100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Similarities Between Stories in the Bible and Ancient Pagan | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 06/01/11 10:26 PM
|
|
For me, I have read several different versions of verses from several different Bibles.
I hate the new versions that speak in such a common way that it loses its spiritual depth. They reword it as if they they are speaking to a bunch of five and ten year old children. Its pathetic and sad. Another 2000 years and you won't recognize it as the same book, I'm sorry that is just the truth. And for shallow people, yes, it appears to say the same thing. BUT the older version said something deeper, had more meaning, spoke to me on a different level. It told me something about the people back there 2000 years ago. The newer versions are so modernized you lose that flavor. I hate the changes. To say that it has not been changed and meaning lost is just simply NOT TRUE. Much has been lost in translation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Morningsong you are the perfect example of a person who worships the Bible. Funny she used the phrase about the word being a God, because in sense that's how the Bible is treated by the hardcore Christians. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allow me share an example of how a CHANGE in God's Word could be made , versus jut a translation. ( Now....IF a complete CHANGE is Made in God's Word, to ALTER IT'S MEANING....., it would makes the Word of God say something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT..and that is a dangerous thing before God to do) Here is an example of someone CHANGING GOD'S WORD: Here is the king james version.... john1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Now..using the same scripture above, here is an example of how one could CHANGE the translation of God's Word, which would then RESULT in a changed MEANING of God's Word: "In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god". See how changing the correct wording of ]WAS GOD to was a god would change the entire meaning of that scripture? One thing I will say again..... Christians have the Holy Spirit now indwelling them.... and BECAUSE THE HOLY SPIRIT DOES INDWELL A BELIEVER, that believer WILL BE ABLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRUTH AND ERROR . ps.....Cowboy ,God does NOT have some hidden knowledge , stowed and kept secret from us somewhere...  When GOD left us His Holy Word, GOD left us EVERYTHING we need to know.... and It's ALL CONTAINED WITHIN THAT HOLY BOOK CALLED THE BIBLE!!!   What in the world are you talking about? Never said God hid anything from anyone. Yes, God did leave us his word, and his word alone. Nothing added, nothing subtracted. Why did you say that specifically to me? You've got me all confused now. Never said there was knowledge that God did not give us. My previous post before the two on this subject was on the fact of this little bit of knowledge The Catholic bible typically has 7 more books than the KJV. And besides that, my entire point of not all the "writings" we have that is associated with say John, Paul, ect. Is it is not relative to include some things in the bible that may or may not have happened on their journeys. The epistles aren't about them in exact, the only information we needed included in the bible was the knowledge that pertained to the message being given. That's all lol, wasn't saying there was some lost knowledge out there or anything like that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This Cowboy...what you just said a few minutes ago..
There are many upon many scriptures that are not included in the bible people have at home. If we put all the scriptures we have into one single book, a "normal" person would not even be able to carry it, at least not with ease. and also this below: Nothing has grown lol. It is the same scriptures as when it was written. That is why they are kept in an entire building, some cathedral. Again don't remember the name of the building or the place. But as the epistles are just that, "notes, letters, ect" some things are not needed to be included in the "bible". The bible is the knowledge that applies to God our father. We do not need to know what they had to eat, don't know to know who they seen on the way when they are not affiliated with anything to do with God, ect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Morningsong you are the perfect example of a person who worships the Bible. Funny she used the phrase about the word being a God, because in sense that's how the Bible is treated by the hardcore Christians. "The word" and the bible are not the same thing. Jesus is "The word" in flesh. The bible is a gathering of different scriptures and epistles that were in coalition with God. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 06/01/11 10:28 PM
|
|
Cowboy, There are many scriptures but not all of them were chosen to be in the Bible.
Scriptures that are not in the Bible were rejected for various reasons I won't go into. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This Cowboy...what you just said a few minutes ago.. There are many upon many scriptures that are not included in the bible people have at home. If we put all the scriptures we have into one single book, a "normal" person would not even be able to carry it, at least not with ease. and also this below: Nothing has grown lol. It is the same scriptures as when it was written. That is why they are kept in an entire building, some cathedral. Again don't remember the name of the building or the place. But as the epistles are just that, "notes, letters, ect" some things are not needed to be included in the "bible". The bible is the knowledge that applies to God our father. We do not need to know what they had to eat, don't know to know who they seen on the way when they are not affiliated with anything to do with God, ect. yeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaah, point being? Those scriptures weren't written after the traditional bible was written, they just weren't included. Nothing added after the fact, just not included. Again, the Catholics bible contains 7 more books then the traditional home bible. I still don't get your point of why you quoted those two different statements I made. They are not in conflict and you gave no information on why you referred to them. Please enlighten us. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy, There are many scriptures but not all of them were chosen to be in the Bible. Scriptures that are not in the Bible were rejected for various reasons I won't go into. lol that's exactly what i'm saying :)= |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy, There are many scriptures but not all of them were chosen to be in the Bible. Scriptures that are not in the Bible were rejected for various reasons I won't go into. lol that's exactly what i'm saying :)= The Vatican has a bunch of them hidden away. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Wed 06/01/11 10:50 PM
|
|
Morningsong you are the perfect example of a person who worships the Bible. Funny she used the phrase about the word being a God, because in sense that's how the Bible is treated by the hardcore Christians. "The word" and the bible are not the same thing. Jesus is "The word" in flesh. The bible is a gathering of different scriptures and epistles that were in coalition with God. The bible not only contains the WORD OF GOD.. the Bible IS the WORD of GOd. THE INERRANT .... DEVINE... HOLY SPIRIT INSPIRED ... GOD BREATHED.... LIVING WORD OF GOD. NOT just a gathering of different scriptures and epistles that were in coalition with God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Wed 06/01/11 11:03 PM
|
|
Cowboy, There are many scriptures but not all of them were chosen to be in the Bible. Scriptures that are not in the Bible were rejected for various reasons I won't go into. lol that's exactly what i'm saying :)= Ok Cowboy,..if that is what you were saying, that certain writings were left out because it was thought to not be divinely inspired....then I see now....and agree... but you did not make that clear in your earlier statements.... plus... WHY would ANYONE store writngs in some cathedral,that was not even divinely inspired , in the first place ? Sorry, never heard of this....plus I see no reason to keep writings that are not included in the bible in the first place. But since it is not relevant to the bible, I'll just leave it at that. I apologize if I misunderstood what you were referring to earlier, Cowboy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 06/01/11 11:33 PM
|
|
Ok Cowboy,..if that is what you were saying, that certain writings were left out because it was thought to not be divinely inspired....then I see now....and agree... but you did not make that clear in your earlier statements.... plus... WHY would ANYONE store writngs in some cathedral,that was not even divinely inspired , in the first place ? Sorry, never heard of this....plus I see no reason to keep writings that are not included in the bible in the first place. But since it is not relevant to the bible, I'll just leave it at that. I apologize if I misunderstood what you were referring to earlier, Cowboy. Because, Morningsong, all scripture written 2000 years ago or earlier etc. is extremely valuable information concerning history (and the truth)-- whether or not it was chosen by Rome to be put in the Bible for the making of their religion..or not!! What you don't understand is that common men took a bunch of scripture and picked over it (even fought over it) so they could create a book for the religion they were creating. They wanted a religion that would embrace a lot of people including pagans. That is why a lot of pagan holidays were adopted as Christian holidays. You are unfortunately so completely blinded with this false faith you can't see what these men did. They created a religion. God had nothing to do with it. NOTHING. These scriptures are relevant to the Bible. They are the same kinds of scriptures that were chosen for the Bible, but they just did not fit into the religion that men were wanting to create. There is no way these men could tell which ones were divinely inspired or if any of them were. They simply took the ones they wanted. Then they made the claim that they were "divinely inspired." That claim is just something they made up. To then preach that the Bible is the "word" is just false. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the Bible teaches inerrancy, then to deny it is to
deny that which the Scripture claims is true. Further, if the Bible contains some errors, how can we be sure that its claims concerning Christ, salvation, man, etc., are true? Also, the chronology, geography, and history of the Bible are often woven together like strands of a basket with vital spiritual truths. As you cannot start pulling strands out of a woven basket without doing damage to the whole, so it is with the Bible. ............ Note what Christ taught about the inspiration of the Old Testament: (1) Its entirety; the whole of the Bible is inspired (Matt. 4:4; 5:17-18). In Matthew 4:4, Jesus responded to Satan’s temptation by affirming verbal plenary inspiration when He said, man is to live by every word (plenary) that proceeds out of the mouth of God (inspiration). In Matthew 5:17-18, Christ promised that the entire Old Testament, the Law and the Prophets, would be fulfilled, not abolished. In fact, He declared that not even the smallest Hebrew letter, the yodh, which looks like an apostrophe (‘), or stroke of a letter, a small distinguishing extension or protrusion of several Hebrews letters (cf. the extension on the letter R with it absence on the letter P), would pass away until all is fulfilled. Christ’s point is that it is all inspired and true and will be fulfilled. (2) Its historicity; He spoke of the Old Testament in terms of actual history. Adam and Eve were two human beings, created by God in the beginning, who lived and acted in certain ways (Matt. 19:3-5; Mark 10:6-8). He spoke of Jonah and his experience in the belly of the great fish as an historical event (Matt. 12:40). He also verified the events of the flood in Noah’s day along with the ark (Matt. 24:38- 39; Luke 17:26-27). He verified God’s destruction of Sodom and the historicity of Lot and his wife (Matt. 10:15; Luke 17:28-29). These are only a few illustrations; many others exist. (3) Its reliability; because it is God’s word, the Scripture must be fulfilled (Matt. 26:54). (4) Its sufficiency; it is sufficient to witness to the truth of God and His salvation (Luke 16:31). (5) Its indestructibility; heaven and earth will not pass away until it is all fulfilled. Nothing can stop its fulfillment (Matt. 5:17- 18). (6) Its unity; the whole of the Bible speaks and witnesses to the person and work of Christ (Luke 24:27, 44). (7) Its inerrancy; men are often in error, but the Bible is not; it is truth (Matt. 22:29; John 17:17). (8) Its infallibility; the Bible cannot be broken, it always stands the test (John 10:35). ( for the complete reading, go to....) http://bible.org/seriespage/bible-inerrant-word-god |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the Bible teaches inerrancy, then to deny it is to deny that which the Scripture claims is true. Further, if the Bible contains some errors, how can we be sure that its claims concerning Christ, salvation, man, etc., are true? Simple, you can't because it's not. We've been sold a lie, flat out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Thu 06/02/11 01:49 AM
|
|
.....The Inerrancy of the Bible.....
Inerrancy means the unerring quality of Bible; free from error. It is closely related to another word, infallibility, which defines the Scripture to be reliable and trustworthy to those who turn to it in search of Gods truth. The former concerns more specifically with the accuracy of the Bible, and the latter is a concept that addresses itself to ones personal knowledge of God and assurance of salvation. The Bible has been under attack from scientific and historical views, challenging its accuracy, and the claim that inerrancy is not taught in the Scripture. The fact that inerrancy is not a Biblical term does not mean that the concept of inerrancy is not taught in the Scripture. Many important concepts like Trinity and rapture,etc., are not Biblical terms. The main reason why we think the Bible is Inerrant is because the Scripture tells us so. A Logical Proof on the Inerrancy of the Bible. Since God is truth (John 3:33, Romans 3:4), whats breathed out by God, must also be true (John 17:17) and infallible. Plenary Inspiration of the Scripture (2 Tim 3:16) Due to the infallible character of God (Titus 1:2), the Son (John 14:6) and the Holy Spirit (1 John 5:6,7), the Scripture which is inspired by God is also inerrant in every aspect (Matt 22:43-45, Matt 22:32, and Gal 3:16). Self Claims of Scripture. The Old Testament attests the inerracy of the Bible. The word of the Lord is flawless (Psalms 12:6), its eternal and stands firm (Psalms 119:89), and that every word of God is flawless (Proverbs 30:5-6). The New Testament teachings that affirm the inerrancy of the Scripture include, Matthew 10:17-20, Mark 13:11, Luke 12:12-15, John 14:16-17,26, 16:12-13, Acts 1:5,8 and Rev. 22:18-19. A nonbeliever may argue that how can one use the claims of the Bible to prove It's own inerrancy. In presupposing the truth (thus inerrancy) of the Bible, are we not arguing in a circle? Indeed, God's truth is not revealed (a special revelation) to the fallen man unless God first opens their eyes. To them, we have to use the evidential approach as follows. The Bible has been subjected to the attacks of liberals and nonbelievers for centuries, trying to disprove its accuracy. These people questioned the existence of the Hittite kingdom, and even that of prominent figures like Solomon and David. After Archaeologists have confirmed the accuracy of the Bible in these areas, the liberals started to climb up the ladder and question the existence of Moses and Abraham. While they argue that Christians presuppose the inerrancy of the Bible, are they not doing the same in their presupposition that everything in the Bible is in err unless proven? The Bible does not contradict any known scientific laws. However, in judging the Bible by scientific findings, we are treading on dangerous ground, for we are judging the absolute truth by the relative truth, the creator by the creature. For the sake of the argument, let's proceeds anyway. A common attack on the Bible is that it uses unscientific terms like sun rises in the east, etc. As the scientists will argue that the Bible is in err, because the earth rotates around the sun, and thus the sun cannot rise nor set. Keep in mind that God does allow the Scripture-writers to freely express themselves using terminology understood to the people. While sunrise and sunset may not be the correct scientific terms to use, they are not wrong. Even nowadays, we still say things like, 'Look at the beautiful sunset.' Do we ever say, 'Look at the beautiful Sun, as the earth rotates around it's axis? As a matter of fact, the teaching of a round (Job 26:10, Isaiah 40:21,22, Proverbs 8:27) and suspended (Job 26:7) earth can readily be seen in the Bible written thousands of years ago. On the contrary, scientific textbooks are constantly being rewritten. With the discovery of quantum physics, the theories of classical physics have to be revisited. With the revelation of relativity, we can no longer be certain of the environment we are living in; speed become relative and time can warp. What do all these mean? It just proves the uncertainty and changing nature of science, compared to the absolute and unchanging nature of God and His word. We should be grateful that God is unchanging so that we can be certain of the salvation that He has promised. Can we say the same about science? The Bible does not contradict itself. Some apparent contradictory statements are harmonized upon gaining more information (e.g., the death of Judas as reported by Matthew (27:5) and Luke (Acts 1:16- 25) are harmonized through an understanding of the geography). Another example is the difference of the sequence of Jesus' temptation as described in the book of Matthew and Luke. Since the gospels try to portrait different aspects of Jesus to different audiences, the sequence of events may differ. The true sequence of Jesus is given in the book of Matthew where the author uses the word 'then' to show the flow of the events. Another common type of so-called contradictions involves different set of numbers describing the same event. While some were due to scribal errors, others involve the rounding off of numbers in one set of data and not the other. Not only do the Gospels not contradict each another, they are compromising to each other. Most contradictory statements are only superficial and taken out of context. Conclusions: The words inerrancy and inspiration usually go hand in hand. While the inspired word of God is inerrant, the reverse is not always true. (For example, not every writing that is errorless is the inspired work of God). The main reason why we think the Bible is the inerrant word of God is because the Scripture tells us so. While nonbelievers argue that Christians presuppose the authority of the Bible, they make the same presupposition that anything in the Bible is wrong until proven. The Bible has endured the attacks of liberals and nonbelievers for centuries; without any proven contradiction to the findings of history and science. Many so-called contradictions in the Bible have been cited. However, after careful considerations, one finds that they are either taken out of context or due to misinterpretation of the intent of the authors. Many 'discrepancies' are actually different aspects of looking at the same event. Not only do they not contradict each other, they tend to compliment each other. Copyright 2000 Yutopian, All Rights Reserved |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 06/02/11 03:28 AM
|
|
If the Bible teaches inerrancy, then to deny it is to deny that which the Scripture claims is true. Further, if the Bible contains some errors, how can we be sure that its claims concerning Christ, salvation, man, etc., are true? Also, the chronology, geography, and history of the Bible are often woven together like strands of a basket with vital spiritual truths. As you cannot start pulling strands out of a woven basket without doing damage to the whole, so it is with the Bible. The simple answer to this ridiculous paradox is that the idea of the Bible being inerrant simply because it tells you so is as silly as my telling you that I am perfect and it must be true because I'm perfect and I told you so and a perfect person cannot possibly tell a lie. "The main reason why we think the Bible is Inerrant is because the Scripture tells us so." A nonbeliever may argue that how can one use the claims of the Bible to prove It's own inerrancy. In presupposing the truth (thus inerrancy) of the Bible, are we not arguing in a circle? Indeed, God's truth is not revealed (a special revelation) to the fallen man unless God first opens their eyes. Not even a good argument. What a crock! That might help a true believer feel good, but this isn't proof of anything. It's not even rational. But if that's what a person wants to believe that's okay by me. I just don't think it's going to help convince any rational people. If the Bible were truly "perfect" and "true" and "scientific" etc. then it would be taught in schools. It isn't, and it's not. To hold it up as holy and perfect is worship. That is worshiping an idol. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For me,
God created the universe. Everything within it is His design. All scientific facts are doing is really just learning the laws of the universe that God created. Think it is ironic because people that put their faith in science really are putting their faith in God. They just don't know it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Thu 06/02/11 08:22 AM
|
|
Sorry. No go. Bible translations do NOT take away from the Truth of God's Word. The Word is translated,so others may better understand..... but the TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD REMAINS UNCHANGED. The Bible has been translated into every language. Bilbe translators are required to translate the Word correctly...and careful check is made to be sure of this. NOW.....IF some however, did attempt to CHANGE God's Word ? Well....I'll let you go look at the end of last chapter , of the book of Revelation in the Bible, to see what God has to say about that. It is NOT a good thing to mess with God's Holy Word. Actually.... GOD IS A BIG ENOUGH GOD TO KEEP WATCH OVER HIS WORD AND TO ALSO PRESERVE HIS HOLY WORD. http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-03-02-1Abible02_ST_N.htm The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has ordered up a new translation of the Bible, one it says is more accurate, more accessible and more poetic. Fifty scholars and translators, linguistics experts, theologians and five bishops spent 17 years on the project. They were immersed in original manuscripts, the Dead Sea Scrolls and archaelogy findings unearthed since research behind the current text, published in 1970. Some of the changes: • The word "holocaust," now associated with World War II genocide, has been replaced by "burnt offering." • Proverbs 31:10, the ode to "The Ideal Wife," is now a "Poem on the Woman of Worth." "Women will like this: being measured by their own accomplishments, not in terms of a husband's perspective," says Mary Elizabeth Sperry of the Bishops Conference. One change may set off alarms with traditionalists, in a passage many Christians believe foreshadows the coming of Christ and his birth to a virgin. The 1970 version of Isaiah 7:14 says "the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel." The 2011 text refers to "the young woman" instead. It elaborates that the original Hebrew word, almah, may, or may not, signify a virgin. Well an admission of accuracy that the REAL translation of the most ancient texts available do not make a commitment on whether or not Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. I don’t know MorningSong, it sound like a pretty major difference to me. Of the course the article goes on to say that there will not be any change in what they teach – just in what they read. More confusion, wouldn’t you agree? NEXT: http://www.allabouttruth.org/best-bible-translation-faq.htm What is the best Bible translation? Bible readers often wonder how to know the best Bible translation. Bibles may either be translations of the original texts or paraphrases of translations. It is important to understand that all Bibles are one or the other; the original texts written by the biblical authors no longer exist. The Bibles that we read today were translated or paraphrased from ancient manuscripts -- Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. When choosing a Bible version, individuals should select a version that has been translated from the latest, most authoritative texts. For the Old Testament, the accepted most authoritative texts would be the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia; for the New Testament it would be the United Bible Societies' third or fourth edition of the Greek New Testament. Five popular versions of the bible fall into the following categories of translation: • The NASB is considered to be strictly literal. • The KJV and NKJV are considered to be literal. • The NIV is considered to be thought-for-thought. • The NLT is considered to be functionally equivalent. A strictly literal or literal translation takes the words from the original manuscripts and translates them literally, or word for word. When a Bible is said to have been translated as thought-for-thought, it means that the translator has taken the original words and applied exegesis, which is to say an understanding of the thought behind the words; this is conveyed in the rendering of the verse. A functionally equivalent translation such as the NLT seeks to be literal but with greater freedom of exegesis. The difference may be seen in the rendering of Hebrews 1:3a. See how the five versions render the words: "And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature" (NASB). "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person" (KJV). "Who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person" (NKJV). "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being" (NIV). "The Son reflects God's own glory, and everything about him represents God exactly" (NLT). Note that the translators differ not only in the rendering of specific words but also in grammar, usage, punctuation, and sentence structure. The best Bible translation will ultimately be determined by personal preference. In order for a translation to be considered good, it should be reliable and readable. Translators do well when they adhere to updated research with respect to original manuscripts and also to changes in the language. Meanings of words have changed over the years. Let’s see now – “the exact representation of His nature” “the express image of His (or his) person” “the exact representation of his being” “everything about him represents God exactly” Certainly does not indicate that the Son IS God does it? Aside from that it’s difficult to tell what those statements really mean. But at the end of the article is a good “rule of thumb” The best approach for Bible readers is probably to use several versions of the Bible. A version such as the NASB might be used for study, while the NIV or NLT might be used during meditation or personal devotions. The choice of Bible version will ultimately be a personal one; however, a serious Bible student would do well to research those versions that are considered most reliable and accurate. Paraphrased Bibles such as The Message and the Living Bible are not translations; these Bibles have been put into the contemporary language of the authors' own words. They are helpful for personal Bible study. NOTE: The quote at the end “They are helpful for personal Bible study" seems to signify that ultimately interpretation is strictly personal because all biblical writing more closely resembles “plausible” to individuals than “possible” to the masses. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting topic. People who want to really get into this in depth should read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis, "Apologetics" by Thomas Aquinas, and "Institutio Christianae Religionis" by John Calvin. But here's the thing - people do not sit down with those books and a skeptical reseach frame of mind. We seem to be taught, at least in the U.S. that one book is all we need to read for information.  If information is what is sought then every piece of information offered within one of those writings needs to be verified and cross-reference with other quality sources otherwise the consluding opinions of the authors is unfounded and worth nothing more than another person's opinion. I have read much of all of these works (ok, I admit I couldn't get into Lewis, his thought processes totally lacked attention to reality). In any case, they are great historical documents for understanding the history surrounding the changes in religions and the thought processes that formed some of the beliefs that still exist today (at least in some form). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allow me share an example of how a CHANGE in God's Word could be PURPOSELY made , versus just a translation. ( Now....IF a complete CHANGE is Made in God's Word, to ALTER IT'S MEANING....., it would BE DONE IN ORDER THAT THE WORD OF GOD SAY SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT..and that is a dangerous thing before God to do!!!) Here is an example of someone CHANGING GOD'S WORD !!! First ,let's begin here with a true version...for instance, the king james version: john1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Now..using the same scripture above, here is an example of how one would CHANGE the translation of God's Word, which would then RESULT in a totally changed MEANING of God's Word: "In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god". See how changing the correct wording of WAS GOD to was a god would change the entire meaning of that scripture? One thing I will say again..... Christians have the Holy Spirit now indwelling them.... and BECAUSE THE HOLY SPIRIT DOES INDWELL A BELIEVER, that believer WILL BE ABLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRUTH AND ERROR . ps.....Cowboy ,God does NOT have some hidden knowledge , stowed and kept secret from us somewhere... When GOD left us His Holy Word, GOD LEFT US EVERYTHING WE NEED TO KNOW.... and It's ALL CONTAINED WITHIN THAT HOLY BOOK CALLED THE BIBLE!!! What did god say about Monsanto and genetically altering seed and creating nasty pesticides that could the entire honey bee population? What did god say about sharing the water resources or or mining coal and oil? What did god say about nuclear power PLEASE TELL US cos at the moment we REALLY need to determine what to do with all the nuclear waste.... |
|
|
|
|
