B.H. you posted: “Question #8

If the Bible is the word of God and God exists why are there a lot of false prophesies in the Bible? Examples are Ezekial 26 and Ezekial 29, which never happened. Tyre was not destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar nor Egypt completely uprooted and made vacant. Also, don't use the pronoun tense shift in Ezekial 26 as a defence. A lot of times Bible writers use the wrong tense in their writing (ex. singular pronoun for a plural reference). Another one is Jesus saying "As Jonah was 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the whale so shall the son of man be in the earth. Jonah was in the whale 3 days and 3 nights so why was Jesus in the earth only 2 nights and one day+2 part days? “

MY REPLY:  I will only answer the part about the 3 days and the 3 nights. I just received this cassette tape from Dr. Fred K. C. Price about Easter and the Resurrection and he gives what I consider to be the most understandable and convincing reasoning from the scriptures that I’ve heard. I had heard it before, but he just capsulized it all.

First of all, the Sabbath day that drew nigh as they were taking Jesus down from the cross, was a High Day that year – meaning it was not the usual Saturday Sabbath. That high Sabbath was on a Thursday that year. To make a long story short, if Jesus was crucified on Wednesday of that week and was taken from the cross before the High Sabbath began at 6 PM Wednesday night (they counted days “evening and morning” and not the reverse like we do), then from Wed.6 PM to Thursday 6 PM. is one day.   From Thurs. 6 PM to Fri, 6 PM is the second day, and then from Fri.6 PM to Sat.6 PM is the third day. (The Jewish regular Sabbath is from our 6 PM on Friday through Saturday 6 PM).  And since the women went to the tomb before it was even daylight on the fourth day, the first day of the week, he could have been resurrected anytime between Sat.6 PM and the wee hours of our Sunday. It said somewhere that after three days he was raised from the dead, so that would be sometime during the fourth day, and the bible does not state explicitly when that was, so I guess we cannot either.  I hope I posted where you can understand.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (B. H. @ May 02 2002,5:29)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][/quote]
Question 1. Romans 14 deals with the matter appearances. It was offensive to some to eat meat butchered for pagan gods. As we discussed on this some time ago a jewish butcher would follow kosher. A Roman butcher would generally follow similar guidelines which was considered "sacrificed" to that god.  Some apparently felt that if you ate the "sacrifice" that you pledged devotion or allegiance to that god. Others felt that it was not a big deal. Romans 14 is about a cultural situtation but it is instructive today because it is instructive about acceptance. Each side was told to accept the other.

Question 2. They are inconsistent because churches are made up of people. I suspect you overlook your friend getting a speeding ticket as no big deal but when someone you dislike gets one you think its proof they are deadly menace.

Question 3.  This is a question about people and their failings. A forum on human psychology or social behavior would be more instructive.

B.H.

I'll take a stab at it. Remember, these are my answers, not God's, but I'll try to answer as best I can quickly.

1. Peter said about Paul that he is not easy to understand in 2 Pet 3:16. Ironically, that verse is quite easy to understand. We must all approach scripture with humility and pray for wisdom from Holy Spirit. Knowing this, Paul wrote Rom 14 urging fellow Christians to put love above doctrinal correctness when one person's purity clashes with another's liberty. The goal is for a thriving body of Christ. The fact is, we all come to Christ with baggage that could potentially cause strife with the baggage of a fellow Christian. When that happens, put love first. So to answer your question, it's not always easy to understand. That's why Paul wrote Rom 14.

2. You seem to be asking why congregations go nuts in applying church discipline. My answer, people don't always do the right thing. That doesn't make the bible wrong. The purpose of disfellowship is to urge a rebellious Christian to straighten up (like a parent to a naughty child), and if that fails, to protect the rest of the church from their evil influence. If congregations act like Nazis in their zeal to discipline their flock and the flocks of those around them, I'd say they are the ones who are causing division, and some discipline might ought to be applied to them instead.

3. blend my answers for 1 and 2. Approach the bible together and humbly. What someone else finds in scripture and attempts to bind on you should be considered, but you are the one who goes before God with Jesus at your side. How you obeyed scripture, and how you behaved toward your brothers and sisters will be the item of discussion. We all fall short, but if Jesus is on our side, we can't lose.

4. Again, disfellowshipping and church discipline are often botched, no argument here. You want biblical references to 21st century examples of greed that can get you disfellowhipped. Once again, love is going to be the litmus test. If businesses have to drive workers to poverty to be a "good business", then either we need to redefine povery or redefine good business. Either way, something should give. Still, corporate America has seldom been accused of being moral, to say nothing of Christ-centered. It's the WORLD, man, what did you expect?
As to those who will not inherit the kingdom of God based on 1 Cor. 6:9, once again, you're gonna have to read the next 2 verses to find out how they/we get in. It's all about Jesus' sacrifice. Disfellowshipping comes in when one who was supposedly justified doesn't act justified, maybe doesn't even try. A swindler who gets saved should stop swindling. He's not saved because he's not swindling; but since he's saved, he shouldn't swindle anymore.

5. Lot's of texts didn't "make it" into the Bible. If you can read greek, hebrew and aramaic, you can read texts that are very close to the original. Otherwise, you're going to have to trust some men a little with their translations. It's best to have several translations. Just remember it's God you trust. You read about him in the bible, and most translations aren't really all that different if you don't push specific verses/words/suffixes to the breaking point. As to why God didn't, as you say, protect his word from corruption, I would say maybe it's because if we had a pure copy of the holy bible on two stone tablets, we'd most likely bow down and worship them. God's not gonna have that again.

6. I mostly agree with your comment. Great care should be taken in our presentation of scripture. However, remember the question about how easy the bible is to understand. The fact is, people respond better to personal explanation rather than follow-the-instruction guidelines. The NT has several examples of this including Philip talking to the eunuch, and Paul telling Timothy to entrust the writings to dependable men. Plus, back then, most people couldn't read. Remember the goal is for us to do the word, not just hear it. If "breaking it down" helps one to better follow the teachings than just reciting it and sending them home, then we should do it. The important thing is that people grow closer to God through whatever means we can find to present the gospel. Paul said, whether through false motives or true, the important thing is that Christ is preached. I agree.
Adding/subtracing to scripture is saying something that goes against scripture, or omitting something that scripture says.

7. Again, lots of NT documents were written that didn't end up in the canon. What we have in the NT jives with itself. The others may contain many true things, but they just didn't jive 100%. How do we know it wasn't written by Satan? Well, read what it says about Satan. Would you write a book about how evil you are and how, try though you might, you're going to lose and be cast into hell forever? Would you spread that book around in the hopes that people would read it and turn away from God and serve you? Kinda self-defeating. Remember what Jesus said about a house divided? He was talking about just that exact thing: what if Satan is doing this work in disguise?

8. How do you know Tyre wasn't destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar? Is that what archaeologists are saying now? Whom do you trust? Come to mention it, trust has everything to do with how we read scripture. Jesus said 3 days and 3 nights in a whale, and the Jonah author said "fish". Wanna go off on that one too? I have a better idea. Why not remember the empty tomb and try to remind yourself that whatever inconsistencies I might catch in regards to terminology, semantics, archaeology, logic, ethics, whatever; that Jesus is alive right now, just as he said, and he's the only way to heaven, because he said that too. When someone is raised by God because of his own righteosness, it pays to trust them. That may seem like blind faith, but it's not. The empty tomb and the resurrected savior was a well-documented event that no one living at the time seemed able to refute.

8. I don't believe that either. The restoration movement, I believe, was not an attempt to resurrect the church that had died. It is an attempt to end division and denominationalism and restore the unity of the already-existing church, and to go back to the bible in a way they hadn't been doing for some time. Subsequent proponents of the movement took it one step further in saying that the "church of Christ" as started in the 19th C was the one true church and all others were denominations. That, in my belief, was a step too far. Now is the coC a false church? Only insomuch as individual members spread and maintain false doctrine. It is true insomuch as members are sanctified by Jesus.

9. Not so sure about majority/minority regarding the belief that the church has existed since the 1st C, but I do still see a need for restoration in the fact that people who worship with denominations (including coC, not CoC, get it?) could use help in realizing the true church and working toward that end, rather than creating/maintaining the barriers that have been built between believers. That is restoration. Not copying the blueprint better than your neighbor, but by fellowshipping your brother wherever he may be found. Until that happens, "disfellowship" will be seen as silly or sectarian. How can you withdraw something that is ineffectual or non-existent?

I can't judge the true spirit with which your questions were offered, but I hope you accept my answers, even if you don't agree. I'm no scholar; I'm just trying to help. There are many recurring themes to the answers: love over correctness; trust over proof; hope over rebellion. Hmmm. Faith, hope and love. I think I've read that somewhere...

Hey Admin...

Is that the boiled-down theme, that Grace Centered Magazine & Message Forums are a safe haven for faith?

Well, good then, because that's how this "place" has come across to me, as a very new member.

I support your efforts in general; I certainly wouldn't want to pop on-line for a time of thoughtful fellowship only to find something nasty on the GC forums.  However, are you really saying this is not an appropriate place to allow the Bible and the people who dwell on it, to stand firm in the face of attack?

In other words, I'm grateful for your guidance in keeping the "atmosphere" as it should be; but, is there necessarily no place on the GC forums for unbelief looking for relief?

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Lee <<I don't believe that B.H. is going through a spiritual journey and seeking answers. I think it's aggression and debate that he seeks. I could be wrong. >>

I, too, could be wrong, but the inequity, inconsistancies and sensitivites in B. H.'s posts suggest to me that he is more savvy than he is angry or aggressive. His reluctance to go to a board dedicated to this kind of inquiry increases my suspicion that he wants some here to lose confidence in their faith. When others express confidence in personal experience, he discounts this for his own personal experience testimony. Cross-examiners know that if one loses confidence in one's personal experience, it is hard to keep one from doubting everything. I think B.H. is transparent in his use of this tactic as he uses his professed lack of confidence in his athiesm to attract us to the "crack" in his fundamentalist atheist faith.

I, too, would like to see this discussion end, as I do not think anyone on this board would engage without outside provocation. Understand that I speak only for myself, but I have never doubted the existance of God and the Sonship of Jesus Christ. The Bible never addresses the issue of unbelief in a higher power. Biblical writings suggest that we are all believers in some kind diety ... even if that diety is oneSelf. So the Bible engages from a point of faith that, I suppose, cannot be understood by any true atheist ... if a true atheist really exists ... which I doubt.

My best to B.H. Sorry if I am wrong about your motivations.[/quote]
I'm sorry Lee,but I JUST HAVE TO get this last thing in.

patriciaredstone,

I have emailed you several private messages that you have not responded to.   I say that personal experiences to do not prove the reliability of the Bible or the existence of God for a good reason.  A Muslim or Buddhist could attribute any "positive personal experiences" they have to the existance of Allah and the truth revealed to Muhammed in the Koran or to the truth of Buddah's enlightenment.  A Muslim could take your arguments of how religion gives inner peace,a reward in the afterlife but a possibly sorry life here,  how SOME are focused into making a better world, ect and apply that to Islam.  Just because you "feel" a certain way about your God and religion does not make it true.

If you disagree respond to my PM's and we can discuss these things further.  You said you have several atheist friends and have spoken to them about these things.  Yet, you claim to be so sure of your faith but so full of anger and bitterness toward me.  Maybe your friends are having a greater influence on you than you care to admit.

Now I will shut up and post no more on this subject. :)

B.H.<<patriciaredstone,
I have emailed you several private messages that you have not responded to.>>

There is only one message from B.H. on my Personal Messenger. It was made last night and I recieved it this morning. It was a very nice message, but there was no indication that you wanted to engage in a private dialouge. Up to a point, I am open to a private discussion with you B.H.  

B.H. << I say that personal experiences to do not prove the reliability of the Bible or the existence of God for a good reason.   A Muslim or Buddhist could attribute any "positive personal experiences" they have to the existance of Allah and the truth revealed to Muhammed in the Koran or to the truth of Buddah's enlightenment.  A Muslim could take your arguments of how religion gives inner peace,a reward in the afterlife but a possibly sorry life here,  how SOME are focused into making a better world, ect and apply that to Islam.  Just because you "feel" a certain way about your God and religion does not make it true.>>

B.H. The starting place of all world religions is "God." That is where it has to begin. "God" begins where "I" end. You strike me as a very well informed arm-chair atheist. Islam does not explain away Christianity. Judaism does not explain away Krishna. Buddhism does not explain away Judaism. All of these religions confirm each other more than they deny. This is how Christian missionaries have been so successful. They build on the truths and wisdom that every major world religion has in common with Christ.

<< If you disagree respond to my PM's and we can discuss these things further. >>

Again, send me a question first and I will think about it.

<<You said you have several atheist friends and have spoken to them about these things.  Yet, you claim to be so sure of your faith >>

If you think that my faith is comprimised because I speak to my atheist friends and family about the atheist faith then maybe I have misjudged you B.H... because you seem to enjoy talking to Christians about their faith. Using your own logic, then you must not be so sure about your faith in athiesm. Again, please forgive me if I have been unfair with you.

<<but so full of anger and bitterness toward me. >>

I'm sorry that you think I am angry toward you. No I am not. Are you angry? I hope not.

<<Maybe your friends are having a greater influence on you than you care to admit.>>

Although I have a deep and abiding respect for the athiests in my life, I have never been attracted to their faith -- This is the work of God, not myself. My parents have called me "their religious child since I was 2 years old. -- But they are sometimes attracted to mine. And, it is too soon to get excited, but I think my brilliant, atheist Dad is finally coming around after reading The Elegant Universe!