jaybird18c

Yes. I do. But not because I think the canon of scripture is completely "airtight." That kind of reasoning for proving something true comes from modern epistemology, 17th Century Enlightenment period, Baconian reasoning, scientific methodology, etc. That does not apply here and is not the kind of evidence that you would need in order to show the Bible to be trustworthy. Could we be wrong about inclusion of the longer ending of Mark or the woman caught in adultery? Yes. But that's ok. Those examples are few and far between and take nothing away from the established truth of the fundamentals of the faith. With regard to canonicity, let me start by saying that the Bible is the word of God and the standard (measuring rod) for what is true. It has been since it was recorded. A formalized canon didn’t need to be established until false teachings began creeping into the church (attacks from within). By the 2nd Century AD, we have the complete canon of the NT (by the way, by the 2nd Century BC, we have a very well defined canon of the OT). Criteria for canonization include Apostolicity (written by an apostle or a close associate of an Apostle; e.g. Mark with Peter), antiquity (how ancient the usage of the book was within the Church; written within the lifetime of an eyewitness, etc.), inspiration (did God write it; does it claim to be the word of God; was it accepted by the Church as inspired), widespread acceptance (over different geographic regions, was it generally used as scripture), content/orthodoxy (does it cohere with the overall message of the progressive revelatory nature of the Bible explaining God’s plan of salvation for His people; apostolic message). However, that aside, there is in fact also an inner witness of the Holy Spirit (which is subjective and experiential) that goes into the criteria as well. The Bible points us outside of itself to God and God meets those who seek him in the middle, fills us with His Holy Spirit, and informs us of His word. So, therefore, canonization is not completely objective. It has a subjective component. That’s not to say this is blind faith in the scripture. It is very much informed and and gives us very good reason to believe in it as accurate and trustworthy. That's not to say we are Bibliolaters. We do not worship the Bible. We worship God.

Jehovah's Witnesses can't even tell the Ketiv from the Qere. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYkbqzWVHZI Now that's funny. ... I don't care who you are.

That was kind of a difficult read for me. Very granular and encyclopedic but very good.

That is your word for word grammatical translation of this?

Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in the Trinity! They base that on their interpretation of their translation of the Bible. The only reasonable conclusion is that there is no consensus! Ok. Let's look at a fundamental passage. Matthew 14:6 (NASB) "Jesus said to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me." (ESV) "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (NIV) "Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (KJV) "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (NKJV) "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (NLT) " Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." How about a Spanish Castillian translation? "Jesús dijo entonces: Yo soy el camino, la verdad y la vida: nadie puede ir al Padre, si no es por mí." Now, using straight forward grammatical/historical interpretation (just read it), how would you personally interpret that item of scripture? And that clearly puts them outside the "consensus" of orthodoxy and into what we call a non-Christian "cult."

That's not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that it is a good litmus test for what I was talking about (textual criticism, reliability, etc.) It doesn't mean that the majority is right in every instance (e.g. slavery in the South...abortion in the U.S.). That's not what I'm talking about.

Not the case: "This episode as a whole, despite its notoriety, does little to elucidate the Puritan mind of the age; but it did lead to chagrin and public remorse, which in turn reduced respect for the colony's religious leadership, especially in the eyes of the merchant class whose social and political importance were notably increased under the new charter." - Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People, pg. 161. I had to read this book for a class. Ahlstrom does not strike me as an evangelical Christian. He is an excellent historian nevertheless. This was absolutely an isolated event in the colonies and did not represent the widespread beliefs of the Puritans.

"Evolutionists often falsely accuse creationists of believing in a flat Earth. But neither history nor modern scholarship supports the claim that Christians ever widely believed that the Earth was flat. And the Bible doesn’t teach it." http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/flatearth.asp

Firstly, you're talking about two different things...differences in translation and differences in canonicity (e.g. Catholics adding the Apocryphal books). That aside, I use several. I own an NIV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV. I like the NASB the best because, in my opinion, it is one of the best scholarly word for word translations from the original Greek. However, the ESV is another excellent translation and is easier to read sometimes. The others are good for casual reading but when I really want to get to the meat of a particular matter, I regard the first ones I mentioned more reliable. But what's good is to compare side-by-side. The books of the Bible were originally in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic....then translated into Latin...German...English...and so on...and so forth. That does not mean that those translations aren't reliable. As a matter of fact, the vast number of translations actually establishes reliability. Of course, there are differences of opinion on some things. There are even mistakes in translation in some places...but those are extremely few and far between. As far as translation is concerned, however, none of those "mistakes" have anything to do with the essentials of the faith.

What's Europe got to do with the Salem Witch Trials brought up as an example earlier? Anyway, all of this is beside the point. None of those occurances were justifiable.

Come on dude. Everyone believes in something. An atheist believes in him/herself. Just because you claim to not believe in God doesn't mean that you don't have a belief system of your own. Be honest.

Regardless of your denomination, "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity." (Augustine).

That is simply not true. I say something is true. You ask why. I say, because that's what the Bible says. A Jehovah's Witness also says something is true. You ask why. He says, because that's what the Bible says. Then, what we need to do is look into a historical context. Now if my interpretation of what the Bible says matches up with what the vast majority of scholarly folks throughout history (who have done all the heavy lifting of translation from the original languages) have come up with, then I have great cause to think that what I am reading is reliable. On the other hand, for example, if the Jehovah's Witness New World Translation (produced by the Watchtower Society) doesn't match up with what anyone else is saying (e.g. with regard to the Trinity, deity of Jesus, etc.), then I have great cause for concern. With regard to the Moral Law in the Pentateuch (1st 5 books of the Bible or the books of the Law). I believe there has been consensus on that for a very very long time.

No change. The God of the OT is the same God of the NT. If you die in your sins wolfriverjoe, you will come face to face with the wrath filled God described in the OT and you will melt like a candle in front of a blast furnace. "It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." That is, unless you have Jesus Christ interceeding for you. That only comes through faith. That faith is demonstrated by repentance. Either you will be judged for what you have done in this life, found guilty, and justly punished....or....you can be seen as innocent...not based on anything you have done or could do...but based on the perfect substitute which was given for you (if you have been called by God to repent and believe the gospel).

Which one of those do you wish to discuss? You've got to read passeges before and after in order to understand their meaning. For instance, Ephesians 5 is illustrating what the marriage relationship "should be." The submission discussed is not referring to a domineering or overpowering control over a woman. It's referring to perfect submission. The husband being head of the wife does not indicate superiority. We are all equal in the eyes of God. It is simply the role he has been assigned (which is a huge one to which he will be held accountable). If you keep reading, it goes on to say that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church in that He gave his life up for it. If a husband loves his wife so much that he is willing to give up everything and die for her, then her best interests are always at the forefront. The husband "submiits" to his wife in that way. They submit one and to the other. It's easy to submit or be accountable to one another when that kind of perfect relationship exists. The marriage relationship is just an illustration of the one between Jesus Christ and the Father. Both are of the same essense (worth), however one submits to the other (willingly).

God's moral standard has not changed from Genesis to Revelation or until now...nor will it ever. God is the same in the past, present, and future. He does not change. That is one of his incommunicable attributes.

It's possible that mine could (hopefully, not to a large extent, though) because I'm human and God, throughout the course of my life, is conforming me to His standard (I've got a very long way to go). However, my shortcoming is not the point. The point is that God's standard does not change.

To be historically accurate, you really need to distinguish Christianity from "religion" in general (e.g. Islam, etc.). "As a result of Jesus Christ and His teachings, women in much of the world today, especially in the West, enjoy more privileges and rights than at any other time in history. It takes only a cursory trip to an Arab nation or to a Third World country to see how little freedom women have in countries where Christianity has had little or no presence.{19} It’s the best thing that ever happened to women." http://bible.org/article/christianity-best-thing-ever-happened-women Not saying that people haven't throughout history misinterpreted, misapplied, and even maliciously distorted the scriptures, however, the teachings of Jesus Christ elevate the status of women. That is yet one more thing that makes it unique in the world. Religion (generally speaking), like you said, hasn't been particularly kind to women but that cannot be said of the grammatical/historical interpretation of what the Bible says concerning women.

God has done nothing but make covenants with sinners....every one of them....I don't understand your point.

Can you explain how God wouldn't have known about the ten commandments and Abram's adultery? Dude, the Ten Commandments didn't come around until Moses in Exodus. That aside, the Ten Commandments are just a representation of the character and nature of God. They are not all encompassing but are certainly a good mirror to look into. Ultimately, you will be judged by something even higher than the Ten Commandments. You will be compared to the very nature of God Himself (who is perfect). I still don't really understand your question, though.

No. Just thought it interesting how often that gets brought up. Just from a historical perspective. I mean, we could compare the attrocities committed by Christians versus Atheists if you want to (e.g. Stalin)...but I don't really see the point except for pointing out the absurdity of the comparison. There is no compromise with God's standard. Jesus said "But you are to be perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect." Perfection is the standard. How are you doing?

God invented the Inquisition? Really? Are you serious? Is that really what you're thinking? I don't even know how to respond to something like that.

Re-posting from previous comment: Not trying to minimize the wrongdoing, however, it's interesting to note that, as much attention that is brought to the Salem Trials, there were only about 20 executions. You'd think it was on par with the Holocaust.

The lameness is all on your part. You don't know your god's plan any more than the pope in Rome does. At least the Flying Spaghetti Monster hasn't ordered any massacres of nonbelievers - yet. You're right. I forgot to add old faithful...the flying spaghetti monster.

You'd think atheists could come up with something new. Instead, the argument against always seems to lead to "Well, What about the Crusades and the Salem Witch Trials? That's why I can't believe. That will be a lame excuse when they stand before God and give an account. Not trying to minimize the wrongdoing, however, it's interesting to note that, as much attention that is brought to the Salem Trials, there were only about 20 executions. You'd think it was on par with the Holocaust.