dumb questions I was emailed

[BarneyFife]

That's the problem right there.

The SAY "manuscript" when they MEAN manuscript copies.
They are even numbered "manuscripts" (copies) for the same book.
Depending on where they found the COPY and the approximated COPY date.
Like Papyrus P-52, mentioned earlier. Which was only a fragment.
From a very early manuscript COPY.

So, the main difference between the terms "manuscript" and "original manuscript"
is that THERE ARE NO original manuscripts. They actually use the term "autograph"
to refer to what they attempt to determine what the "original manuscript" said.

And part of the problem in New Testament translation is that they are "blessed"
with SO MANY copies, that it takes a lot of work to sort through it all.

When comparing all the copies, they have to identify all the scribal errors,
additions, embellishments, and deletions, to get to their best guess.

After that, the text is subject to the doctrinal biases of the translators.
And errors in the original translations can carry forward as a matter of tradition.
What a mess.

/

Maybe "they" are goofy.

Weren't the scribes pretty meticulous about copying the stuff?

Do we need originals to believe the Word?

Wouldn't God have preserved them if that were the case?

I get nervous talking about this stuff what with the way folks are about it.

The "inerrancy" question was posed to Mrs. White at one point ( I wish I had the reference handy) and her answer was, essentially:

"Yeah, so what?"

As if to say something like:

With 3/4 million words in the English Bible, don't you think God could have managed to keep enough of it intact that we have no need to worry that our eternal destiny might be in peril because of clerical or translational errors?

I mean, some people carry on like the language of the New Jerusalem is going to be Olde English.

.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

1. if there was no death before sin, how the heck did God make sure an ant wasnt accidently stepped on and killed by Adam, Eve, or another large animal in the garden of eden?
2. Is the biocycle one of death? How ould YEC answer the question did leaves fall off trees down to the ground, rot, and fertilise the earth?
3. Did Adam, Eve, and all the animals have bumholes…did they poop, or is that a result of the corruption of sin? How does a YEC answer such a dilemma? Can a YEC honestly make the seemingly ridiculous claim “no need to poo and wee in the garden of eden” in answer to such a question?
4. Hair and nails… most mammals have hair…isnt hair and fingernail growth related to dying cells? (i dont know, just heard something along these lines years ago as a child and havent thought about it until now). My understanding is that only the root of the hair is alive…everything above that is dead! IT would be pretty hard to support the claim there was no hair or fingernails in the garden of Eden.
5. How do we explain mucus? Was that something that we didnot produce in the garden of Eden? What about our sweath glands in our skin…surely exercise and hard work caused Adam and Eve to perspire?
6. When Adam and Eve got jiggy with each other in the Garden of Eden and a bit of mischief was the order of the hour, given that more sperm is produced than actually used, what happened to the unused sperm? did that simply end up out on the ground running down the female’s leg, or was it absorbed into her body as food…I mean what happened to it?
7. As another on these forums has posted, is eating produce of the field killing it? I mean its a bit hard to eat root type vegetables without pulling up the plant itself.
8. What about orange skins, garlic skins, or onion skins…i cant see myself ever eating an any of those. Did they eat the skin or throw it away for fertilising the ground. How do YEC support the claim that is not death?
9. What did termites eat? How can a tree full of termites survive?
10. how about snot…my nose gets pretty snotty when im in a dusty place…and there is nothing better the snotting out a nose full of the stuff…is dust sinful or a result of a corruption of sin? Why do we have snot that would not also be needed in the Garden of Eden? I mean, what about sneezing? we get a nose full of pollen and voila out it comes under plenty of pressure. What if, like sperm that pollen never ends up on the other sex of its own kind of plant…does it die in the Garden of Eden? What would be the purpose of such an event?
11. What about methane…i mean lets face it, we eat cabbage…we fart! obviously quite a deal of life in the biocycle also produces fart gas. Is that a result of sin? is it damaging to the environment because it stinks?

Yeah, I have had many evolutionists (even a PHD I debated) ask me some of those questions. I always turn it back on them and ask them how can an asexual microorganism become speerate male and female.

How could flowers survive if bees were not already in existence to pollinate?

How did gills turn to lungs.

How did cold blooded animals become warm blooded

How did scales turn to feathers.

How did vocal chords develop

How can natural selection select the survival of the fittest whern natural selection is a concept with no thought, idea or intelligence.

 

[St. SteVen]

Maybe "they" are goofy.

That means a lot coming from you. - LOL

Weren't the scribes pretty meticulous about copying the stuff?

Yes, of course. But they still found scribal errors, additions, embellishments, and deletions.

Do we need originals to believe the Word?

No. It would be nice. No need for Textual Criticism.
But we've gotten along without them. (the originals)

Wouldn't God have preserved them if that were the case?

Personally, I think we are way too dependent on the written word. (the Bible)
I don't think that was God's intent at all. The early church only had the OT and letters
that were sent to them specifically. It was 20 to 30 years before anyone bothered to
create a Gospel record. (which raises more questions) It was an oral tradition prior to that.
Believers were dependent on hearing directly from God. The operation of spiritual gifts
(the manifestations of the Spirit) were the motivating factor.

I get nervous talking about this stuff what with the way folks are about it.

Yes. The Bibliolators will NOT give up their idols of wood products and ink.
Nor their allegiance to doctrinal hairsplitting.

With 3/4 million words in the English Bible, don't you think God could have managed to keep enough of it intact that we have no need to worry that our eternal destiny might be in peril because of clerical or translational errors?

Yup. That's what it all boils down to.

/

 

[BarneyFife]

Personally, I think we are way too dependent on the written word. (the Bible)

And I'd say we're not dependent enough on it, but certainly not in the way I believe you'd normally object to, especially if you could peek inside my head.

I'd say that I'm sympathetic to Twain's idea of not being as concerned with what he didn't understand as with what he did understand and didn't follow, so to speak.

I think, in a most profound sense, that access to wisdom depends entirely and strictly on faithfulness.

Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.


.

 

[St. SteVen]

I think, in a most profound sense, that access to wisdom depends entirely and strictly on faithfulness.

That's interesting.
Could you unwrap that for us a bit more?

How can "access to wisdom" depend "entirely and strictly on faithfulness"?
One would think that the "wisdom" would come before the "faithfulness". ???
Faithfulness to what? Something less than the HOPED FOR wisdom?
It sounds like a cart before the horse situation to me. Please explain. Thanks.

/

 

[amadeus]

That's interesting.
Could you unwrap that for us a bit more?

How can "access to wisdom" depend "entirely and strictly on faithfulness"?
One would think that the "wisdom" would come before the "faithfulness". ???
Faithfulness to what? Something less than the HOPED FOR wisdom?
It sounds like a cart before the horse situation to me. Please explain. Thanks.

/

Mt 6:33

But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

If one is faithful in seeking first things first, what will be added to him? And..?

Re 2:10

Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

 

[St. SteVen]

That's interesting.
Could you unwrap that for us a bit more?

How can "access to wisdom" depend "entirely and strictly on faithfulness"?
One would think that the "wisdom" would come before the "faithfulness". ???
Faithfulness to what? Something less than the HOPED FOR wisdom?
It sounds like a cart before the horse situation to me. Please explain. Thanks.

Mt 6:33

But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

If one is faithful in seeking first things first, what will be added to him? And..?

Re 2:10

Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

Does that answer my question?
How can "access to wisdom" depend "entirely and strictly on faithfulness"?

Can we "seek ye first the kingdom" without the wisdom of WHAT that kingdom is?

I get that we need to be faithful. But doesn't the TO WHAT (the wisdom) come first?

/

 

[The Learner]

In the original world war we saw the use of germ warfare.
Complete with graffiti slogans. Like...
"Brown spots on your hut by Hoo Flung Poo."

/

Years ago, if it is brown, flush it referring to a poltican who let a bomber escape being captured in LA.

 

[St. SteVen]

Years ago, if it is brown, flush it referring to a poltican who let a bomber escape being captured in LA.

Who was the bomber?
Or more importantly, who was the politician? - LOL

/

 

[The Learner]

Who was the bomber?
Or more importantly, who was the politician? - LOL

/

We never found out his name. He called the Major's Office claiming he had a nuke and was going to use it in LA unless he is paid a million dollars. I wrote articles in Military magazines at that time about terrorism. A General called me for my short list. We were flown to LA as fast as possible. We determined that no nuke was not under Military control. Governor Brown went on TV and flipped off the bomber. I was one of the people involved in starting N.E.S.T. (Nuclear Energy Search Support Team)around 1972.

 

[St. SteVen]

New topic. (shameless promotion)

The Limited Aspect of Christian Love - "I love you, but I don't like you."

/

 

[St. SteVen]

New topic. (shameless promotion)

The Limited Aspect of Christian Love - "I love you, but I don't like you."

As Christians, we are commanded to "love everyone". But that doesn't mean we need to LIKE them, right? RIGHT? - Have you found yourself in the position of having to "love" someone that is unlovable? - What does it mean to "like" someone? - Is "like" greater than, or even EQUAL to, love? /

www.christianityboard.com

/

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

We hear none of this at church. What did the church tell us?
"That Bible in your hands is the Word of God.
Every word is God-breathed and inerrant."

You wouldn't be accusing Jesus of being a failure would you?

Failing to make sure mankind has an accurate copy of what He said?

If so, then one cannot possibly be saved because.... if they believe God's Word is inaccurate then they have nothing to base their salvation upon which means they are hell bound.

The promises you believed to get born again... how do you know they are actually God's Word seeing you have problems believing Jesus is all powerful and is well able to provide mankind with His Word in written form?

 

[The Learner]

I think of Textual Criticism being a tree. The roots are the original manuscripts, each branch is a city where copies were made, each leaf is a manuscript. As time goes on new branches and leaves are added. Scholars simply compare all the leaves to weed out mistakes, errors in copying.

 

[TLHKAJ]

So what should we use?

Watch out for the Bible translations that have the triquetra symbol on them, trying to pass it off to represent the Trinity .... but the symbol is an ancient pagan symbol for the pagan moon goddess trinity.

 

[St. SteVen]

Watch out foe the Bible translations that have the triquetra symbol on them, trying to pass it off to represent the Trinity .... but the symbol is an ancient pagan symbol for the pagan moon goddess trinity.

What is your view on the Trinity?

/

 

[TLHKAJ]

You wouldn't be accusing Jesus of being a failure would you?

Failing to make sure mankind has an accurate copy of what He said?

If so, then one cannot possibly be saved because.... if they believe God's Word is inaccurate then they have nothing to base their salvation upon which means they are hell bound.

The promises you believed to get born again... how do you know they are actually God's Word seeing you have problems believing Jesus is all powerful and is well able to provide mankind with His Word in written form?

Exactly....

Romans 10:13-17
[13]For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
[14]How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
[15]And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
[16]But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
[17]So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Watch out foe the Bible translations that have the triquetra symbol on them, trying to pass it off to represent the Trinity .... but the symbol is an ancient pagan symbol for the pagan moon goddess trinity.

Yep, I heard 'bout that.

Exactly....

Romans 10:13-17
[13]For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
[14]How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
[15]And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
[16]But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
[17]So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Yep, how can home boy be saved.... if he thinks this is not God's Word???

 

[TLHKAJ]

@St. SteVen @Lambano

Alright boys! "Due benevolence" for a woman is way different than what a male brain first thinks of. It isn't always intimacy of the sort men first think of. Women are different. So for your wives sakes (hopefully each of you only have one, lol) .....think love, caring, tenderness .....time ....meaningful conversation....just being held, etc. Men are commanded to love their wives. Wives respond to "due benevolence" with .....respect, honor, trust, and love (.....etc).

Okay...... lesson over. lol

 

[TLHKAJ]

In the New Heavens and New Earth, the sun is deprecated.

1. Revelation 21:23
   The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light.
   
   
2. Revelation 22:5
   There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign forever and ever.

Yes, which lines up completely with John chapter one, and Genesis chapter one.