| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Carl" |
| Date: |
22 Dec 2007 10:54:14 PM |
| Object: |
What Must I Do To Be Saved? |
In the book of Acts, Paul & Silas are asked by their jailer, "What must I do
to be saved?" They answered clearly and without any misunderstanding,
"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved - you and your household."
Faith in Jesus Christ. That's it. Simple. No works of man, just true faith
in Jesus Christ. D.L. Moody preached upon this in the following sermon.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
What Must I Do To Be Saved?
by D.L. Moody
Suppose you do not want to hear a sermon (on this last night) so much as you
want to know how to be saved. I want, if I can, to answer that question,
"What must I do to be saved?" There is no question that can come before us
in this world that is so important; and I think that there is not a man in
this audience to-night who does not feel interested in it.
I heard a man, when he was going out the other night, saying: "I do not
believe in sudden conversion. I do not believe what the preacher said
to-night, that a man could come in here a sinner, and go out a Christian."
Now, I want to say that I do not believe in any other conversion. I do not
believe that there ever has been a conversion in the world that was not
instantaneous, and I want you to mark this: not but what many cannot tell
the day nor the hour when they were converted. I will admit that: they may
not know the time; but that does not change the great fact that there was a
time when they passed from death unto life; that there was a time when they
were born [ABCOG: begotten] into the kingdom of God. There must have been a
minute when their name was written in the Book of Life. There must have been
a time when they were ere lost, and a time when they were saved; but we may
not be conscious when the change takes place. I believe the conversion of
some is like the rising of the sun, and of others like the flashing of a
meteor. But both are instantaneous, really, in the sight of God. There must
be a time when life begins to rise; when the dead soul begins to live.
Now, this evening I want to take up some of the Bible illustrations. In the
first place, there is the ark. There was a minute when Noah was outside of
the ark, and another minute when he was inside. And, bear in mind, it was
the ark that saved Noah: it was not his righteousness; it was not his
feelings; it was not his tears; it was not his prayers. It was the ark that
saved him. If he had tried to make an ark of his feelings, or of his
prayers, or of his life, he would have been swept away: he would have been
drowned with the rest. But, you see, it was the ark that saved him.
When I was in Manchester, I went into the gallery one Sunday night to have a
talk with a few inquirers; and while I was talking, a business man came in,
and took his seat on the outskirts of the audience. I think, at first, he
had come merely to criticize, and that he was a little skeptical. At last I
saw he was in tears. I turned to him, and said, " My friend, what is your
difficulty?" "Well," he said, "Mr. Moody, the fact is, I cannot tell." I
said, "Do you believe you are a sinner?" He said, "Yes; I know that." I
said, "Christ is able to save you"; and I used one illustration after
another, but he did not see it. At last I thought of the ark, and I said:
"Was it Noah's feelings that saved him? Was it Noah's righteousness that
saved him, or was it the ark?" "I see it, now," said he; "I see it." He got
up and shook hands with me, and said: "Good-night: I must go. I have to go
away by the train to-night; but I was determined to be saved before I went.
I see it now."
A few days after, he came and touched me on the shoulder, and said, "Do you
know me? " I said, "I know your face, but do not remember where I have seen
you." He said, "Do you not remember the illustration of the ark? I said, "
Yes." "It has been all light ever since," said he. "I understand it now.
Christ is the Ark; He saves me; and I must get inside Him." When I went down
to Manchester again, and talked to the young friends there, I found he was
the brightest light among them.
Let me take another illustration. There was the blood in Goshen. God says,
"When I see the blood I will pass over you." Now He does not say, "When I
see Moses' feelings, or the feelings of the people, I will pass over you";
or, "When I see you praying and weeping, I will pass over you"; but, "When I
see the blood I will pass over you." It was the blood that saved them, not
their righteousness. And a little child by that blood in Goshen was just as
safe as Moses or Aaron or Joshua or Caleb. It was the blood that saved them.
Look! there is the Jew taking the hyssop. He dips it in the blood, and
strikes it on the doorpost. One minute it is not there: the next it is
there. The moment the blood is there they are saved. God says, "When I see
the blood I will pass over you." Some people say, "If I were only as good as
that minister I should feel so safe" or, "If I were only as good as that
mother in Israel who has been praying fifty years for the poor and
unfortunate, should I not feel very safe? " My friends, if you are behind
the blood, you are as safe as any man or woman who has been praying for
fifty years. It is not their righteousness and good works that are going to
save them. They never saved any one. God says, "When I see the blood I will
pass over you." [ABCOG: Moody understands "pass over" to mean "bypass". It
can also mean "hover over to protect"] And when I am sheltered behind the
blood, then I am saved; and if I am not sheltered behind the blood, I am not
saved. That was instantaneous, was not it? God says, "When I see the blood,
it shall be a token, and I will not enter." Death came down and passed over
Egypt; and where the blood was on the doorpost he passed by; but where the
blood could not be found, in he went and took the victim away. The great
palaces could not keep out death; wealth and position could not keep out
death. He went and took the Crown Prince of Egypt; he took the richest and
the poorest, the highest and the lowest. Death makes no distinction, except
a man is behind the blood.
My friends, be wise to-night, and get behind the blood. The blood has been
shed. The blood is on the mercy-seat; and while it is there you can be
saved. God is imputing to His Son your trespasses and sins. He says, "I will
look at the blood on the mercy-seat." Press in, my friends; make haste and
get in tonight; for the Master of the house will rise up by-and-by and shut
to the door, and then there will be no hope.
Take another case. When Israel went over Jordan, God told Joshua to have six
cities of refuge; three on each side of Jordan. They were to be built on a
hill, where they could be seen at a great distance, and the gates were to be
kept open day and night. All obstacles were to be kept out of the way, the
highway was to be kept in repair, the bridges and everything in good
condition, so that nothing should hinder a poor man flying to the city of
refuge. If a man killed another in those days, it was considered a great
disgrace if the nearest relative did not take vengeance. "An eye for an eye,
and a booth for a tooth." If a man killed another, the next kinsman was
bound to put him to death. But if he could escape to a city of refuge he was
tried, and if it was found he had not intentionally killed the man, he might
live.
Now for my illustration. Suppose I have killed a man. I am out away in the
woods working, and my axe slips out of my hand, and kills the man working
with me. I know that his kinsman, his brother, is not far away. The news
will soon reach him that I have killed his brother. What shall I do? I start
for the city of refuge, over there away on the hill, ten miles off. I run -
and we are told that in those days there used to be signposts with the word
" Refuge," written in great red letters, so that a man might read as he ran;
he need not stop. I have been told that there was a finger pointing towards
the city, and a man who could not read might see the hand. A man does not
have to learn to read before he can be saved. I see that hand; it is
pointing to the city of refuge. The gate is wide open, but it is ten miles
away. I leap over the highway. I do not look behind, to the right hand or to
the left. I do not listen to this man or to that man, but, like John Bunyan,
I put my fingers in my ears. The avenger has drawn his sword, and is on my
track. I leap over into the highway; and, pretty soon, I can hear him behind
me, Away I go, over that bridge, across that stream, up that mountain, along
that valley, - but I can hear him coming nearer and nearer. There is the
watchman; I can see him on the wall of the city. He gives notice to the
inhabitants that a refugee is coming. I see the citizens on the wall of the
city watching, and when I get near I hear them calling, "Run, run! Escape,
escape! He is very near you! Run! escape!" I press on; leap through the gate
of the city; and at last I am safe. One minute I am outside, and the next I
am inside. One minute I am exposed to that sword; it may come down upon me
at any minute: the next minute I am safe. Do I feel any difference? I feel I
am behind the walls: that is the difference. It is a fact. There I am. The
avenger can come up to the gates of the city, but he cannot come in. He
cannot lay his sword upon me. The law of the land shields me now. I am under
the protection of that city; I have saved my life; but I had no time for
lingering.
A great many of you are trying to get into the city of refuge, and there are
enemies trying to stop you, But do not listen to them. Your friends tell you
to escape. Make haste! Delay not for a single moment!
In our country, before the war, when we had slavery, the slaves used to keep
their eye on the north star. If a slave escaped to the Northern States, his
old master could come and take him back into slavery. But there was another
flag on American soil, and if they could only get under that flag they were
for ever free. It is called the Union Jack. If they could only get as far
north as Canada they were free; therefore they kept looking towards the
north star. But they knew if they only got into the Northern States, there
might be some one ready to take them back. So it is with every poor sinner
who wants to come to Christ. Many men do all they can to hinder him; others
will cheer him on. Let us help every man towards the north star. A man has
escaped: perhaps he swims across the Mississippi river, or crosses the Ohio
river in a little canoe. The master hears of it, and he takes his hounds and
sets them on his track, and begins to hunt him down. The slave hears the
hounds; and he knows that his master is coming to take him back to slavery.
The line is a mile or two away. He escapes as fast as he can. He runs with
all his might for the frontier, over hedges and ditches and rivers; away he
goes for Canada. By-and-by he comes in sight of Canada. He can see that flag
floating in front of him; and he knows that if he can only cross the line
before his master and the hounds overtake him, he will be free for ever.
How the poor black man runs! leaping and bounding along; and at last, with
one bound, he goes over the line. He is free! One minute he is a slave; the
next minute he is a free man, under the flag of Queen Victoria, the British
flag! (cheers [ABCOG: by British crowd]) - don't cheer, my friends, but come
to Christ - and your laws say that no man under that flag shall be a slave.
One minute he is a slave; the next minute he is a free man. One minute it is
possible for his old master to drag him back; the next minute he shouts,
"Free!"
If Christ tells us that we are free, we are free. My friends, Christ is
calling to-night. Get out of the devil's territory as quick as you can. No
slave in the Southern States had so hard a master as yours, nor so mean a
master as Satan. Take my advice tonight, and escape for the liberty of your
soul.
I can imagine some of you saying "I do not see how a man is really going to
be converted all at once." Let me give you another illustration. Look down
there. There are two soldiers. Now, if you bring those soldiers up to this
platform, and ask them how they became soldiers, they will tell you this -
that one moment they were citizens, and the next minute soldiers. What was
it that made them soldiers? It was when they took the Queen's shilling. The
moment they received that shilling they ceased to be citizens, and they
became soldiers. Before they received that shilling they could go where they
pleased; the next minute they came under the government and under the
regulations of the army, and they must go where Queen Victoria sends them.
They did not have to wait for the uniform. The minute they received the
shilling they became soldiers. What made them soldiers? Receiving the
shilling. What makes a man a Christian? Receiving Christ. "He came unto His
own, and His own received Him not: but as many as received Him, to them gave
He power to become the sons of God."
Now, the gift of God is eternal life. Who will have the gift to-night? When
I was down in Manchester I asked that question, and a man shouted in the
meeting, "I will! " Who will have it now? Is not there some man here in
London, as there was in Manchester, who will say that he will have the gift?
Is it not a wonder to have to plead with so many to take the gift? "The
wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life." Who will have
the gift now? (Many responses of "I will"; "I will.")
I can imagine one man down there who says "How about repentance? How about
getting into the ark or the city of refuge before repentance?" My friend,
let me ask you what is repentance? It is right-about-face! I think these
soldiers understand that expression. Some one has said that every one is
born with his back to God, and that conversion turns him right round. If you
want to be converted, and want to repent, I will tell you what you should
do. Just get out of Satan's service, and get into the Lord's. Leave your old
friends, and unite yourself with God's people.
In a few days, if nothing happens, I expect to go to Liverpool. If, when I
am in the train, my friend Mr. Shipton says, "Moody, you are going in the
wrong train, - that train is going to Edinburgh" - I should say, "Mr.
Shipton, you have made a great mistake; somebody told me the train was going
to Liverpool. You are wrong, Mr. Shipton; I am sure you are wrong." Then Mr.
Shipton would say, "Moody, I have lived here forty years, and I know all
about the trains. He must have been very ignorant or very vicious who told
you that train goes to Liverpool." Mr. Shipton at last convinces me, and I
get out of that train and get into the one going to Liverpool.
Repentance is getting out of one train and getting into the other. You are
in the wrong train; you are in the broad path that takes you down to the pit
of hell. Get out of it to-night. Right-about-face! Who will turn his feet
towards God? "Turn ye, for why will ye die?" In the Old Testament the word
is "turn." In the New Testament the word is "repent." "Turn ye, for why will
ye die, O house of Israel?" God does not want any man in this audience to
perish, but He wants all to be saved. You can be saved now if you will.
There is another illustration I wish I had time to dwell upon and that is
about looking. There is that serpent in the wilderness. "As Moses lifted up
the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man also be lifted
up, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting
life." Look here! Just give me your attention for a few minutes. "Believe on
the Lord Jesus Christ." How long does it take a man to believe? Or, if you
will, how long does it take a man to look? Some people say they believe in
educating people to be Christians. How long do you educate children to look?
You hear the mother say, "Look," and the little child looks. It does not
take a child three months to learn to look. Look and live! You need not go
to college to learn how to look. There is not a child here but knows how to
look. Christ says, "Look unto me; for I am [ABCOG: the way to] God, and
there is none else."
There is the brazen serpent on the pole. God says to the children of Israel,
who are dying of the bite of the fiery serpents - "Look, and live!"
Now, there is nothing in looking at a piece of brass which can cure the bite
of a serpent. It is God who cures it, and the looking is the condition. It
is obedience; and that is what God will have.
One moment the poor sufferer is dying; the next there comes a thrill of life
through his veins, and he lives: he is well. My friends, look to Christ, and
not to yourselves. That is what is the matter with a great many sinners;
instead of looking to Christ, they are looking at the bite.
It is not looking to the wound; it is looking to the remedy. Christ is the
remedy of sin. What you want is to look from the wound to the remedy - to
Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith. Who will look tonight, and
live? Turn your eye to Calvary; believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be
saved.
.
|
|
| User: "rogue" |
|
| Title: Re: What Must I Do To Be Saved? |
23 Dec 2007 04:11:25 AM |
|
|
On Dec 23, 8:54 am, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
In the book of Acts, Paul & Silas are asked by their jailer, "What must I do
to be saved?" They answered clearly and without any misunderstanding,
"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved - you and your household."
Faith in Jesus Christ. That's it. Simple. No works of man, just true faith
in Jesus Christ. D.L. Moody preached upon this in the following sermon.
JERRY
But then how do you explain these verses?
And shall come forth; THEY THAT HAVE DONE GOOD, unto the resurrection
of life. -- John 5:29
For you RENDER TO EACH ONE ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS. -- Psalm 62:12
I the Lord ... give every man ACCORDING TO HIS WAYS, and according to
the fruit of his doings. -- Jeremiah 17:10
When the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness ... and DOETH
THAT WHICH IS LAWFUL AND RIGHT, he shall save his soul. -- Ezekiel
18:27
For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His
angels, and then He will REWARD EACH ONE ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS.
Matthew 16.27
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed
of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation
of the world. For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was
thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in
prison, and ye came unto me. -- Matthew 25:34-36
Who will RENDER TO EACH ONE ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS. ... For not the
hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, BUT THE DOERS OF THE
LAW WILL BE JUSTIFIED. -- Romans 2:6, 13
For we must all appear before the jugment seat of Christ, that each
one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has
done, whether good or bad. -- 2 Corinthians 5:10
Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform
themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose END WILL BE
ACCORDING TO THEIR WORKS. -- 2 Corinthians 11:15
The Father, who without partiality JUDGES ACCORDING TO EACH ONE'S
WORK. -- 1 Peter 1:17
I will give unto every one of you ACCORDING TO YOUR WORKS. --
Revelation 2:23
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books
were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life:
and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the
books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which
were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in
them: and THEY WERE JUDGED EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO THEIR WORKS. --
Revelation 20:12-13
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven; but HE THAT DOETH THE WILL OF MY FATHER which is in
heaven. -- Matthew 7:21
JERRY
Now, to be fair, there are also a number of verses that say you are
saved by your belief and nothing else and even a couple that say you
are saved by believing and being baptised. That's part of the problem
with the book, that it's not consistent, that it contradicts itself on
important things and very obviously was written by a number of men
with men's goals and intent.
However to say you are saved by belief alone ignores what Jesus
himself said and puts Paul above Jesus. Jesus tells you that you are
judged according to your works in numerous places in the NT.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What Must I Do To Be Saved? |
23 Dec 2007 12:07:03 PM |
|
|
On Dec 23, 5:11=A0am, rogue <rogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
However to say you are saved by belief alone ignores what Jesus
himself said and puts Paul above Jesus. =A0Jesus tells you that you are
judged according to your works in numerous places in the NT.
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: What Must I Do To Be Saved? |
24 Dec 2007 02:29:35 AM |
|
|
On Dec 23, 10:07 pm, wrote:
On Dec 23, 5:11 am, rogue <rogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
However to say you are saved by belief alone ignores what Jesus
himself said and puts Paul above Jesus. Jesus tells you that you are
judged according to your works in numerous places in the NT.
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: What Must I Do To Be Saved? |
24 Dec 2007 05:54:56 AM |
|
|
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: What Must I Do To Be Saved? |
24 Dec 2007 10:06:34 PM |
|
|
On Dec 24, 3:54 pm, wrote:
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: What Must I Do To Be Saved? |
25 Dec 2007 12:03:58 PM |
|
|
On Dec 24, 11:06=A0pm, rogue <rogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 24, 3:54 pm, wrote:
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: "Mark T moi@home000whatever141" |
|
| Title: Re: What Must I Do To Be Saved? |
25 Dec 2007 08:37:24 PM |
|
|
<saints@nettally.com> wrote:
.... whatever ...
To be saved:
1. Swim between the flags
2. Signal a lifeguard if in trouble.
--
My Blog - MARK T - my thoughts on Christianity & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/
FUNDY FUNHOUSE -
http://fundamentalistfunhouse.blogspot.com/
- a resource on the current Fundamentalist Dark Age and Christian
fundamentalism.
My Soundclick Page - download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "rogue" |
|
| Title: Re: What Must I Do To Be Saved? |
25 Dec 2007 09:11:00 PM |
|
|
On Dec 25, 10:03 pm, wrote:
On Dec 24, 11:06 pm, rogue <rogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 24, 3:54 pm, wrote:
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 |
|
|
