Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

ask a Bible-believer

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Many saved Christians don't qualify as "Bible-believers".

(A man may fail to believe every word he reads in the Book and mis-understand doctrine, but if he's trusting the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ to save his soul, instead of his own righteousness, then he is still saved and on his way to be with the Lord in heaven.)

I'm Lebanese. English is my third language. I believe the King James Bible is God's word, flawless. I not only believe the word of God, but the wordS of God.

Now, I don't mean this thread as an opportunity for people to bash those beliefs, although feel free if you so choose.

Here's what I have in mind:

the level of Biblical ignorance that I've seen on this site for the last few months is appaling. Even if you hate and/or disbelieve the Book,
if you're really the objective intellectual you claim to be, then being ignorant of the most sold, most influencial, most discussed, most studied, most read book of all time is unpardonable.
Incidently, having read a handful of verses from the Pentateuch and the Gospels doesn't count.

So I want to present you with the groundwork and foundational understanding of a Bible-believer, not just a Christian.
I want to show you what I believe and why.
I mean this so that you at least can be more familiar with what a Bible-believer actually believes, and will be less prone to inaccurately represent the Book and its believers while you flame away.

The underlying principle for understanding the whole Bible is dispensationalism.
God did not and will not deal with mankind the same way throughout history, though he never changed and never will change his principles.

There is a difference then between the various dispensations of the Bible.
There is a difference between the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of Heaven.
There is a diffference between the Jew, the Gentile, and the church.


2Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Rightly dividing means studying the differences.

Those are the building blocks and will account for 100% of the contradictions you RIGHTLY read in the Bible.
(of course 95% of your contradictions aren't so, but 5% of 'em are in some degree true)

So if you have any question related to a general understanding of the Bible, please free to ask away.
I don't have all the answers, that's for sure. But at least I want you to become more familiar with what a Bible-believer believes and why.

This is the first time I try this here, a sort of experiment, so will play it by ear.




posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 03:55 AM
link   
God created the earth in seven days. Do you believe it was seven days as we understand it or is it possible that to God seven days may be a million years per day.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 04:08 AM
link   
Another question, I proposed a theory a while back that was taken completely out of context. My theory was that if god was pure Matter wouldn't it make sense that if God created man in his own image then no matter what you looked like, the color of your skin, your ethnic background, you would look exactly like God. Matter can take any shape or form or color and because everything is made up of matter then wouldn't we all be of God and God be of us. This would also explain how God would know our past, present, and future because matter can neither be created nor destroyed so far as we know, which means God has always existed and will always exist!



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 04:10 AM
link   
If god is all knowing, then why did he even tell Adam and Eve to not eat the fruit, when he already knew the answer? Wouldn't that mean God was just testing his own omnipotence?



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Good question, perhaps God knows there many possible outcomes and because we were given free wills to choose then it was up to us to choose right or wrong and depending on what we chose he would he would go along with it and allow us to continue on until the next decision was made and so forth.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Necromancer9,

Those 6 days are akin to our 24 hour day.
There are a few points to consider however.
(by the way those were 6 days of re-creation, not the absolutely original creation)

a) the sun is created on the 4th day, after the earth

The reason I believe they were about 24 hours is because God set that time period up when he set up the sun. So he basically defined it.

Yes in some places we read of God considering one day as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day, but those verses are context-specific.
Many a time have I seen a man grab those verses and apply them across the Bible as a blanket statement.
There's no reason to use that equivalency unless we are instructed to do so in certain situations, which we are.

b) You have to give or take a few minutes or hours because those were 6 antediluvian (pre-flood) days.

==============================================
CPYKOmega,

That means he was testing man's freewill.
I've told children not to do something knowing full-well they were going to do it anyway. But I still had to warn them of the danger and leave room for their free-choice.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 08:30 AM
link   
The King James bible is an EDITED translation of an EDITED translation of a compendium of EDIT stories put together. So anyone who thinks the KJ Version is the infallible word of God hasn't done the necessary research.

It seems quite reasonable for Man to have evolved from less advanced species if you can put Pride and Self-Importance aside. In fact the record has been heavily leaning in that proof department for over 50 years (don't spew the "it just a theory" line. It is baseless and ill informed.

There are also people with a vested interest (or just afraid) telling everyone else that to think other than the Bible is evil. I'd be most careful when people claim to know what God wants or says. It always leads to trouble or some way to take your hard earned money.

Needing a book and some self proclaimed expert on the book to tell me what to do is nonsense. Once you have been convinced that you were born with Sin then you have to depend on another self appointed human to tell you that you have to do what they deem necessary to get into heaven. Sounds a bit daft to me.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Isaiah 24:21
Those 6 days are akin to our 24 hour day.


What's interesting is the word used in the Hebrew is used to mean both day and age throughout Genesis. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that that's another factor to consider.

As to the sun being created on the 4th day, that's another interesting factor in the original Hebrew. The word used that is translated as "made" in Genesis 1:16 in the King James version of the Bible in Hebrew is actually different than the other created/made words of the previous days. It is a word that implies revealing. What's remarkably fascinating about this is that it could imply the atmosphere God created on the Earth on the third day was opaque -- one couldn't see through it, and then on the fourth day God changed it to be transparent, revealing two great lights in the sky. This would actually be in line with the understanding of current geological predictions of the formation of the Earth, too.

Just some interesting points I've come across in my studies. I'm not saying they're definitive or absolutely right, but they do cause you to think



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Isaiah 24:21
Necromancer9,

Those 6 days are akin to our 24 hour day.
There are a few points to consider however.
(by the way those were 6 days of re-creation, not the absolutely original creation)

a) the sun is created on the 4th day, after the earth

The reason I believe they were about 24 hours is because God set that time period up when he set up the sun. So he basically defined it.

Yes in some places we read of God considering one day as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day, but those verses are context-specific.
Many a time have I seen a man grab those verses and apply them across the Bible as a blanket statement.
There's no reason to use that equivalency unless we are instructed to do so in certain situations, which we are.

b) You have to give or take a few minutes or hours because those were 6 antediluvian (pre-flood) days.



I think the 24 hour day of Genesis may not be relative to our 24 hour day. The Earth might be spinning on its axis and revolving around the Sun at a faster rate during the time of creation where enormous amount of energy are released.

So, relative to our time scale, it might only be 2 or 3 hours a day or even less and 60 days a year or even less. So, what we have here during the time of creation is a variable time scale not relative to our local time. The first day of creation may not have the same time scale as on the second day of creation. Each one having it's own time scale irrelative to the previous and next days.

After all, time is basically measured in tandem with the motion of the Earth, the moon and the sun.

The reason why animals were not created on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th day, is because of the enormous forces involved in creation. Nothing can survive. I think when the forces subsided and it came closer and closer to our 24 hour day local time, animals were already safe to be created. So, on the 5th day we have every species of sea creatures being created, on the 6th day we have land animals being created and man, having the least capability of surviving, was created last.

You can see the sequence of creation in Genesis and every thing were created according to their level of survivability on the environment. Seeds of plants, trees, vegetations first and then sea creatures second and then land animals third and then man, fourth. Each follows a sequence to where they can survive at optimum.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
What's remarkably fascinating about this is that it could imply the atmosphere God created on the Earth on the third day was opaque -- one couldn't see through it, and then on the fourth day God changed it to be transparent, revealing two great lights in the sky. This would actually be in line with the understanding of current geological predictions of the formation of the Earth, too.


I think I agree with you there with regards to the atmosphere being opaque. I think on the first 3 days of creation, the atmosphere was somewhat like Venus with thick clouds where light couldn't even pass through it. It also follows that it has a high atmospheric pressure due to the thick dense clouds. I think thats the reason why animals were not created during these first few days simply because they can't survive the thick noxious atmosphere and high atmospheric pressure forces being a byproduct of the first few days of creation where the Earth was constructed. When these has subsided and cleared up in the sky eventually, it has revealed the 2 great lights, which is the Sun and the Moon.

With this info, the Sun was already created on the first day of creation, achieving the correct sequence of "Let there be light" and so solve the problem of when the Sun was created in Genesis.



[edit on 14-11-2007 by amitheone]

[edit on 14-11-2007 by amitheone]



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by amitheone
 


It's possible. However, there are phenomenal theological arguments for both this interpretation and the one where the sun was actually created on the 4th day based on scripture by theologians and Biblical scholars far wiser than you or I.

Something to keep in mind, too. While science can guide our interpretation of scripture, it should not dictate it. There have been many times in the past where science proved scripture wrong only for it to be discovered that science hadn't discovered everything there was to know quite yet. One great example is the rivers in the oceans the Bible talks about. That was stupid according to science a few hundred years ago, you can't have rivers of water in water -- it's all homogeneous. So naturally, that scripture must mean something else, since science says it's impossible, right? Yet now we know there are currents in the oceans and rivers of water that flow through that are separate from the other water in the area. Just something to remember when trying to understand God's Word


Science can guide, but it should never dictate.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
reply to post by amitheone
 


It's possible. However, there are phenomenal theological arguments for both this interpretation and the one where the sun was actually created on the 4th day based on scripture by theologians and Biblical scholars far wiser than you or I.


As we advanced in knowledge further, that can be challenged, however. Though theologians and scholars are trained in Bible scriptures, however, they should not be looked upon as the final authority of Biblical interpretations. Every Christian should make an effort to research and understand the Bible for themselves and not being spoon fed all the time. Search the scriptures like the noble Bereans did.

Any Christian can read the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit.


Something to keep in mind, too. While science can guide our interpretation of scripture, it should not dictate it. There have been many times in the past where science proved scripture wrong only for it to be discovered that science hadn't discovered everything there was to know quite yet. One great example is the rivers in the oceans the Bible talks about. That was stupid according to science a few hundred years ago, you can't have rivers of water in water -- it's all homogeneous. So naturally, that scripture must mean something else, since science says it's impossible, right? Yet now we know there are currents in the oceans and rivers of water that flow through that are separate from the other water in the area. Just something to remember when trying to understand God's Word


Yes, I agree. It should not dictate it, but, it should be used as a guide in understanding scriptures. Some passages in the Bible especially in prophecy requires a basic knowledge in science in order for us to understand it fully.

For example in Joel, "The sun shall be turned to darkness, the moon to blood before the great and terrible day of the Lord." Without a solid foundation in Science, we will get different and funny translation to it. It simply means that before the Lord comes, there will be a solar eclipse and a lunar eclipse (the red moon). Have you seen a red moon before?

Let us set aside people who use science to denounce the Bible. They have their biases. You can't possibly read the Bible with this kind of mindset as it will be obviously interpreted wrongly.

For the religious folks who says the Earth is flat hundreds of years ago, let us be humble enough to be corrected when we are wrong. Check the facts first before concluding. A quick answer is not required. Take your time to learn the facts first.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by amitheone
Any Christian can read the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit.


Yes, but to assume we can have as much insight into the scriptures as anyone else is haughty and not in conjunction with what scripture says. We are all part of a body, part of the Bride of Christ. We are made to be dependent on one another. True, we should not be spoon fed what we believe, but at the same time we should not simply dismiss the wisdom and knowledge God has given others because the Holy Spirit did not directly communicate it to us. Granted, man can fail, but that means that you and I can fail in our interpretation of what we believe the Holy Spirit to be communicating to us. As Proverbs 12:15 states,


The way of a fool seems right to him,
but a wise man listens to advice.


Key word there being advice, not dictation. As First Thessalonians 5:21 states, we should test everything and keep that which is good. We should test other's knowledge against scripture. But we should test it, not ignore it.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   
I'm a Bible-believer, not a Hebrew manuscripts believer.
I believe that the Lord preserved all the words he wanted to me to have, the way he wanted to have them, in the King James Bible.
(Yes, the King James Bible is a translation. So what's your point?
God didn't die in 90 A.D.)
I therefore have no use for Hebrew and Greek when it comes to a better understanding of the Bible.
I avoid using the terms "original Hebrew" and "original Greek" because we don't have "the original hebrew" and "the original Greek."

The biggest conspiracy has been to destroy man's faith in the words of God.


[edit on 14-11-2007 by Isaiah 24:21]



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Isaiah 24:21
I believe that the Lord preserved all the words he wanted to me to have, the way he wanted to have them, in the King James Bible.


Based on what?



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

He said "wordS", not "word".



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Isaiah 24:21
ask a Bible-believer


Who was Melchizedek? Shem, Jesus, an ordinary man?

What does the Bible mean by "Clouds of Heaven"? (Daniel 7:13) Does Jesus ride water vapor or does this have a deeper meaning?

Sorry this seems random. Just a couple of questions that no one ever seems to know the answer to. Just curious about your opinion.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Isaiah 24:21
 


But that doesn't explain why it is you believe the King James version alone that is the divinely inspired Word of God making the original texts irrelevant.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   
dbates,

I don't know about Melchizedek. For years I was convinced he was Jesus Christ, until I read a commentator who gives a lot of attention to the words of the Bible.

Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

It's that "like unto" that makes me doubt it was the Lord, in which case Shem would the most likely candidate.
But my answer is I don't know.

Those are the clouds of heaven indeed, but not this earth's heaven (I.E. the atmosphere) but the third heaven's, up above the universe (which is the 2nd heaven).
There are clouds in the third heaven, and those are spoken of in numerous places, especially in the Psalms.

They're associated with chariots and hence the rapture (remember Elijah).

Psalm 104:3 Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:

When the Bible says

1Thessalonians 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

it's not talking about the sky's clouds but clouds like the one that picked the Lord up

Acts 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

How could a cumulo-nimbus carry a body out of the atmosphere, into deep space, past Alpha Draconis, and into the third heaven?
It couldn't.

Hope that helps.

JungleJake,

I'm about to go to sleep so I'll keep it as simple as I can for now, but which other Bible would you suggest and why?

If none, then the words were not preserved.

I know the argument might sound simplistic, but it's deeper than meets the eye. That and simplicity is commended by Paul








[edit on 14-11-2007 by Isaiah 24:21]



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
What does the Bible mean by "Clouds of Heaven"? (Daniel 7:13) Does Jesus ride water vapor or does this have a deeper meaning?


I have a Zondervan life application study bible that says the following:


"The clouds of heaven portray the Son of Man as divine; throughout the bible clouds represent his majesty and awesome presence. God's glory appeared in a cloud in Exodus 16:10 (Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven) and Exodus 19:9 (While Aaron was speaking to the whole Israelite community, they looked toward the desert, and there was the glory of the LORD appearing in the cloud) at the giving of the law at Sinai."


When I read about Jesus coming on the "clouds of Heaven" I can't help thinking of a hot, dry and parched desert landscape stretching out for thousands of miles. Slowly a thick dense cloud starts to cover the land, unstoppable in it's movement while bringing the promise of life giving waters. No man living in the unrelentingly hot and sun bleached land could miss what is coming......the plants know it, the insects know it, the animals know it and man cannot deny it.

[edit on 11/14/2007 by kinglizard]





new topics




 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join