke 14:26 passage.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. " -- Job 7:9
"...the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth...." -- John 5:28-29
You sand that Job states that those who go down into "Sheol" will not come up. Sheol was the Hebrew netherworld, something like hell and/or purgatory. If such were the case, wouldn't the Bible translators have been careful enough to use the correct term? I have heard that those early translators of the Bible were so devout and careful not to make any errors. Were they led by God to translate the original scriptures carefully?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verily I [Jesus] say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things [the end of the world] be fulfilled." (Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32)
Uh...I think that practically everyone within Jesus' generation has died.
You said that the most reasonable interpretation is that the "generation" is the age of Christianity; that Christianity will not die out before Christ's return. See Psalm 24 for a similar rendering of the word "generation." I think that this is a "cop-out" meant to create consistency where there was no consistency. The definition of a "generation" (All of the offspring that are at the same stage of descent from a common ancestor) is far from the definition of "Christianity". I grant you that as I glanced at Psalm 24, I didn't find a reference to "generation". Please quote the specific passage.
mattskramer
Senior Member
- Thread starter
- #106
States derive their power - in the forms of representation in Congress, electoral votes, etc., according to their respective populations. Higher population=more representation=more power. Slave states would have been only too glad to count black slaves on a 1:1 ratio with the rest of their population. Using a segment of their head count which enjoyed no rights, no recourse, and no representation, they would have strengthened themselves, and, by logical extension, the institution of slavery itself. The abolitionists refused to allow this. Due to the lateness of the hour, and the rapidly nearing British, the three-fifths compromise was struck. The abolitionists knew that, once the question of U.S. independence was settled (one way or the other), the slavery issue would come to a head very soon after. It did, in fewer than a hundred years - the historical equivalent of the blink of an eye.
Uh. Explain this to me like I'm a 12-year-old. Is it that if slaves would have been allowed a 1:1 ratio with the rest of the population, they would have voted for representatives that would have them continue to live as slaves? This just does not make sense. Ones who have more voting power, by definition would have more rights, more recourse, and more representation.
Uh. Explain this to me like I'm a 12-year-old. Is it that if slaves would have been allowed a 1:1 ratio with the rest of the population, they would have voted for representatives that would have them continue to live as slaves? This just does not make sense. Ones who have more voting power, by definition would have more rights, more recourse, and more representation.
Hobbit
Senior Member
mattskramer said:States derive their power - in the forms of representation in Congress, electoral votes, etc., according to their respective populations. Higher population=more representation=more power. Slave states would have been only too glad to count black slaves on a 1:1 ratio with the rest of their population. Using a segment of their head count which enjoyed no rights, no recourse, and no representation, they would have strengthened themselves, and, by logical extension, the institution of slavery itself. The abolitionists refused to allow this. Due to the lateness of the hour, and the rapidly nearing British, the three-fifths compromise was struck. The abolitionists knew that, once the question of U.S. independence was settled (one way or the other), the slavery issue would come to a head very soon after. It did, in fewer than a hundred years - the historical equivalent of the blink of an eye.
Uh. Explain this to me like I'm a 12-year-old. Is it that if slaves would have been allowed a 1:1 ratio with the rest of the population, they would have voted for representatives that would have them continue to live as slaves? This just does not make sense. Ones who have more voting power, by definition would have more rights, more recourse, and more representation.
Ok, basically, the states with a lot of slaves wanted slaves to count as 1 person for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives. The states without a lot of slaves said that this means they should be people for terms of taxation as well, in order to get the more slave-ridden states to back off the resolution, and they did a little. To end the debate, Congress enacted the 3/5 rule, counting slaves as 3/5 of a person for purposes of both taxation and representation. This event was known as the 3/5 comprimise. The founding fathers were not perfect, and knew the issue of slavery would evetually have to be addressed directly, but it was too tough of an issue for them to deal with while founding a new nation, so many acts, such as this comprimise, were enacted to delay the inevitible until such a time that it could be dealt with.
Hobbit
Senior Member
mattskramer said:"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." -- Exodus 20:8
"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." -- Romans 14:5
You said that there is a misinterpretation of the Romans passage. In context, Paul is referring to the celebration of feasts and/or festivals, much like many Christians today celebrate Christmas and/or Easter, but some do not. It does not refer to the Sabbath at all.
There is no disclaimer or further clarification by Paul that he speaks of yearly events or weekly events. It looks as though you are reading stuff into there Bible that is not there.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"... the earth abideth for ever." -- Ecclesiastes 1:4
"... the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." -- 2Peter 3:10
You said that Solomon is comparing the brevity of man's life to the contrasted longevity of the Earth, the sun, the wind, and the rain, and that, in the light of man's comparatively short life, everything seems meaningless. That may be true. It still does not resolve the issue of the earth's eternal existence. In small stage of melancholy, did Solomon say something that was not technically correct, or is Peter wrong? Either the earth exists forever or it does not.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30
"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18
You said that the Genesis quote is from Jacob/Israel, after he wrestles with God, who had taken the form of a man. Okay. I read the entire chapter. God took the form of a man. It is still reasonable to conclude that even as a Man, God would be all powerful. Yet, as weak as Jacob was, we was so able to overpower the God/Man that this God/Man practically asked to be released. Wow. Was this a dream or was God that weak? Your answer leads to more unanswered questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"...thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. " -- Exodus 21:23-25
"...ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." -- Matthew 5:39
You said that the first Scripture here is part of the OT law which laid out punishments for various crimes. Jesus is talking about the moral law by which Christians should live; i.e. we should not seek out revenge, because it is God's place to avenge. God change his mind and declare the old law null and void? Is Matthew 5 merely a recommendation or is it as important as the OT law. You said that we should not seek revenge. Yet, are we allowed to seek revenge? Imagine what would become of our justice system if everyone followed this rule or recommendation? After a very short time, no one would have any unsmited cheeks. No, Your comment does not clarify the issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised." -- Genesis 17:10
"...if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." -- Galatians 5:2
You said that circumcision was mandated by the OT Law as a sign of the OT covenant. The new covenant, established by Jesus' death and resurrection, does not require circumcision. However, there were many Jews in Galatia who argued that circumcision was necessary to be a Christian. Paul argues throughout the letter that circumcision is not necessary.
Again, it is as though God/Jesus changed his mind. It used to be that people had to be circumcised but that it no longer a requirement. Wow. How many rules and laws do those who wish to be saved no longer have to observe?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Honor thy father and thy mother..."-- Exodus 20:12
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. " -- Luke 14:26
You said that nowhere in His ministry does Jesus suggest that we hate people. Yet, even in the New International Version the word hate is used in the Luke 14:26 passage.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. " -- Job 7:9
"...the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth...." -- John 5:28-29
You sand that Job states that those who go down into "Sheol" will not come up. Sheol was the Hebrew netherworld, something like hell and/or purgatory. If such were the case, wouldn't the Bible translators have been careful enough to use the correct term? I have heard that those early translators of the Bible were so devout and careful not to make any errors. Were they led by God to translate the original scriptures carefully?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verily I [Jesus] say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things [the end of the world] be fulfilled." (Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32)
Uh...I think that practically everyone within Jesus' generation has died.
You said that the most reasonable interpretation is that the "generation" is the age of Christianity; that Christianity will not die out before Christ's return. See Psalm 24 for a similar rendering of the word "generation." I think that this is a "cop-out" meant to create consistency where there was no consistency. The definition of a "generation" (All of the offspring that are at the same stage of descent from a common ancestor) is far from the definition of "Christianity". I grant you that as I glanced at Psalm 24, I didn't find a reference to "generation". Please quote the specific passage.
I could educate you on the political, social, and ethical context surrounding all of these verses in order to make you understand that they're not actually contradiction. However, it's like my dad always said, "Son, there's no point arguing with somebody you have to educate first." Seriously, if you look at those verses in the proper historical context (as well as looking up footnotes regarding errors in translation, as well as the deeper meaning of some of the words in the original passage), as well as taking the Bible as a whole instead of the sum of its parts, your hard-wired, liberal, anti-Bible brain might actually figure out that there are NO contradictions in the Bible.
mattskramer said:Uh. Explain this to me like I'm a 12-year-old. Is it that if slaves would have been allowed a 1:1 ratio with the rest of the population, they would have voted for representatives that would have them continue to live as slaves? This just does not make sense. Ones who have more voting power, by definition would have more rights, more recourse, and more representation.
I don't think I need to explain anything to you as if you were a twelve-year old. You're obviously intelligent (although I often perceive you as obstinate and unwilling to hear). However, we need to choose our words with care. As Rush Limbaugh cautions us, "words mean things". I think the word, "allowed" is tripping you up.
The part of your sentence which reads, "...if slaves would have been allowed a 1:1 ratio..." is misleading. You're assuming that equal representation would have given them a voice in government. Slaves weren't going to be ALLOWED anything. The only beneficiaries of that kind of equality were going to be the slave states, and, by logical extension, the institution of slavery itself.
In that light, then, can you see the noble and farsighted nature of the three-fifths rule? That's why I get so angry at the racial hucksters who try to use it as proof of the "inherent racism" of the founding fathers. If they, as self-appointed "leaders of their people", don't know better, they should - which makes them either appallingly ignorant or shamefully, self-servingly dishonest.
greeneyez1029
Member
- Jul 20, 2004
- 56
- 3
- 6
mattskramer said:Consider the following blatant contradictions:
-----------------------------------
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." -- Exodus 20:8
"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." --
Romans 14:5
--------------------------------------
"... the earth abideth for ever." -- Ecclesiastes 1:4
"... the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." -- 2Peter 3:10
-------------------------------------------------
"... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30
"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18
--------------------------------------------
"... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26
"...The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19
------------------------------
"...thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. " -- Exodus 21:23-25
"...ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." -- Matthew 5:39
-----------------------------------------
"This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised." -- Genesis 17:10
"...if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." -- Galatians 5:2
-----------------------------------
"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20
"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5
-------------------------------------------
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." -- James 1:13
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." -- Genesis 22:1
---------------------------
"Honor thy father and thy mother..."-- Exodus 20:12
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. " -- Luke 14:26
------------------------------------
"...he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. " -- Job 7:9
"...the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth...." -- John 5:28-29
----------------------------------------
Here are a couple of broken promises:
Verily I [Jesus] say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things [the end of the world] be fulfilled." (Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32)
Uh...I think that practically everyone within Jesus' generation has died.
"And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive." (Matthew 21:22)
Oh how I used to believe as an impressionable young child and oh how I wish the above passage were true. Ha.
---------------------------------
Anyway, there are many more examples but these are the clearest and most blatant. Therefore the Bible is invalid. Yet, I'll return to the issue of homosexual marriage. It does not really matter whether or not the Bible is valid. There are atheists and agnostics. People need not believe the Bible. Those that choose to believe the Bible may still choose to sin and face damnation. The bottom line is that in general people should be free to do as they please as long as they don't interfere with the freedom of others. Good-bye for now.
==================
Matt there is a difference between reading scripture and understanding it.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Replies
- 24
- Views
- 382
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 193
- Replies
- 56
- Views
- 822
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 13
- Views
- 143
- Replies
- 220
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 69
- Views
- 451
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8040
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-