MikeHD: I do find it very interesting as to how so many are so confident that the bible is the fantasy of some very imaginative and over zealous monks, or that it is the product of the council of Nicaea, or that it someone’s cruel joke on the world. The fact that the bible is, is a miracle in and of itself. Who ever wrote it had to be the genius of all geniuses. It is, after all, an impossible book to write. The following is an article that I believe will kick start this thread. I know there will be many that will not take the time to read it, and others will only read what they want in search of that precious statement to take out of context, but I think this is a good beginning for what could be a lot of fun. I know it will take some time to present all the evidence, and I am not that fast, but bear with me. I have a significant library, and will do my best to defend all the age old arguments I am sure will surface. I am not getting everything off the web, and taking it as face value. I first read this article in 91, before I ever heard of the internet.
I would like to address one issue now before I forget. I have heard it said that men picked and chose what books to put in the bible, and that is very true (though I believe the were directed by God, and at the authors were given the words by God). They used several filters to select which got in and which got out. The main criteria used is do the writing agree with all the other writings. Some people want to use this as evidence that the bible is false or flawed. I am not sure what reasoning they use in this line of thinking. If I wrote a book that stated I found out, through person experience and experimentation, that everything written in scientific journals was false, that the period table was inaccurate, that Einstein was totally wrong, that we are not made up of atoms and molecules, that D-O-G actually spelled cat, and that water was really fire, and then I demanded that my book be treated as an equal with all of the other great science books written by man. And if you chose to disregard my findings you were only showing you had something to hide, you would just laugh as you tossed my work into the garbage. Why? Because it did not match what was already found to be true. Now an example of how this works here. The Gnostic Gospels taught Jesus was never a man in the flesh (which I find funny because the DaVinci Code used to try to prove Jesus was only a man). They taught that all flesh was evil, and so Jesus could never have taken flesh because he was too pure. If Jesus was only spirit, then He could not have died. If He did not die, then He did not die for me and the penalty of my sin remains unpaid and I have no hope for salvation. I will have to stand before God guilty without any counsel, and without anyone able to pay my penalty. These teachings obviously conflict with the entire message of scripture, so out they go. I mean why leave them in? Why would you include my teaching that D-O-G actually spelled cat in a scholastic spelling book? Or are you one who thinks all points of view should be considered equal? That D-O-G may actually spell cat from a certain point of view. Postmodernism is a crazy thing, and it is coming.
I read some of them... u can tell even by the formatting and the style that there is something 'not right'.. the bible is like a perfectly crafted jigsaw puzzle it all just fits.. its extraordinary.. and you get to know the voice of God and what is 'likely' to come from him, because of the common thread that runs through it.. and yep totally agree, if Jesus was not a man, the scripture would not have been fulfilled as prophesised and the whole fabric of the Bible from Genises to Revelations would fall apart..
The Bible, just PARTof why I believe…: click here to read the entire thread »