What Do You Think About This Christian End Times Video?

[james bond]

If I cut off my finger I'm still me. If I remove or replace any part of me, other than my brain, I'm still me. Seems obvious.

Okay, it may be obvious to you, but not to me. First, I like all my body parts and want to keep them. Who wants to live without a leg or arm?

Second, wouldn't losing something affect your brain such as not being able to walk anymore and then I have to get around in a stroller or chair.

Do you have children? Are they part of you? I have two. They seem like a part of me now. I don't want to lose them.

So one may still be their soul, but something negative would have affected them. They may not be the same personality anymore.

Theologically complete, accurate, and infallible maybe, historically complete, accurate, and infallible, not even close. You're probably right the Bible can answer all questions but it usually provides a series of answers to choose from.

Assuming this is what you believe, i.e. worldview, then the Bible tells us what happened so that everything including the universe, Earth, and that which is in it is here. It gives me the answer to whether there was a big bang, multiverses, aliens, whether we will be multi-planetary, and so on. Now, it may not specifically say something such as are we going to find some microbial life on Mars, but we can get the gist of it. The Bible isn't and can't be a science book or else people wouldn't have understood it when there was no science. I don't think it provides a series of answers to choose from. The easy parts are the Psalms. The science parts are Genesis. The difficult parts are Matthew or with Jesus' teachings. The parts we do not totally understand are the prophecies. We understand the one that have happened already, but don't understand those which have not happened.

Paul would agree with you, Matthew would not.

Okay, I can accept that. Paul, when he was Saul of Tarsus, was more than a Jewish lawyer, but the one who enforced the law. He sent many Christians to their deaths. His conversion was important for us Christians who lived around his time. It allowed me to keep my arms, legs, more of my appendages, and not be staked to a tree.

Saul of Tarsus, terrorist, christian, Pharisee

As for Matthew, he was a tax collector and probably lived a nice life working for the Romans. Many Christians and people hated him as he could enact unfair taxes upon you.

More here:
Who was Matthew in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org

If I wanted to follow Satan, how would I do that? Or is it just not following God?

Is Satan right? We're made in God's image, we have free will, we judge others and, way too often, kill them. That all seems god-like to me.

Oh, you mean to be like God? Well, the Bible says Satan tempts while God warns. One could start by giving in to his temptations. Don't follow the Bible, but the Antibible (see my thread on Is This Evidence Of Satan). Eventually, work up to the sins God really hates.

Did you notice that at the end of the world, there is going to be a final battle to settle it between Jesus vs. Satan? The Bible says the good will win and Satan is chained and locked up for 1000 years. What does the Antibible say? Obviously, that isn't in the Bible.

I don't think Satan is right since he's the master of lies; he also is the master of disguise masquerading as the light. I have healthy respect for him, but am not afraid of him. That's why pursuing evidence of Satan, when he wants to remain hidden, isn't a winning argument. It's better to provide evidence for God. Judging others and killing them is being like God, so I would say that is what Satan tempts you with. Saul of Tarsus had that power. He was considered a terrorist. Is that what tempts you?

Even Jesus respected Satan's powers. He had the power to give Jesus lordship of all the world and not have to suffer a blood sacrifice. All he had to do was bow down in front of him.

 

[The Irish Ram]

We are made in the image of our Father. We are eternal beings without end.
We judge time in linear fashion. One hundred years is a long time to us. In another dimension, if you had a bird, with a piece of cloth in it's mouth and had it fly back and forth, touching the mountain with the cloth until the mountain was warn away, not one second of eternal time has gone by in that particular realm we refer to as Heaven.
Why would an eternal God, produce children to bond with if they disappeared in less than a second?

This is merely basic training. We are sojourners here. When we die we don't skip a beat. We step right out of our earthly suits much like an astronaut steps out of his spacesuit once he is home. Your mind never ceases. Your brain will mold in the ground. It is a part of the suit. Your mind, your being, who you are remains intact. And we have a choice as to where we can spend our eternity.
You can reside where your mansion is being built and traverse dimensions, move through past and future, sit at the dinner table with our Father. Spend a thousand years hugging a child you lost too soon. Be restored to the status of child of God and co-heir with Christ. Open your treasures, receive your crown during your coronation. (to lay at Christ's feet with thanksgiving.)
Because admission to that dimension requires a pure record without blemish. That is what Christ offered to every one of us. His pure record, for our sins. When God looks at us He sees us cloaked in the righteousness of His Son. Our sins, long since put behind Him.
It is a gift from our brother, Jesus.

Those who prefer to take their chances with their own record will be held for trial at the White Throne Judgement. You'll want to skip this if at all possible, and it is possible. Just by accepting the gift. Christ will do the rest...

 

[Questioner]

Somebody asked what happens after you die? Thus, we had a discussion about it. The next day, this video pops up in my youtube recommended list. I have watched it a couple of times now and discussed it with other Christians, but there's something about it that isn't right.

First, this is one of those, "Holy Toledo!" or "Lord have mercy" types of videos. It's an I can't believe this will ever happen to me kind of video. However, all of the pieces that it describes is how each piece has been described to me as a Protestant Christian. What was interesting to me was that this was the first time I've seen all the pieces put together.

What I can say is that the end times the man discusses is allegory or metaphor. There isn't a real physical narrow gate. It is suppose to represent Jesus Christ in the Christian religion. Jesus is described as the door to it. Also, you may have heard about the wide gate described as the pearly gates or gates of heaven. It can be described as a beautiful looking gate. This is the easy way and the gate most people choose to go by free will.

Finally, I've added a poll to ask what do you believe happens after you die? You can choose more than one answer, but try not to contradict yourself. You can also change your answer because it's a tough question as not many have come back to tell us of their experience.

I don't buy into most popular predictions about "end times", since they've been wrong as far back as 1000AD.

Likewise, from what I've read in regards to history, an "end times" or "days of Noah" scenario would be much, much worse than people imagine; possibly something akin to the savagery in sub-Saharan Africa or ISIS in the Middle East, not simply explicit content in mass media or in stores, or even "gay marriage".

Lord of the Flies is a book I have thought about reading.

 

[james bond]

Somebody asked what happens after you die? Thus, we had a discussion about it. The next day, this video pops up in my youtube recommended list. I have watched it a couple of times now and discussed it with other Christians, but there's something about it that isn't right.

First, this is one of those, "Holy Toledo!" or "Lord have mercy" types of videos. It's an I can't believe this will ever happen to me kind of video. However, all of the pieces that it describes is how each piece has been described to me as a Protestant Christian. What was interesting to me was that this was the first time I've seen all the pieces put together.

What I can say is that the end times the man discusses is allegory or metaphor. There isn't a real physical narrow gate. It is suppose to represent Jesus Christ in the Christian religion. Jesus is described as the door to it. Also, you may have heard about the wide gate described as the pearly gates or gates of heaven. It can be described as a beautiful looking gate. This is the easy way and the gate most people choose to go by free will.

Finally, I've added a poll to ask what do you believe happens after you die? You can choose more than one answer, but try not to contradict yourself. You can also change your answer because it's a tough question as not many have come back to tell us of their experience.

I don't buy into most popular predictions about "end times", since they've been wrong as far back as 1000AD.

Likewise, from what I've read in regards to history, an "end times" or "days of Noah" scenario would be much, much worse than people imagine; possibly something akin to the savagery in sub-Saharan Africa or ISIS in the Middle East, not simply explicit content in mass media or in stores, or even "gay marriage".

Lord of the Flies is a book I have thought about reading.

How can it be wrong if it hasn't happened yet???!!!???!!!

If you meant Noah's Flood, God destroyed everyone and all the living creatures due to so much evil that innocent people were being killed by the bad. Thus, only one family was fit to live and took all the creature to repopulate the world along with them in a gigantic Ark.

Lord of the Flies is about how society turns against each other. I think it hypothesizes what happened during the pre-flood times and what may happen in the future. The author bases it on what he saw during WW II. It's fiction about survival though and not based on any history.

 

[The Irish Ram]

The reason there were only 8 people spared during the flood, was because Noah was "perfect in his generations". His DNA had not been corrupted by fallen angels mating with humans and animals.

And Noah found grace in the eyes of Jehovah.
These [are] births of Noah: Noah [is] a righteous man; perfect he hath been among his generations; with God hath Noah walked habitually. And Noah begetteth three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

This is the condition of everything else:

And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

This is a good interpretation of corrupt genetics:

And all the sons of men departed from the ways of the Lord in those days as they multiplied upon the face of the earth with sons and daughters, and they taught one another their evil practices and they continued sinning against the Lord.
And every man made unto himself a god, and they robbed and plundered every man his neighbor as well as his relative, and they corrupted the earth, and the earth was filled with violence.

And their judges and rulers went to the daughters of men and took their wives by force from their husbands according to their choice, and the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men and all animals.

And the Lord said, I will blot out man that I created from the face of the earth, yea from man to the birds of the air, together with cattle and beasts that are in the field for I repent that I made them.


And all men who walked in the ways of the Lord, died in those days, before the Lord brought the evil upon man which he had declared, for this was from the Lord, that they should not see the evil which the Lord spoke of concerning the sons of men.


And Noah found grace in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord chose him and his children to raise up seed from them upon the face of the whole earth.

God got rid of the evil hybrids, and started over. With Noah's 3 sons and their 3 wives.

Interesting side note:
If you are a science buff, you might like to know that our DNA does not come from a single woman in Africa, named Mitochondrial EVE. Science has discovered that our DNA comes from 3 women, not just one.

 

[alang1216]

Paul would agree with you, Matthew would not.

Okay, I can accept that. Paul, when he was Saul of Tarsus, was more than a Jewish lawyer, but the one who enforced the law. He sent many Christians to their deaths. His conversion was important for us Christians who lived around his time. It allowed me to keep my arms, legs, more of my appendages, and not be staked to a tree.

Saul of Tarsus, terrorist, christian, Pharisee

As for Matthew, he was a tax collector and probably lived a nice life working for the Romans. Many Christians and people hated him as he could enact unfair taxes upon you.

More here:
Who was Matthew in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org
[/QUOTE]
You missed my point completely. Paul taught that Gentiles did not have to become Jews to become Christians and should not be circumcised or keep kosher. Peter on the other hand, believed just the opposite. There was a battle in the early church between the two ideas that Paul won. You can see changes to scripture to paper-over the dispute by comparing Paul's authentic letters to Acts.

 

[james bond]

You missed my point completely. Paul taught that Gentiles did not have to become Jews to become Christians and should not be circumcised or keep kosher. Peter on the other hand, believed just the opposite. There was a battle in the early church between the two ideas that Paul won. You can see changes to scripture to paper-over the dispute by comparing Paul's authentic letters to Acts.

You said, "Paul would agree with you, Matthew would not." So Paul would agree with "it was Jesus who did not break the Jewish law. Christians do not have to follow the Jewish law. Do you want a link for this? What Jewish laws do you think we have to follow?"

Furthermore, I don't remember you ever mentioning Peter. And how does Matthew disagree with what I said above.

What I said was to go into detail, Jesus as Messiah freed us from the Jewish law in the OT, specifically the Sinai covenant -- What exactly is the Sinai Covenant? | Set Apart People. This is the key point you should have gone AHA! Instead, you focus on what Paul said. Paul was just following instructions.

>>There was a battle in the early church between the two ideas that Paul won. You can see changes to scripture to paper-over the dispute by comparing Paul's authentic letters to Acts.<<

I see you are doing some work to answer my questions, but it was more than just Paul. Anyway, what do you have for Peter disagreeing? I like to see some links.

What is troublesome is you seem to imply scripture is just another document and not God's word. It took time and trouble to verify as such.

 

[alang1216]

You missed my point completely. Paul taught that Gentiles did not have to become Jews to become Christians and should not be circumcised or keep kosher. Peter on the other hand, believed just the opposite. There was a battle in the early church between the two ideas that Paul won. You can see changes to scripture to paper-over the dispute by comparing Paul's authentic letters to Acts.

You said, "Paul would agree with you, Matthew would not." So Paul would agree with "it was Jesus who did not break the Jewish law. Christians do not have to follow the Jewish law. Do you want a link for this? What Jewish laws do you think we have to follow?"

Furthermore, I don't remember you ever mentioning Peter. And how does Matthew disagree with what I said above.

What I said was to go into detail, Jesus as Messiah freed us from the Jewish law in the OT, specifically the Sinai covenant -- What exactly is the Sinai Covenant? | Set Apart People. This is the key point you should have gone AHA! Instead, you focus on what Paul said. Paul was just following instructions.

>>There was a battle in the early church between the two ideas that Paul won. You can see changes to scripture to paper-over the dispute by comparing Paul's authentic letters to Acts.<<

I see you are doing some work to answer my questions, but it was more than just Paul. Anyway, what do you have for Peter disagreeing? I like to see some links.

What is troublesome is you seem to imply scripture is just another document and not God's word. It took time and trouble to verify as such.

I'll try and get answers to your points but scripture is Man's word, or at best a poor translation of God's word. There are too many errors, both accidental and intentional for it to be anything else.

 

[james bond]

You missed my point completely. Paul taught that Gentiles did not have to become Jews to become Christians and should not be circumcised or keep kosher. Peter on the other hand, believed just the opposite. There was a battle in the early church between the two ideas that Paul won. You can see changes to scripture to paper-over the dispute by comparing Paul's authentic letters to Acts.

You said, "Paul would agree with you, Matthew would not." So Paul would agree with "it was Jesus who did not break the Jewish law. Christians do not have to follow the Jewish law. Do you want a link for this? What Jewish laws do you think we have to follow?"

Furthermore, I don't remember you ever mentioning Peter. And how does Matthew disagree with what I said above.

What I said was to go into detail, Jesus as Messiah freed us from the Jewish law in the OT, specifically the Sinai covenant -- What exactly is the Sinai Covenant? | Set Apart People. This is the key point you should have gone AHA! Instead, you focus on what Paul said. Paul was just following instructions.

>>There was a battle in the early church between the two ideas that Paul won. You can see changes to scripture to paper-over the dispute by comparing Paul's authentic letters to Acts.<<

I see you are doing some work to answer my questions, but it was more than just Paul. Anyway, what do you have for Peter disagreeing? I like to see some links.

What is troublesome is you seem to imply scripture is just another document and not God's word. It took time and trouble to verify as such.

I'll try and get answers to your points but scripture is Man's word, or at best a poor translation of God's word. There are too many errors, both accidental and intentional for it to be anything else.

Thank you for trying to get the answers.

As for it being human, i.e. something made up by humans, and not God, then how can it be such that different people from different walks of life wrote it as such? They did not get together and conspire to write a Bible. What people did was get together to try and verify what they had wrote. It all came together of a period of 1500 years and the Dead Sea Scrolls tell us about the times of these people. Even their leaders were interested in getting each word correct. This was during the dawn of civilization. Not the prehistoric times of the secular/atheist scientists.

It's like the Antibible I discovered. We see that from ancient times that different people put together evolutionary thinking and its history and theory of evolution. The only strangeness is that it completely contradicts the word of God in the Bible. There are no overlaps. Now, these scientists didn't get together and say we are going to contradict God's word or the Bible. This is what they were inspired to write whether there was any evidence or not.

"Darwin was not, however, the first person to propose an evolutionary explanation for the diversity of life on earth. In fact, evolutionary concepts about life date far back into history and arose in many different cultures. The Greeks developed a concept of evolution over 2,300 years ago that was basically equivalent to that of Charles Darwin's, but the early Christians opposed the idea and destroyed all of the works that promoted it or any other naturalistic explanations for earthly phenomena."

Understanding Evolution: History, Theory, Evidence, and Implictions

Now, when writers say Christians, be sure to separate the Catholics from Protestants in the history. The Roman Catholics went away from what the Bible said in their history.

Overall, we can verify which side is telling the truth via the evidence.

 

[alang1216]

You missed my point completely. Paul taught that Gentiles did not have to become Jews to become Christians and should not be circumcised or keep kosher. Peter on the other hand, believed just the opposite. There was a battle in the early church between the two ideas that Paul won. You can see changes to scripture to paper-over the dispute by comparing Paul's authentic letters to Acts.

You said, "Paul would agree with you, Matthew would not." So Paul would agree with "it was Jesus who did not break the Jewish law. Christians do not have to follow the Jewish law. Do you want a link for this? What Jewish laws do you think we have to follow?"

Furthermore, I don't remember you ever mentioning Peter. And how does Matthew disagree with what I said above.

What I said was to go into detail, Jesus as Messiah freed us from the Jewish law in the OT, specifically the Sinai covenant -- What exactly is the Sinai Covenant? | Set Apart People. This is the key point you should have gone AHA! Instead, you focus on what Paul said. Paul was just following instructions.

>>There was a battle in the early church between the two ideas that Paul won. You can see changes to scripture to paper-over the dispute by comparing Paul's authentic letters to Acts.<<

I see you are doing some work to answer my questions, but it was more than just Paul. Anyway, what do you have for Peter disagreeing? I like to see some links.

What is troublesome is you seem to imply scripture is just another document and not God's word. It took time and trouble to verify as such.

I'll try and get answers to your points but scripture is Man's word, or at best a poor translation of God's word. There are too many errors, both accidental and intentional for it to be anything else.

Thank you for trying to get the answers.

As for it being human, i.e. something made up by humans, and not God, then how can it be such that different people from different walks of life wrote it as such? They did not get together and conspire to write a Bible. What people did was get together to try and verify what they had wrote. It all came together of a period of 1500 years and the Dead Sea Scrolls tell us about the times of these people. Even their leaders were interested in getting each word correct. This was during the dawn of civilization. Not the prehistoric times of the secular/atheist scientists.

It's like the Antibible I discovered. We see that from ancient times that different people put together evolutionary thinking and its history and theory of evolution. The only strangeness is that it completely contradicts the word of God in the Bible. There are no overlaps. Now, these scientists didn't get together and say we are going to contradict God's word or the Bible. This is what they were inspired to write whether there was any evidence or not.

"Darwin was not, however, the first person to propose an evolutionary explanation for the diversity of life on earth. In fact, evolutionary concepts about life date far back into history and arose in many different cultures. The Greeks developed a concept of evolution over 2,300 years ago that was basically equivalent to that of Charles Darwin's, but the early Christians opposed the idea and destroyed all of the works that promoted it or any other naturalistic explanations for earthly phenomena."

Understanding Evolution: History, Theory, Evidence, and Implictions

Now, when writers say Christians, be sure to separate the Catholics from Protestants in the history. The Roman Catholics went away from what the Bible said in their history.

Overall, we can verify which side is telling the truth via the evidence.

Here is an example I recently read about.

It is generally accepted Christian dogma that Christ was born to a virgin. Where does that story come from? God or Man?

In the Hebrew Bible, Isaiah I believe, the Messiah is to be born of a young girl. The Septuagint incorrectly translates the Hebrew word for young girl to the Greek word for virgin. Hebrew has different words for young girl and for virgin. The Greek speaking writers of the NT accepted the Septuagint version of the story and included the virgin story in 2 of the Gospels to show how Jesus was the fulfillment of Hebrew prophesies. God would know the prophesy, men could make a mistake and assume the translation was correct.

 

[james bond]

You missed my point completely. Paul taught that Gentiles did not have to become Jews to become Christians and should not be circumcised or keep kosher. Peter on the other hand, believed just the opposite. There was a battle in the early church between the two ideas that Paul won. You can see changes to scripture to paper-over the dispute by comparing Paul's authentic letters to Acts.

You said, "Paul would agree with you, Matthew would not." So Paul would agree with "it was Jesus who did not break the Jewish law. Christians do not have to follow the Jewish law. Do you want a link for this? What Jewish laws do you think we have to follow?"

Furthermore, I don't remember you ever mentioning Peter. And how does Matthew disagree with what I said above.

What I said was to go into detail, Jesus as Messiah freed us from the Jewish law in the OT, specifically the Sinai covenant -- What exactly is the Sinai Covenant? | Set Apart People. This is the key point you should have gone AHA! Instead, you focus on what Paul said. Paul was just following instructions.

>>There was a battle in the early church between the two ideas that Paul won. You can see changes to scripture to paper-over the dispute by comparing Paul's authentic letters to Acts.<<

I see you are doing some work to answer my questions, but it was more than just Paul. Anyway, what do you have for Peter disagreeing? I like to see some links.

What is troublesome is you seem to imply scripture is just another document and not God's word. It took time and trouble to verify as such.

I'll try and get answers to your points but scripture is Man's word, or at best a poor translation of God's word. There are too many errors, both accidental and intentional for it to be anything else.

Thank you for trying to get the answers.

As for it being human, i.e. something made up by humans, and not God, then how can it be such that different people from different walks of life wrote it as such? They did not get together and conspire to write a Bible. What people did was get together to try and verify what they had wrote. It all came together of a period of 1500 years and the Dead Sea Scrolls tell us about the times of these people. Even their leaders were interested in getting each word correct. This was during the dawn of civilization. Not the prehistoric times of the secular/atheist scientists.

It's like the Antibible I discovered. We see that from ancient times that different people put together evolutionary thinking and its history and theory of evolution. The only strangeness is that it completely contradicts the word of God in the Bible. There are no overlaps. Now, these scientists didn't get together and say we are going to contradict God's word or the Bible. This is what they were inspired to write whether there was any evidence or not.

"Darwin was not, however, the first person to propose an evolutionary explanation for the diversity of life on earth. In fact, evolutionary concepts about life date far back into history and arose in many different cultures. The Greeks developed a concept of evolution over 2,300 years ago that was basically equivalent to that of Charles Darwin's, but the early Christians opposed the idea and destroyed all of the works that promoted it or any other naturalistic explanations for earthly phenomena."

Understanding Evolution: History, Theory, Evidence, and Implictions

Now, when writers say Christians, be sure to separate the Catholics from Protestants in the history. The Roman Catholics went away from what the Bible said in their history.

Overall, we can verify which side is telling the truth via the evidence.

Here is an example I recently read about.

It is generally accepted Christian dogma that Christ was born to a virgin. Where does that story come from? God or Man?

In the Hebrew Bible, Isaiah I believe, the Messiah is to be born of a young girl. The Septuagint incorrectly translates the Hebrew word for young girl to the Greek word for virgin. Hebrew has different words for young girl and for virgin. The Greek speaking writers of the NT accepted the Septuagint version of the story and included the virgin story in 2 of the Gospels to show how Jesus was the fulfillment of Hebrew prophesies. God would know the prophesy, men could make a mistake and assume the translation was correct.

Sheesh. Did I just waste my time typing replies to you? All of it comes from God. Didn't I ask you if you knew how the Holy Spirit works? It seems you've already missed how he inspired those who wrote the Bible as well as Mary -- Definition of DIVINE INSPIRATION.

First, an angel appeared before Mary to explain that she was selected by God. It seems that angels appeared before humans in the ancient times while today this does not happen. Now, I would ask how did people in ancient times be able to verify this story? Different Bible writers verified it through their divine inspiration -- Isaiah, Luke, and Matthew. Do you want the verses? Even the name was picked out already -- Immanuel.

Next, the angel talks to Joseph to not worry about Mary being defiled and not being able to marry her. He explains that the baby will be conceived through the Holy Spirit. We can add Galatians as another writer to verify this. This is another supernatural event. Jesus will be born of flesh and blood, but not have Adam's sin. This is the reason why the virgin birth is important.

As for the rest, do you have a source of where you get your Bible?

 

[alang1216]

You missed my point completely. Paul taught that Gentiles did not have to become Jews to become Christians and should not be circumcised or keep kosher. Peter on the other hand, believed just the opposite. There was a battle in the early church between the two ideas that Paul won. You can see changes to scripture to paper-over the dispute by comparing Paul's authentic letters to Acts.

You said, "Paul would agree with you, Matthew would not." So Paul would agree with "it was Jesus who did not break the Jewish law. Christians do not have to follow the Jewish law. Do you want a link for this? What Jewish laws do you think we have to follow?"

Furthermore, I don't remember you ever mentioning Peter. And how does Matthew disagree with what I said above.

What I said was to go into detail, Jesus as Messiah freed us from the Jewish law in the OT, specifically the Sinai covenant -- What exactly is the Sinai Covenant? | Set Apart People. This is the key point you should have gone AHA! Instead, you focus on what Paul said. Paul was just following instructions.

>>There was a battle in the early church between the two ideas that Paul won. You can see changes to scripture to paper-over the dispute by comparing Paul's authentic letters to Acts.<<

I see you are doing some work to answer my questions, but it was more than just Paul. Anyway, what do you have for Peter disagreeing? I like to see some links.

What is troublesome is you seem to imply scripture is just another document and not God's word. It took time and trouble to verify as such.

I'll try and get answers to your points but scripture is Man's word, or at best a poor translation of God's word. There are too many errors, both accidental and intentional for it to be anything else.

Thank you for trying to get the answers.

As for it being human, i.e. something made up by humans, and not God, then how can it be such that different people from different walks of life wrote it as such? They did not get together and conspire to write a Bible. What people did was get together to try and verify what they had wrote. It all came together of a period of 1500 years and the Dead Sea Scrolls tell us about the times of these people. Even their leaders were interested in getting each word correct. This was during the dawn of civilization. Not the prehistoric times of the secular/atheist scientists.

It's like the Antibible I discovered. We see that from ancient times that different people put together evolutionary thinking and its history and theory of evolution. The only strangeness is that it completely contradicts the word of God in the Bible. There are no overlaps. Now, these scientists didn't get together and say we are going to contradict God's word or the Bible. This is what they were inspired to write whether there was any evidence or not.

"Darwin was not, however, the first person to propose an evolutionary explanation for the diversity of life on earth. In fact, evolutionary concepts about life date far back into history and arose in many different cultures. The Greeks developed a concept of evolution over 2,300 years ago that was basically equivalent to that of Charles Darwin's, but the early Christians opposed the idea and destroyed all of the works that promoted it or any other naturalistic explanations for earthly phenomena."

Understanding Evolution: History, Theory, Evidence, and Implictions

Now, when writers say Christians, be sure to separate the Catholics from Protestants in the history. The Roman Catholics went away from what the Bible said in their history.

Overall, we can verify which side is telling the truth via the evidence.

Here is an example I recently read about.

It is generally accepted Christian dogma that Christ was born to a virgin. Where does that story come from? God or Man?

In the Hebrew Bible, Isaiah I believe, the Messiah is to be born of a young girl. The Septuagint incorrectly translates the Hebrew word for young girl to the Greek word for virgin. Hebrew has different words for young girl and for virgin. The Greek speaking writers of the NT accepted the Septuagint version of the story and included the virgin story in 2 of the Gospels to show how Jesus was the fulfillment of Hebrew prophesies. God would know the prophesy, men could make a mistake and assume the translation was correct.

Sheesh. Did I just waste my time typing replies to you? All of it comes from God. Didn't I ask you if you knew how the Holy Spirit works? It seems you've already missed how he inspired those who wrote the Bible as well as Mary -- Definition of DIVINE INSPIRATION.

First, an angel appeared before Mary to explain that she was selected by God. It seems that angels appeared before humans in the ancient times while today this does not happen. Now, I would ask how did people in ancient times be able to verify this story? Different Bible writers verified it through their divine inspiration -- Isaiah, Luke, and Matthew. Do you want the verses? Even the name was picked out already -- Immanuel.

Next, the angel talks to Joseph to not worry about Mary being defiled and not being able to marry her. He explains that the baby will be conceived through the Holy Spirit. We can add Galatians as another writer to verify this. This is another supernatural event. Jesus will be born of flesh and blood, but not have Adam's sin. This is the reason why the virgin birth is important.

As for the rest, do you have a source of where you get your Bible?

Google: septuagint mistranslation virgin
You'll get plenty of hits. This one is pretty clear.

There are plenty of other examples of mistakes and forgeries in the OT and NT.