| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Carl" |
| Date: |
22 Dec 2007 11:11:26 PM |
| Object: |
The Light Still Shines |
With Christmas day rapidly approaching, I'd like to post this apt sermon
from Steve Zeisler.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
THE LIGHT STILL SHINES
by Steve Zeisler
In this series we're studying the story of Jesus' birth in the gospel of
Matthew. In Matthew's narrative ancient promises and hopes are fulfilled.
The heavens speak of a Ruler for Israel. King-makers arrive with remarkable
gifts. And finally, as we will read in the text before us, the undeserving
die, foreshadowing the cross looming in the future.
There is a hard, violent side to the Christmas story. In order to tell the
story honestly, in our last study on the birth of Christ we are going to
read of the execution of innocent, undeserving children at the hand of a
cruel tyrant. It has often been observed that the violence at the beginning
of Jesus' life anticipated the violence at the end. Those who hated him
hoped to kill him in his infancy. Their hope was realized later. We can't
tell the Christmas story fully without telling the conclusion. Jesus'
enemies did finally kill him-but not as a victim. Death was at the time and
place of his choosing.
There is a related scene in the Revelation of John, who sees stages of
history in cosmic, vivid pictures. "Another sign appeared in heaven: an
enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his
heads. His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to
the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give
birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born."
(Revelation 12:3-4.)
It is part of the story that our Lord was sent into this world from his
Father with a death sentence. The Son was born to fight the greatest battle,
to conquer sin and death. He gave himself, stood in our place, so that death
wouldn't succeed in destroying us.
We're going to consider a story of vulnerability and a story of cruelty in
Matthew 2. I hope this text will sober us. It's good to be sobered a bit at
Christmas, to go beyond shallow merriment and to look in hope at things that
are important, to fix our eyes on what lasts forever.
Let's first consider the flight of Joseph, Mary, and the Baby to Egypt, a
dangerous journey taken to escape from a tyrant. The second story is that of
Herod's violent actions after the Magi fail to return to him.
A command to escape
The story of the flight to Egypt is told in Matthew 2:12-15:
And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, [the Magi]
returned to their country by another route.
When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get
up," he said, "and take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay
there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill
him."
So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for
Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what
the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."
This young husband and wife have traveled to Bethlehem under extreme,
difficult circumstances, late in her pregnancy. They are very poor. They are
given no place for the Child to be born (Luke 2:1-7). They have already
suffered a good deal of hardship. Now, some weeks after the Child is born,
they are told again of another trip they must take, running for their lives
from Bethlehem and its environs to Egypt. They embark in the middle of the
night on an arduous and dangerous journey. We're not told of anyone who was
there to support them-no caring circle of family or friends. There's no
description of a welcome for them in Egypt. Remember, too, these are
first-time parents, with the normal worries and uncertainties.
Let me point out two helpful aspects of the angel's direction to Joseph.
First, he predicts events before they happen. Herod doesn't yet know that
the Magi have taken off without checking in with him, that he has been
outwitted. He will be furious and act to kill every baby boy in Bethlehem,
but that brutality hasn't begun yet. The God who cares for us doesn't have
to wait until something bad happens and then scurry around trying to deal
with it. He acts with knowledge of the future, and he can be trusted. We
observe, too, that prophecy is fulfilled in the flight to Egypt. It's clear
that this development with Herod is not something that catches the Lord by
surprise.
Our lives are like this journey to Egypt. We know the promise of God that he
will complete what he has begun in us, that we are part of some plan that is
bigger than ourselves. We know that he has promised to make us like his Son.
But very often the next stage of the journey doesn't look that way at all,
does it? It looks dangerous and chaotic. We're clearer about the tyrants who
issue threats than we are about the Lord who promises protection. The
Christian life has hardships, regrettable failures, confusing stretches of
wilderness, circumstances that have no explanation. But in all of that, God
is redeeming and remaking things. He has a good end in mind.
The tyrant doesn't win. He means to destroy the life of this Child. He wants
to inflict tragedy without hope. But he is not permitted to do so. Sometimes
in our lives there are tyrants, threats, awful words spoken against us.
Sometimes the tyrant is something like cancer. It may be loneliness or
financial chaos or personal weakness. Tyrants threaten destruction from
which no good can come. But they don't win. This family is protected, and
Jesus does not die as a victim. He fulfills his mission. And God will
fulfill the plans he has for us, complete the work he has begun in us.
Let's now examine Herod's place in these events.
An opportunity to repent
Notice that we are told in the text what Herod thinks and feels, given
access to his emotions. We know the plans he makes and the actions that he
takes. Matthew has drawn Herod in some detail in this text-for good reason.
Matthew 2:1-3 sets the scene:
After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod,
Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the one who has
been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to
worship him."
When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him.
Herod's story continues in verses 16-23:
When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious,
and gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were
two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the
Magi. Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
"A voice is heard in Ramah,
weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more."
After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in
Egypt and said, "Get up and take the child and his mother and go to the land
of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child's life are dead."
So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel.
But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his
father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he
withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called
Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be
called a Nazarene."
Herod was known among his contemporaries as Herod the Great. He is called
King Herod here, and he reigned in Palestine, but he was not a Jew, and he
was not independently a king. Herod was brilliant and politically astute. He
won the favor of the priests and other leaders among the Jews, mostly by
buying them off, particularly with his rebuilding of their temple.
In Herod's lifetime Rome underwent revolutions and battles for sovereignty.
Herod ingratiated himself with each successive leader, so that he continued
in power for an extraordinary length of time. He erected not only the
Jerusalem temple but other magnificent structures including public arenas
and aqueducts, great public-works projects that are still in evidence today.
But he was also ruthless. One commentator uses these three adjectives to
describe Herod: capable, crafty, and cruel. He killed every rival. He fought
off insurrection, assassination, revolution. He died of old age, which was
almost unheard of in that time and place. Among his rivals were his own
wives and children, whom he killed without compunction at various points in
his career. There was a saying about Herod in his own day: "It is better to
be Herod's hog than to be his son!"
The world system in every age rewards competitors like Herod. People with
Herod's ability and drive are called great today as surely as he was called
great in his day. People who can override their conscience, who are smart
and aggressive, who refuse to lose, who will pay any price, who respect no
boundaries, end up on the top of the pile.
But consider the point in history at which we find ourselves in Matthew 2.
Jesus was probably born in 5 or 6 B.C. We know Herod died in the spring of 4
B.C. When the events of this story took place, he was an old man near
seventy. He died of an illness, and the illness had lingered for some time
before he died. Herod must have suspected he was nearing the end of his life
when he was visited by these remarkable travelers from the east, visitors
with a disturbing question: "Where is the one who has been born king of the
Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him."
If the stars were indicating that there had been an important birth, then
God had to be involved. The phrase "born king of the Jews" was also
frightening. Herod had been given the title "king" by Rome. There was no
possibility of anyone being born a king-except that David had been made king
by God, and David was to have a son someday who would be born king of the
Jews-the Son of David, the Messiah who was going to change everything. If
the Magi had come and said, "Where is the rival king of the Jews?" that
would have been hard enough to hear. But to hear that this One was the King
from the day of his birth meant that the ancient promise was being
fulfilled. And Herod knew that.
I believe that Herod was being given an opportunity to repent. The Magi didn't
need to approach Herod. We read later that the star, in some peculiar way,
actually came to rest over the very house where the Child was. If they had
just kept following the star, they would have eventually found their way to
him. But they entered Jerusalem, and they spoke to Herod. That gave Herod
and the spiritually bankrupt scribes and priests in Jerusalem an
opportunity. They could repent, cry to God for mercy.
Remember Charles Dickens' great story A Christmas Carol (1). It's the story
of a flint-hearted old man, Ebenezer Scrooge, whose deceased partner Jacob
Marley pays him a visit, dragging a very large chain. When Scrooge asks
about it, Marley replies:
"I made it link by link, and yard by yard; I girded it on of my own free
will, and of my own free will I wore it. Is its pattern strange to you?...Or
would you know.the weight and length of the strong coil you bear yourself?
It was full as heavy and as long as this seven Christmas Eves ago. You have
labored on it since. It is a ponderous chain!"
These Magi arrive in Herod's palace a little bit like Jacob Marley's ghost.
Herod was near the end of a wicked life, and their question represented a
final opportunity to let God strike off the chain he had forged.
Two interesting statements are made in this text. The first one is in verse
3: "When Herod heard this hewasdisturbed..." (Italics added). The word
"disturbed" in the Greek describes the way water is roiled by some kind of
stirring motion. He was shaken, frightened, challenged by what he heard. And
he was presented an opportunity in being shaken. Then in verse 16 it says,
"When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious,
and hegave orders tokill all the boys in Bethlehem..." (Italics added). He
made a choice to be the way he had always been, to kill rivals, to promote
himself and only himself, to destroy, to deceive.
Jacob Marley talked about the chain that he would drag for eternity. And in
verse 19, we're told that Herod died, just a few months after he ordered the
execution of the children. He entered eternity with the blood of these
children on his hands.
Jesus told a parable of a rich man who had so much, he planned to build
bigger barns to hold it all. But God spoke to him: "You fool! This very
night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have
prepared for yourself?" Jesus adds, "This is how it will be with anyone who
stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God." (Luke 12:16-21.)
The facts of death and of our accountability for the way we live are here at
the beginning of the Christmas story. It's the story of One who came to do
battle with the forces of death. This little Baby would fight for us and
would absorb for us what we deserved. The battle began from almost the first
moment of his life. And it's a battle that he would win for us. He would
break the power of tyrants. "Born that men no more may die," the carol says
(2). What a great promise of the birth of Christ! We will miss what is
deepest about this season if we don't look from the manger to the cross, and
from the cross to the empty tomb and the shout of victory.
"The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it"
(John 1:5, NRSV.) The darkness cannot overcome it.
(1) Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol, 1843.
(2) Charles Wesley, Hark! The Herald Angels Sing.
Copyright © 2004 Discovery Publishing, a ministry of Peninsula Bible Church.
This data file is the sole property of Discovery Publishing, a ministry of
Peninsula Bible Church. It may be copied only in its entirety for
circulation freely without charge. All copies of this data file must contain
the above copyright notice. This data file may not be copied in part,
edited, revised, copied for resale or incorporated in any commercial
publications, recordings, broadcasts, performances, displays or other
products offered for sale, without the written permission of Discovery
Publishing. Requests for permission should be made in writing and addressed
to Discovery Publishing, 3505 Middlefield Rd. Palo Alto, CA. 94306-3695.
.
|
|
| User: "rogue" |
|
| Title: Re: The Light Still Shines |
23 Dec 2007 04:00:34 AM |
|
|
Carl wrote:
With Christmas day rapidly approaching, I'd like to post this apt sermon
from Steve Zeisler.
---
THE LIGHT STILL SHINES
by Steve Zeisler
JERRY
And it's running up the damned electrical bill. Turn some of those
damned things off, at least the lights over that silly Reindeer in the
manger scene, and get Chester the Molester away from the Three Wise
Guys
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Light Still Shines |
23 Dec 2007 12:07:17 PM |
|
|
On Dec 23, 5:00=A0am, rogue <rogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Carl wrote:
With Christmas day rapidly approaching, I'd like to post this apt sermon=
from Steve Zeisler.
---
THE LIGHT STILL SHINES
by Steve Zeisler
JERRY
And it's running up the damned electrical bill. =A0Turn some of those
damned things off, at least the lights over that silly Reindeer in the
manger scene, and get Chester the Molester away from the Three Wise
Guys
Prov 6:16-17
There are six things the Lord hates...a lying tongue... (NIV)
Ps 14:1; 53:1
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God ." (NIV)
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
.
|
|
|
| User: "rogue" |
|
| Title: Re: The Light Still Shines |
24 Dec 2007 02:29:10 AM |
|
|
On Dec 23, 10:07 pm, wrote:
On Dec 23, 5:00 am, rogue <rogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Carl wrote:
With Christmas day rapidly approaching, I'd like to post this apt sermon
from Steve Zeisler.
---
THE LIGHT STILL SHINES
by Steve Zeisler
JERRY
And it's running up the damned electrical bill. Turn some of those
damned things off, at least the lights over that silly Reindeer in the
manger scene, and get Chester the Molester away from the Three Wise
Guys
CARL
Prov 6:16-17
There are six things the Lord hates...a lying tongue... (NIV)
JERRY
Then you can count on going straight to hell, Carl, for lying about
needing to believe in the Trinity to be saved when the Bible says no
such thing.
CARL
Ps 14:1; 53:1
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God ." (NIV)
JERRY
Yep, we obviously doesn't have a clue, do we, Carl? I mean, it's
obvious we're not smart like you and claim that you have to believe
in
the Trinity to be saved, despite the fact that there isn't a single
verse in the bible that supports that claim.
And actually, you don't have to prove or disprove the existence of
God. The burden of proof of God's existence is on the theist anyway,
since they are claiming the supernatural.
What CAN be proven is the factual accuracy of the bible. If the
bible
fails to be historically accurate, it's very likely the bible isn't
true, correct? At least, on history it's not true if you can prove
it's not historically accurate.
And if the bible claims prophecies that obviously could be proven to
have not happened, then the bible would fail on prophecy, correct? I
mean, that's another obvious given.
Finally, if you can show that the different books of the bible
contradict each other when discussing the same event, that would be
pretty accurate that the bible is contradictory, correct?
Now, if the bible fails to be historically accurate, fails on
prophecy
and contradicts itself, that would also be a good indicator that
either the God of the bible didn't exist, or that he lacks the power
to protect his word, or that he doesn't really give a rat's ***** about
mankind at all, would that be a correct conclusion, Carl?
We already know from 1 Samuel 15 that the bible contradicts itself in
the same chapter, where we both see that God "repents" making Saul
king and later in the same chapter says that God never repents.
We also know from 1 Samuel 15 that God isn't omniscient, since he
repents making Saul king, and if he were really omniscient to the
level claimed, that he sees all, past, present and future and that he
knows the falling of the sparrow, he would have already known when he
made Saul king that Saul would disobey him later, therefore why
repent
when he already knew it would happen when he appointed Saul?
We know from the failure of the destruction of the island city of
Tyre
that the prophecy about the destruction of Tyre failed because the
description of the coming devastation doesn't match up to what
happened (Like, Nebs failed to take the city at all, and three
chapters later even Ezekiel admits that Nebs failed and the prophecy
didn't happen)
And, we know from the four gospel accounts of the Resurrection
Morning
that the writers couldn't even get their stories straight a little
bit
(who first saw the risen Jesus? Mary in three of the accounts and
Not
Mary in the fourth - do your own research Carl. I have.).
So, those facts about the bible, from the text, indicates that the
bible isn't true. Therefore, either the god of the bible doesn't
exist, or he doesn't have the power to protect his word (or,
considering Tyre, to make his prophecies come true) or the book is
just mankind dithering about gods or godlike beings that don't really
care about mankind at all, if they even existed. Of course, they
*could* have been aliens from other worlds. That's just as likely as
the claim that they were gods, right Carl? ;-)
And, all of this is available to any person who bothers to read the
bible instead of reading the writings of other believers and
accepting
their stories hook, line and sinker, then copying and pasting them
into newsgroups to share the ignorance, right Carl?
So, the bible says that those who say "there is no god" are fools,
but
that's the same bible that can be *proven* NOT to be the word of any
God, Carl. Therefore, since its just the rantings of incompetent,
superstitious shepherds from 2000 years ago, who cares what they say,
right Carl? ;-)
CARL
All of those so-called contradictions have long since been explained.
Mostly it's due to lack of scriptural understanding or willful ignorance.
JERRY
On who's part? The apologetics I have read indicate that it's the
theist who is making up simplistic explanations that don't fit the
situation (Like McDowall's claims about Tyre, for example). I can
easily shred the explanations of nearly all the apologists I have read
(including the CARM site that Bible John was so enamored with and JP
Holding's (AKA Robert Turkel, who is not a scholar but a prison
librarian and who fancies himself the Rush Limbaugh of the Apologetic
set).
In fact, with very little research on the web you can see where
Farrell Till destroys Turkel in a debate on Yahweh's Failed Land
Promise.
CARL
I suggest Christians read the following books which have
answered all of those false contradictions and more:
Hard Sayings of the Bible by Walter C. Kaiser (Editor), Peter H.
Davids (Contributor), F. F. Bruce (Contributor)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason Archer
JERRY
I don't really have access to books here in Afghanistan, but I've read
some of Gleason Archer's work several years ago and was less than
impressed with him.
Those two are excellent.
Others worth reading and studying:
Difficulties in the Bible by R. A. Torrey
1001 Bible Questions Answered by William L. Pettingill, R. A. Torrey
The Complete Book of Bible Answers by Ron Rhodes
When Critics Ask by Norman Geisler
Exegetical Fallacies by D. A. Carson
Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible by John W. Haley
JERRY
I saw the video clips of Farrell Till trashing Geisler and I have to
say, he's less than impressive as well.
Also some websites that answer many of them and addresses why critics
and skeptics keep bringing the same old tired ones up again even
though they've been answered:
http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties.htm
JERRY
This one only goes to Deuteronomy. Not helpful in the 1 Samuel 15
contradiction. And I have to say, your use of the CARM site, which I
analyzed for Bible John, really doesn't help you much. The man is
intellectually dishonest with his writings and easily refuted. Here
is a quick example of what he writes regarding the contradictory
Creation accounts in Genesis 1 & 2:
" * Genesis 1
- Day one - heavens and earth are created. "Let there be
light." Day and Night.
- Day two - Atmospheric waters separated from earth waters.
- Day three - Land appears separating the seas. Vegetation is
made.
- Day four - Sun, moon, stars are made.
- Day five - Sea life and birds are made.
- Day six - Land animals, creeping things, and man (male and
female) are made.
* Genesis 2
States heaven and earth were created. no plant yet on earth, no
rain yet, no man. but, a mist rose watering the surface of the
ground. Then the Lord formed man from dust of the ground and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life. Then God made Eve.
There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is
a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day.
Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth
day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen.
2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were
created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Then,
Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in
verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2. Proof that it is not a creative account
is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after
the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was
designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam
was created."
JERRY
What Glenn didn't notice or was intellectually dishonest enough to
intentionally leave out, is that the contradiction is on the *order*
of
creation. In Genesis 1, we see that the whales and all the creatures
of the seas were created on the 5th day, as well as all of the fowl of
the air. Man was created later, on the sixth day.
In Genesis 2, Man was created and THEN all the beasts of the field and
the fowl of the air. Problem was, we saw in the first chapter that
all the fowl of the air were already created BEFORE man was created.
In fact, Glenn's statement: "Proof that it is not a creative account
is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after
the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was
designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam
was created."
If they didn't need to be mentioned until after After was created, why
were they mentioned first in the first chapter? Glenn's statement is
actually supportive of the theory that chapter 1 and chapter 2 were
written by two different authors and put together after the fact,
though I'm sure he didn't intend it that way.
CARL
http://www.carm.org/diff/Bible_contradictions.htm
This one doesn't address anything in particular but has this
interesting statement:
"The Originals are Inspired, not the copies."
How does he know? There ARE no originals. Only copies of copies of
copies and the copies show us that the bible has changed over the
years. We can also tell by studying the bible, Carl, that the bible
contains contradictions (showing it's neither reflective of God's
perfection, nor is it protected by God), that it's historically
inaccurate and that it contains failed prophecies.
CARL
http://www.tektonics.org/
JERRY
Turkel, as I mentioned earlier, is a joke. He fancies himself like
Limbaugh and spends his time in a debate attacking and making fun of
his opponent and not addressing the points made. Instead he will
throw out a statement that he can't support and go on with the
attacks. It's the reason he does so little debating, as a
knowledgeable opponent shows that he's unable to address the issues
under debate. He prefers a closed studio, much like his hero, and
wants to screen calls. He "debates" someone by taking their published
work, making fun of it and not giving a chance to the author to rebut
what Turkel has stated. Only the non-discerning reader takes him
seriously. (watching Till kick his ***** around the internet, and
Turkel's growing sputters of outrage were priceless.)
CARL
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/
Doesn't address contradictions/failed prophecies/historical
inaccuracies of the bible except in a very general "the bible is
always right" manner.
In fact, there are a number of better apologetics sites out there.
Heck, even Turkel's very poor attempts are better than christian-
thinktank.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Light Still Shines |
24 Dec 2007 05:55:30 AM |
|
|
On Dec 24, 3:29=A0am, rogue <rogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
JERRY
Then you can count on going straight to hell, Carl, for lying about
needing to believe in the Trinity to be saved when the Bible says no
such thing.
Prov 6:16-17
There are six things the Lord hates...a lying tongue... (NIV)
Ps 14:1; 53:1
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God ." (NIV)
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
.
|
|
|
| User: "rogue" |
|
| Title: Re: The Light Still Shines |
24 Dec 2007 10:05:45 PM |
|
|
On Dec 24, 3:55 pm, wrote:
On Dec 24, 3:29 am, rogue <rogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
JERRY
Then you can count on going straight to hell, Carl, for lying about
needing to believe in the Trinity to be saved when the Bible says no
such thing.
CARL
Prov 6:16-17
There are six things the Lord hates...a lying tongue... (NIV)
JERRY
Then you can count on going straight to hell, Carl, for lying about
needing to believe in the Trinity to be saved when the Bible says no
such thing.
CARL
Ps 14:1; 53:1
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God ." (NIV)
JERRY
Yep, we obviously doesn't have a clue, do we, Carl? I mean, it's
obvious we're not smart like you and claim that you have to believe
in
the Trinity to be saved, despite the fact that there isn't a single
verse in the bible that supports that claim.
And actually, you don't have to prove or disprove the existence of
God. The burden of proof of God's existence is on the theist anyway,
since they are claiming the supernatural.
What CAN be proven is the factual accuracy of the bible. If the
bible
fails to be historically accurate, it's very likely the bible isn't
true, correct? At least, on history it's not true if you can prove
it's not historically accurate.
And if the bible claims prophecies that obviously could be proven to
have not happened, then the bible would fail on prophecy, correct? I
mean, that's another obvious given.
Finally, if you can show that the different books of the bible
contradict each other when discussing the same event, that would be
pretty accurate that the bible is contradictory, correct?
Now, if the bible fails to be historically accurate, fails on
prophecy
and contradicts itself, that would also be a good indicator that
either the God of the bible didn't exist, or that he lacks the power
to protect his word, or that he doesn't really give a rat's ***** about
mankind at all, would that be a correct conclusion, Carl?
We already know from 1 Samuel 15 that the bible contradicts itself in
the same chapter, where we both see that God "repents" making Saul
king and later in the same chapter says that God never repents.
We also know from 1 Samuel 15 that God isn't omniscient, since he
repents making Saul king, and if he were really omniscient to the
level claimed, that he sees all, past, present and future and that he
knows the falling of the sparrow, he would have already known when he
made Saul king that Saul would disobey him later, therefore why
repent
when he already knew it would happen when he appointed Saul?
We know from the failure of the destruction of the island city of
Tyre
that the prophecy about the destruction of Tyre failed because the
description of the coming devastation doesn't match up to what
happened (Like, Nebs failed to take the city at all, and three
chapters later even Ezekiel admits that Nebs failed and the prophecy
didn't happen)
And, we know from the four gospel accounts of the Resurrection
Morning
that the writers couldn't even get their stories straight a little
bit
(who first saw the risen Jesus? Mary in three of the accounts and
Not
Mary in the fourth - do your own research Carl. I have.).
So, those facts about the bible, from the text, indicates that the
bible isn't true. Therefore, either the god of the bible doesn't
exist, or he doesn't have the power to protect his word (or,
considering Tyre, to make his prophecies come true) or the book is
just mankind dithering about gods or godlike beings that don't really
care about mankind at all, if they even existed. Of course, they
*could* have been aliens from other worlds. That's just as likely as
the claim that they were gods, right Carl? ;-)
And, all of this is available to any person who bothers to read the
bible instead of reading the writings of other believers and
accepting
their stories hook, line and sinker, then copying and pasting them
into newsgroups to share the ignorance, right Carl?
So, the bible says that those who say "there is no god" are fools,
but
that's the same bible that can be *proven* NOT to be the word of any
God, Carl. Therefore, since its just the rantings of incompetent,
superstitious shepherds from 2000 years ago, who cares what they say,
right Carl? ;-)
CARL
All of those so-called contradictions have long since been explained.
Mostly it's due to lack of scriptural understanding or willful ignorance.
JERRY
On who's part? The apologetics I have read indicate that it's the
theist who is making up simplistic explanations that don't fit the
situation (Like McDowall's claims about Tyre, for example). I can
easily shred the explanations of nearly all the apologists I have read
(including the CARM site that Bible John was so enamored with and JP
Holding's (AKA Robert Turkel, who is not a scholar but a prison
librarian and who fancies himself the Rush Limbaugh of the Apologetic
set).
In fact, with very little research on the web you can see where
Farrell Till destroys Turkel in a debate on Yahweh's Failed Land
Promise.
CARL
I suggest Christians read the following books which have
answered all of those false contradictions and more:
Hard Sayings of the Bible by Walter C. Kaiser (Editor), Peter H.
Davids (Contributor), F. F. Bruce (Contributor)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason Archer
JERRY
I don't really have access to books here in Afghanistan, but I've read
some of Gleason Archer's work several years ago and was less than
impressed with him.
Those two are excellent.
Others worth reading and studying:
Difficulties in the Bible by R. A. Torrey
1001 Bible Questions Answered by William L. Pettingill, R. A. Torrey
The Complete Book of Bible Answers by Ron Rhodes
When Critics Ask by Norman Geisler
Exegetical Fallacies by D. A. Carson
Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible by John W. Haley
JERRY
I saw the video clips of Farrell Till trashing Geisler and I have to
say, he's less than impressive as well.
Also some websites that answer many of them and addresses why critics
and skeptics keep bringing the same old tired ones up again even
though they've been answered:
http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties.htm
JERRY
This one only goes to Deuteronomy. Not helpful in the 1 Samuel 15
contradiction. And I have to say, your use of the CARM site, which I
analyzed for Bible John, really doesn't help you much. The man is
intellectually dishonest with his writings and easily refuted. Here
is a quick example of what he writes regarding the contradictory
Creation accounts in Genesis 1 & 2:
" * Genesis 1
- Day one - heavens and earth are created. "Let there be
light." Day and Night.
- Day two - Atmospheric waters separated from earth waters.
- Day three - Land appears separating the seas. Vegetation is
made.
- Day four - Sun, moon, stars are made.
- Day five - Sea life and birds are made.
- Day six - Land animals, creeping things, and man (male and
female) are made.
* Genesis 2
States heaven and earth were created. no plant yet on earth, no
rain yet, no man. but, a mist rose watering the surface of the
ground. Then the Lord formed man from dust of the ground and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life. Then God made Eve.
There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is
a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day.
Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth
day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen.
2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were
created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Then,
Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in
verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2. Proof that it is not a creative account
is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after
the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was
designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam
was created."
JERRY
What Glenn didn't notice or was intellectually dishonest enough to
intentionally leave out, is that the contradiction is on the *order*
of
creation. In Genesis 1, we see that the whales and all the creatures
of the seas were created on the 5th day, as well as all of the fowl of
the air. Man was created later, on the sixth day.
In Genesis 2, Man was created and THEN all the beasts of the field and
the fowl of the air. Problem was, we saw in the first chapter that
all the fowl of the air were already created BEFORE man was created.
In fact, Glenn's statement: "Proof that it is not a creative account
is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after
the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was
designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam
was created."
If they didn't need to be mentioned until after After was created, why
were they mentioned first in the first chapter? Glenn's statement is
actually supportive of the theory that chapter 1 and chapter 2 were
written by two different authors and put together after the fact,
though I'm sure he didn't intend it that way.
CARL
http://www.carm.org/diff/Bible_contradictions.htm
This one doesn't address anything in particular but has this
interesting statement:
"The Originals are Inspired, not the copies."
How does he know? There ARE no originals. Only copies of copies of
copies and the copies show us that the bible has changed over the
years. We can also tell by studying the bible, Carl, that the bible
contains contradictions (showing it's neither reflective of God's
perfection, nor is it protected by God), that it's historically
inaccurate and that it contains failed prophecies.
CARL
http://www.tektonics.org/
JERRY
Turkel, as I mentioned earlier, is a joke. He fancies himself like
Limbaugh and spends his time in a debate attacking and making fun of
his opponent and not addressing the points made. Instead he will
throw out a statement that he can't support and go on with the
attacks. It's the reason he does so little debating, as a
knowledgeable opponent shows that he's unable to address the issues
under debate. He prefers a closed studio, much like his hero, and
wants to screen calls. He "debates" someone by taking their published
work, making fun of it and not giving a chance to the author to rebut
what Turkel has stated. Only the non-discerning reader takes him
seriously. (watching Till kick his ***** around the internet, and
Turkel's growing sputters of outrage were priceless.)
CARL
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/
Doesn't address contradictions/failed prophecies/historical
inaccuracies of the bible except in a very general "the bible is
always right" manner.
In fact, there are a number of better apologetics sites out there.
Heck, even Turkel's very poor attempts are better than christian-
thinktank.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Light Still Shines |
25 Dec 2007 12:04:37 PM |
|
|
On Dec 24, 11:05=A0pm, rogue <rogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 24, 3:55 pm, wrote:
On Dec 24, 3:29 am, rogue <rogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
JERRY
Then you can count on going straight to hell, Carl, for lying about
needing to believe in the Trinity to be saved when the Bible says no
such thing.
CARL
Prov 6:16-17
There are six things the Lord hates...a lying tongue... (NIV)
JERRY
Then you can count on going straight to hell, Carl, for lying about
needing to believe in the Trinity to be saved when the Bible says no
such thing.
Prov 6:16-17
There are six things the Lord hates...a lying tongue... (NIV)
Ps 14:1; 53:1
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God ." (NIV)
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
.
|
|
|
| User: "rogue" |
|
| Title: Re: The Light Still Shines |
25 Dec 2007 09:10:32 PM |
|
|
On Dec 25, 10:04 pm, wrote:
On Dec 24, 11:05 pm, rogue <rogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 24, 3:55 pm, wrote:
On Dec 24, 3:29 am, rogue <rogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
JERRY
Then you can count on going straight to hell, Carl, for lying about
needing to believe in the Trinity to be saved when the Bible says no
such thing.
CARL
Prov 6:16-17
There are six things the Lord hates...a lying tongue... (NIV)
JERRY
Then you can count on going straight to hell, Carl, for lying about
needing to believe in the Trinity to be saved when the Bible says no
such thing.
CARL
Prov 6:16-17
There are six things the Lord hates...a lying tongue... (NIV)
JERRY
Then you can count on going straight to hell, Carl, for lying about
needing to believe in the Trinity to be saved when the Bible says no
such thing.
CARL
Ps 14:1; 53:1
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God ." (NIV)
JERRY
Yep, we obviously doesn't have a clue, do we, Carl? I mean, it's
obvious we're not smart like you and claim that you have to believe
in
the Trinity to be saved, despite the fact that there isn't a single
verse in the bible that supports that claim.
And actually, you don't have to prove or disprove the existence of
God. The burden of proof of God's existence is on the theist anyway,
since they are claiming the supernatural.
What CAN be proven is the factual accuracy of the bible. If the
bible
fails to be historically accurate, it's very likely the bible isn't
true, correct? At least, on history it's not true if you can prove
it's not historically accurate.
And if the bible claims prophecies that obviously could be proven to
have not happened, then the bible would fail on prophecy, correct? I
mean, that's another obvious given.
Finally, if you can show that the different books of the bible
contradict each other when discussing the same event, that would be
pretty accurate that the bible is contradictory, correct?
Now, if the bible fails to be historically accurate, fails on
prophecy
and contradicts itself, that would also be a good indicator that
either the God of the bible didn't exist, or that he lacks the power
to protect his word, or that he doesn't really give a rat's ***** about
mankind at all, would that be a correct conclusion, Carl?
We already know from 1 Samuel 15 that the bible contradicts itself in
the same chapter, where we both see that God "repents" making Saul
king and later in the same chapter says that God never repents.
We also know from 1 Samuel 15 that God isn't omniscient, since he
repents making Saul king, and if he were really omniscient to the
level claimed, that he sees all, past, present and future and that he
knows the falling of the sparrow, he would have already known when he
made Saul king that Saul would disobey him later, therefore why
repent
when he already knew it would happen when he appointed Saul?
We know from the failure of the destruction of the island city of
Tyre
that the prophecy about the destruction of Tyre failed because the
description of the coming devastation doesn't match up to what
happened (Like, Nebs failed to take the city at all, and three
chapters later even Ezekiel admits that Nebs failed and the prophecy
didn't happen)
And, we know from the four gospel accounts of the Resurrection
Morning
that the writers couldn't even get their stories straight a little
bit
(who first saw the risen Jesus? Mary in three of the accounts and
Not
Mary in the fourth - do your own research Carl. I have.).
So, those facts about the bible, from the text, indicates that the
bible isn't true. Therefore, either the god of the bible doesn't
exist, or he doesn't have the power to protect his word (or,
considering Tyre, to make his prophecies come true) or the book is
just mankind dithering about gods or godlike beings that don't really
care about mankind at all, if they even existed. Of course, they
*could* have been aliens from other worlds. That's just as likely as
the claim that they were gods, right Carl? ;-)
And, all of this is available to any person who bothers to read the
bible instead of reading the writings of other believers and
accepting
their stories hook, line and sinker, then copying and pasting them
into newsgroups to share the ignorance, right Carl?
So, the bible says that those who say "there is no god" are fools,
but
that's the same bible that can be *proven* NOT to be the word of any
God, Carl. Therefore, since its just the rantings of incompetent,
superstitious shepherds from 2000 years ago, who cares what they say,
right Carl? ;-)
CARL
All of those so-called contradictions have long since been explained.
Mostly it's due to lack of scriptural understanding or willful ignorance.
JERRY
On who's part? The apologetics I have read indicate that it's the
theist who is making up simplistic explanations that don't fit the
situation (Like McDowall's claims about Tyre, for example). I can
easily shred the explanations of nearly all the apologists I have read
(including the CARM site that Bible John was so enamored with and JP
Holding's (AKA Robert Turkel, who is not a scholar but a prison
librarian and who fancies himself the Rush Limbaugh of the Apologetic
set).
In fact, with very little research on the web you can see where
Farrell Till destroys Turkel in a debate on Yahweh's Failed Land
Promise.
CARL
I suggest Christians read the following books which have
answered all of those false contradictions and more:
Hard Sayings of the Bible by Walter C. Kaiser (Editor), Peter H.
Davids (Contributor), F. F. Bruce (Contributor)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason Archer
JERRY
I don't really have access to books here in Afghanistan, but I've read
some of Gleason Archer's work several years ago and was less than
impressed with him.
Those two are excellent.
Others worth reading and studying:
Difficulties in the Bible by R. A. Torrey
1001 Bible Questions Answered by William L. Pettingill, R. A. Torrey
The Complete Book of Bible Answers by Ron Rhodes
When Critics Ask by Norman Geisler
Exegetical Fallacies by D. A. Carson
Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible by John W. Haley
JERRY
I saw the video clips of Farrell Till trashing Geisler and I have to
say, he's less than impressive as well.
Also some websites that answer many of them and addresses why critics
and skeptics keep bringing the same old tired ones up again even
though they've been answered:
http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties.htm
JERRY
This one only goes to Deuteronomy. Not helpful in the 1 Samuel 15
contradiction. And I have to say, your use of the CARM site, which I
analyzed for Bible John, really doesn't help you much. The man is
intellectually dishonest with his writings and easily refuted. Here
is a quick example of what he writes regarding the contradictory
Creation accounts in Genesis 1 & 2:
" * Genesis 1
- Day one - heavens and earth are created. "Let there be
light." Day and Night.
- Day two - Atmospheric waters separated from earth waters.
- Day three - Land appears separating the seas. Vegetation is
made.
- Day four - Sun, moon, stars are made.
- Day five - Sea life and birds are made.
- Day six - Land animals, creeping things, and man (male and
female) are made.
* Genesis 2
States heaven and earth were created. no plant yet on earth, no
rain yet, no man. but, a mist rose watering the surface of the
ground. Then the Lord formed man from dust of the ground and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life. Then God made Eve.
There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is
a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day.
Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth
day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen.
2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were
created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Then,
Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in
verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2. Proof that it is not a creative account
is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after
the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was
designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam
was created."
JERRY
What Glenn didn't notice or was intellectually dishonest enough to
intentionally leave out, is that the contradiction is on the *order*
of
creation. In Genesis 1, we see that the whales and all the creatures
of the seas were created on the 5th day, as well as all of the fowl of
the air. Man was created later, on the sixth day.
In Genesis 2, Man was created and THEN all the beasts of the field and
the fowl of the air. Problem was, we saw in the first chapter that
all the fowl of the air were already created BEFORE man was created.
In fact, Glenn's statement: "Proof that it is not a creative account
is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after
the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was
designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam
was created."
If they didn't need to be mentioned until after After was created, why
were they mentioned first in the first chapter? Glenn's statement is
actually supportive of the theory that chapter 1 and chapter 2 were
written by two different authors and put together after the fact,
though I'm sure he didn't intend it that way.
CARL
http://www.carm.org/diff/Bible_contradictions.htm
This one doesn't address anything in particular but has this
interesting statement:
"The Originals are Inspired, not the copies."
How does he know? There ARE no originals. Only copies of copies of
copies and the copies show us that the bible has changed over the
years. We can also tell by studying the bible, Carl, that the bible
contains contradictions (showing it's neither reflective of God's
perfection, nor is it protected by God), that it's historically
inaccurate and that it contains failed prophecies.
CARL
http://www.tektonics.org/
JERRY
Turkel, as I mentioned earlier, is a joke. He fancies himself like
Limbaugh and spends his time in a debate attacking and making fun of
his opponent and not addressing the points made. Instead he will
throw out a statement that he can't support and go on with the
attacks. It's the reason he does so little debating, as a
knowledgeable opponent shows that he's unable to address the issues
under debate. He prefers a closed studio, much like his hero, and
wants to screen calls. He "debates" someone by taking their published
work, making fun of it and not giving a chance to the author to rebut
what Turkel has stated. Only the non-discerning reader takes him
seriously. (watching Till kick his ***** around the internet, and
Turkel's growing sputters of outrage were priceless.)
CARL
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/
Doesn't address contradictions/failed prophecies/historical
inaccuracies of the bible except in a very general "the bible is
always right" manner.
In fact, there are a number of better apologetics sites out there.
Heck, even Turkel's very poor attempts are better than christian-
thinktank.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
