The Bible

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] (Gods_Peon @ Aug. 17 2004,12:07)]Seeing is believing eh!, I've never seen Queen Victoria, she must not have existed.  But we do have history books that say she did.  And because the history texts pass specific tests, we call them reliable and trust in what they have to say about Queen Victoria.  Thus, without ever seeing her, I believe that she existed.

The same is true with the Bible.  It too has passed the tests that determine the reliability of historical text.  We can reliably say and trust what the Bible has to say about a man named Jesus who lived about 2,000 years ago in Gallillea (sp?).

That's not a very good comparison.

You have a variety of sources that show Queen Victoria lived, not just one.

I think it would be safe to assume that Queen Victoria, as important as she was, was nowhere near as important as the Son of God. Yet so very little is known about Jesus in a historical context. And of the small handful, several of them have been doctored by historians to try and verify Christ historically. If Christ truly existed, where is the historical evidence of Him outside of the Bible?

 

[Avesther]

The bible is 66 books in one. That is 66 books written by 40 different authors over the span of thousands of years all written about Jesus. At least that is what we call the canonical Holy Bible. Within the Bible, there are references to books that have been lost in time that would most likely have also been included in the canon.

Of Queen Victoria, all historical references were written when she was alive or shortly there after, certainly none of them were written before she was even born. And in this sense only, is there a difference. The history of the Son of God was written before he came to this world as Jesus.

The fact that the Jews are still expecting the Messiah to come lends credance to:

a. The prophecies of the future history of Jesus are indeed written.
b. The prophecies of their rejection of his first coming are accurate.

The New Testament confirms the prophecies of the Old Testament. We have 66 books written by 40 authors over the span of thousands of years all confirming what has written.

 

[Dark Virtue]

How exactly do you know there were 40 different authors?  The last time I checked there was great contention over authorship over the books that were included in the bible.

BTW, the OT doesn't always back up the NT's prophecies.

Here is just one example:

Quote[/b] ]Jesus claimed another fulfillment of nonprophecy in Luke 24:46. Speaking to his disciples on the night of his alleged resurrection, he said, "Thus it is written and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day." That the resurrection of Christ on the third day was prophesied in the scriptures was claimed also by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4: "For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures." In two different places, then, New Testament writers claimed that the resurrection of the Messiah on the third day had been predicted in the scriptures. Try as they may, however, bibliolaters cannot produce an Old Testament passage that made this alleged third-day prediction. It simply doesn't exist.

Confronted with a challenge to produce such a scripture, Bill Jackson, a Church-of-Christ preacher from Austin, Texas, said in my debate with him that "the prophecy had to do with the event... and the fleshed-out details need not have been given at the time" (Jackson-Till Debate, p. 20). He had to say something, of course, but all the talk in the world about fleshed-out details doesn't remove the fact that Jesus plainly said it had been written that he would "rise again from the dead the third day" and that the Apostle Paul agreed that such a prophecy had been written. The claim of a third-day resurrection prediction, then, was just another example of nonprophecy.

Care for another example?

Quote[/b] ]In another example, Matthew said that the purchase of the potter's field with the thirty pieces of silver that Judas cast back to the chief priests and elders fulfilled a prophecy made by Jeremiah: "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, whom certain of the children of Israel did price; and they gave them for the potter's field as the Lord appointed me" (27:9-10). The only problem is that Jeremiah never wrote anything remotely similar to this, so how could this be a fulfillment of "that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet"? Some scholars have suggested that Matthew was quoting "loosely" a statement that was actually written by Zechariah (11:12-13) rather than Jeremiah. If this is true, then one can only wonder why a divinely inspired writer, being guided by the omniscient Holy Spirit, would have said Jeremiah instead of Zechariah. To offer this as a solution to the problem posed by the passage doesn't do much to instill confidence in the inerrancy doctrine. Furthermore, if Matthew was indeed referring to Zechariah 11:12-13, then he certainly was "quoting loosely," so loosely, in fact, that any semblance of a connection between the two passages is barely recognizable: "Then I said to them, `If it is agreeable to you, give me my wages; and if not, refrain.' So they weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of silver. And Yahweh said to me, `Throw it to the potter'--that princely price they set on me. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of Yahweh for the potter" (NKJV). Many versions (RSV, NRSV, JB, NAB, REB, GNB, NWT, Moffatt, and Lamsa's translation from the Peshitta text) translate this passage to read treasury for potter, and the Septuagint (the Holy Spirit's favorite version) reads furnace for potter. All of these variations indicate that the meaning of the original certainly wasn't clear enough to claim this as a prophecy of the purchase of the potter's field with the money that Judas was paid to betray Jesus. If it was, then fundamentalists owe us an answer to the question posed earlier: Why did a divinely inspired writer attribute to Jeremiah a prophecy that was made by Zechariah? Of course, when bibliolaters talk about "wonderful prophecy fulfillments," they don't have much to say about this one. The reason why they don't should be obvious.

If you'd care to look at the full text, here is the link: LINK

 

[Avesther]

Quote[/b] ]Within the Bible, there are references to books that have been lost in time that would most likely have also been included in the canon.

Can you be sure I already didn't anticipate this.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Should I applaud your 'easy out'?

The question then becomes what happened to these other books? Why weren't they included in your canon? If the Bible is the perfect word of God, why leave references to "lost" books?

 

[Avesther]

I think it would be an easy out if I popped that up after you asked it. It was much harder then you give credit for, to write about it before you asked. It doesn't matter, obviously those to whom the letters were written or to whom the scripture was spoken where aware of the texts. Is it not possible that only the reference to them is sufficient? Through out todays historical texts there are reference to "lost" books and texts as well. Does this mean that the historical references are incorrect or not accurate? Not likely.

What it does point to, is that somebody in history was careless. Maybe it was an invading army that destroyed the texts. If the texts didn't exist, why bother even keeping the references to them? It better to hide a blunder then to leave it out in the open, thats human nature.

You can not say that the bible is incomplete or any less the perfect word of God unless you know for a fact that those texts were intended by God to be included, and not merely referenced and or lost in time.

To quote somebody you admire:

While it's true that a critical debate exists over authorship, the classical belief remains, there were 40 authors.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] (Gods_Peon @ Aug. 17 2004,2:20)]You can not say that the bible is incomplete or any less the perfect word of God unless you know for a fact that those texts were intended by God to be included, and not merely referenced and or lost in time.

And of those books included in your canon, are they in the same state that God intended them to be? What about the inconsistencies within those books? For instance, the story of creation. Gen 1:1 to 2:3 differs from Gen 2:4 - 2:25. The differences in the stories are:

Genesis 1:3 and subsequent verses say that God created the universe in six days; Genesis 2:4 implies it is one day.
In the first account, God created fruit trees before Adam and Eve; in the second account, God created Adam, then the fruit trees, then Eve.
In the first account, God created animals before Adam and Eve; in the second account, God created Adam. then the animals, then Eve.
Genesis 1:20 describes how God had "the waters bring forth ...fowl" ; in Genesis 2:19, God formed them "out of the ground".
In the first account, God created the fish on the 5th day; in the second account, the fish of the sea were not created at all.

How do you reconcile all the inconsistencies in the Bible?

I don't mean to be an ass, I'm honestly looking for the answer.

This is the running question though, are the books that have made it into your canon all that God intended? Are there books in there that God didn't intend? What makes your canon more right than other canons?

 

[Avesther]

One has to study the context of the first few chapters of Genesis. And running quickly through it, we should ask ourselves, what is the intent?

Is the intent scientific? Probably not. The writing of the first few chapters is more of a historico-poetry prose genre style. The writing style suggests that a literal interpretation of the text would be inappropriate. The purpose certainly is not scientific.

Moses audience was a group of agrarian Hebrews, who do not speak with scientific of photographic precesion. And the text speaks very well to such an audience. It is written in simple, obersrvational language. The context of the first few chapters is more of a historical narrative rather then exact science.

Further, comparing chapter 2 to chapter 1 only causes conflicts if you take literal translation to the extreme. Chapter 2 has no reference to time as in chapter 1.

Chapter 2 itself is evidence that there is no specific timelines or deadlines within the narrative. We see that God put man in the garden in verse 8 of chapter two and then again in verse 15. So, by literal translation, when did God put man in the garden and how many times? Chapter 2 writen style is different again from chapter 1.

While chapter one is poetic and historical, it is not a scientific text. And chapter two is a historical narrative describe some events in more, but not scientific, detail.

 

[Dark Virtue]

If the author is indeed one person and is writing down the word of God, shouldn't those two chapters corroborate each other?

 

[Avesther]

Yet they do.  They both corraborate that God is the creator of everything.

If in one chapter I say:

On the first day, I got on the bus to go to Walla Walla Washington

And in the next chapter I wrote:

To go to Main street in Walla Walla in the state of Washington, I got on the number 4 bus.  While I was there, there were trees and gophers.  I found that the restaurant I was staying at had a decent bed for sleeping.  When I got into town, I went to the museum and saw some paintings before I went to the hotel.

The order is different, the details are more exact but both say the same thing.  They corroborate each other.

edit--
as a matter of fact, the order of what things I did in town is written down in a narrative, not necessarily in the order I did it.

 

[PapaToad]

This is the running question though, are the books that have made it into your canon all that God intended?

Yes, for what he wants the world to know and struggling Christians.


Are there books in there that God didn't intend?

No, I do not believe so, and even if there is bad translations. The knowledge God wants us to have is solid!

What makes your canon more right than other canons?
I do not know the terms canons? What other the catholic Bible, compare to NIV both teaching Christ is the son of God. That Jesus was about saving the sinner and praying/communing with God. That we should be NT peoples. I am not seeing a problem?



1st let me clear up one thing. I believe The Bible is the Word of God, is all in there that is intended. I could not say? But What I can say, and this is a belief in the bottom of my Heart. What is there is what God wants me to share and Know and study and use as a guide in my life to bring me closer to him.

Does that mean man did not try to change it? Of course not we know better, Does that mean that man has power over what God wants us to know?

The answer is No

God wants us to know

He is, He was and he will always be

He had a plan when he created the World and It is still in effect today and coming to fruitition. (Man’s union with God)

That he so loved the world He gave his only Son

That thru Jesus Christ, we Have savoir and Lord

That The King is coming back

So you can get caught in Symantec’s, but it comes down to this

If the Bible is not the word of God, then we believe in a nothing and it does not matter. ( A belief I know is not true) I talk with God daily and he has shown me His loved( Praise The LORD!)

Or It is the Word of God, the word He wishes us to put in our Hearts. I am sure there where lots of writing, as there is wonderful and God Inspired writing today. But The Bible tells us EXCALTLY what we need to know. And NIBV version a 4th grader could read reasonably well.

The Bible is not half right and half wrong, That is the Devil keeping folks from the truth. If an once is wrong then the whole this is moot. And just because you can not find comparison or liner connections in a couple of places , heaven forbid you get that yes there was a lot to get it translated in all the languages. Heaven’s mercy, I have a hard time dechering what my wife says, much less if she spoke another language.

So Either it is or its not, you have to pick a team.

I know it is and its perfectly what God wants me to know.

HE is Creator of all things

And His Son Jesus Christ Died for my sins.

And all the rest are helpful knowledge to live my life by to be closer to my Creator.

If you would read the Bible, and study it, you would be better off,

I guess I got lost in all the postings.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] (Gods_Peon @ Aug. 17 2004,7:10)]Yet they do.  They both corraborate that God is the creator of everything.

If in one chapter I say:

On the first day, I got on the bus to go to Walla Walla Washington

And in the next chapter I wrote:

To go to Main street in Walla Walla in the state of Washington, I got on the number 4 bus.  While I was there, there were trees and gophers.  I found that the restaurant I was staying at had a decent bed for sleeping.  When I got into town, I went to the museum and saw some paintings before I went to the hotel.

The order is different, the details are more exact but both say the same thing.  They corroborate each other.

edit--
as a matter of fact, the order of what things I did in town is written down in a narrative, not necessarily in the order I did it.

Sorry, but the importance of your bus ride is nowhere near the importance of the creation of this world. Wouldn't you think the order in which the world was created important? You're trying to rationalize the irrational and it's just not working. Don't trivialize the creation of the world.

I understand that you believe that the Pentateuch was written by one author, but that may not be true. In the first creation account, the Creator is referred to as Elohim, but in the second account, the Creator is referred to as Yahweh Elohim. Again, this isn't a trivial reference, it's quite possible the authors of the two creation accounts are different, that would explain the different order. Is there another, RATIONAL explanation for it?

 

[Dark Virtue]

MontrezAnthony, check up a few posts to see what we discussed about Canons, all will be made clear

 

[Avesther]

Quote[/b] ]Sorry, but the importance of your bus ride is nowhere near the importance of the creation of this world.

I'm sorry, I am demostrating the difference between writing styles between prose and narratives.  Which is the difference between Genesis 1 and 2.

How the universe was created was not importat to agrian Hebrews (Farmers, not scientists).  The key concept here is understanding the context of who the author was talking to.

You can not /EVER/ take your advanced knowledge or understanding and think that people 6,000 years ago were at the same level you are now.  

Chapter 1: Poetry
Chapter 2: Narrative

Even if done by the same author, it is quite expected that there would differences between the two as they were written with two different techniques.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] (Gods_Peon @ Aug. 18 2004,10:11)]

Quote[/b] ]Sorry, but the importance of your bus ride is nowhere near the importance of the creation of this world.

I'm sorry, I am demostrating the difference between writing styles between prose and narratives.  Which is the difference between Genesis 1 and 2.

How the universe was created was not importat to agrian Hebrews (Farmers, not scientists).  The key concept here is understanding the context of who the author was talking to.

You can not /EVER/ take your advanced knowledge or understanding and think that people 6,000 years ago were at the same level you are now.  At least the farmers knew the difference between poetry and narratives.

Get me some cheese and bread, cuz that's a load of baloney

Come on now, you're dancing around the point!

Just because you have different writing styles doesn't excuse the fact that the ORDER IS WRONG.

You can't write that off as a literary technique.

You're simply grasping for straws here.

 

[Avesther]

It comes down to this...



edit:

I don't need to defend myself against that.

 

[Avesther]

Genesis 2:4 (NIV)

Quote[/b] ]This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

This verse is telling us that "now" that the heavans and earth is created, here is a further detailed account of what is important, specifically to the creation record of Adam and Eve, and a place for them.  This is not a differing point of view of the creation record as it doesn't talk about the creation of the heavans, earth, sun, water, land.  What follows is a record of creation that took place after all that.

Further in verse 4 in to verse 5:

Quote[/b] ]When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens - (5) and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground

*Emphasis added

Obviously these are plants and shrubs that required cultivation, not vegitation in general as in Genesis 1:12.

Genesis 7-8

Quote[/b] ]the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living being. (8)Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden.

This passage deals specifically with trees God planted in the garden of Eden, not the trees in general in Genesis 1:12.  This was place God was specifical preparing for Adam and Eve. These tree's came in to existance because God planted them, not because God said "Let the land produce vegetation."  Planting indicates God took seed from already existing trees.

Verse 19:

Quote[/b] ]Now the Lord God had formed (past tense, he formed them some time in the past, if it were a current creation the text would read "the Lord God formed" as we read in verse 7) out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.  He brought them to the man to see what he would name them.

The animals are mentioned here, after Adam was created, because it was after Adam was created that he was shown the animals, not that they were created after Adam.

----  To answer, are there two different Authors of Genesis 1 and 2 because of the different terms for God?  Elohim, or God in Chapter 1 and YHWH-Elohim, the Lord God, in Chapter 2.

No, there is only one author between the first two chapters.  God, or Elohim as used in the first Chapter is appropriate usage in getting the idea of an awesome and faithful Being, having creative and governing power, majesty and omnipotence, who is above the material world He created across to the reader, it is a lofty title.

YHWH means "he One who always was, now is, and ever shall be"and is the deeply personal name of God. It is used in His personal and covenant relationships with people.  Genesis 2-4b on is an account of how God made Adam and Eve, and of the setting He prepared for them.Here they were meant to live and work in loving covenantal fellowship with Him and with each other. It is entirely appropriate therefore that Moses  use YHWH in writing this chapter, or section of Genesis.  YHWH is joined to ‘Elohim to form the name YHWH-’Elohim (= the Lord God), as used in Genesis chapter 2. This identifies the covenant God YHWH as being the same as ’Elohim, the almighty creator. There is no logical reason (particularly any based on the term used for God) to ascribe this account to any other author or authors.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] (Gods_Peon @ Aug. 18 2004,5:18)]There is no logical reason (particularly any based on the term used for God) to ascribe this account to any other author or authors.

Let me see if I can make my argument more logical.

The name of the God is often and variously abbreviated in the Hebrew texts. Dozens of times in Genesis it is written simply yy, the first time in Gen. ii, 4, the first mention of Yahveh. Elsewhere it occurs as Yah, or Yehu, Yeho, and as Yah,-Yahveh; often as Yahveh-Elohim. IYet itt is always, falsely rendered in the translations as "Lord" and "Lord God".  In fact, the literal translation of Elohim is godS, not god.  So if there were one author, why the various abbreviations?

Throughout history there has not been a single original book or manuscript of Hebrew or Christian Scriptures, containing the inspired Word of God.  That is a fact.  And the oldest manuscripts contain gross corruptions of text and numberless errors and conflicting readings.  That opinion comes from noneother than St. Jerome, author of the Latin Vulgate version of the Scriptures.  He said that the sacred texts "varied so much that there were almost as many readings as codices," or manuscript copies of the text.  So the problem of clarity has existed from the very beginning.  Not exactly what you would expect from someone who is not the "God of confusion".

I will try not to deviate too far from our original topic, but it is important to lay the groundwork to show that the Bible is a horrible mishmash of translations, mistranslations and contradictions: all of these pointing to various authors.

It is has been accepted that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, labeled in the Bible as "The Five Books of Moses", under the inspiration of God.  These five books could not have been written by Moses though.  These books contain information, history, that occurred AFTER the death of Moses.  Moses would have had to write about past AND future events.  Moses and the Hebrews of his time existed around 1500 BC.  But it wasn't until many centuries later that the Hebrews acquired the art of writing. According to the Egyptologist Brested, it was not until about the time of Amos (about eight hundred years after Moses) that the Hebrews were just "learning to write"; that "they were now abandoning the clay tablet, and they wrote on papyrus with Egyptian pen and ink. They borrowed their alphabet from the Phoenician and Aramean merchants."

One of the more obvious proofs that Moses didn't write the Pentateuch comes in the form of post-Mosaics, or "after-Moses" events, related in those books under the name of Moses as their inspired author; events of which Moses of course could not have known or written, as they occurred long after his death.  Keep in mind that nowhere does Moses claim to authoring the first five books of Genesis and nowhere does the Bible give Moses authorship of them.  Except when Moses is recorded as making a speech is he ever referred to in the first person.  The rest of the Pentateuch is recorded in the third person.  A good illustration of this point is in Exodus 6.  Verse 13 says: "And Yahveh spake unto Moses and unto
Aaron, and gave them a charge unto the children of Israel, and unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, to bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt." Immediately, in verses 14 to 27, follows a strange interruption of the narrative by the insertion of a series of family genealogies.  This information could NOT have been written by Moses because it includes genealogies that occur long after his death.  It is widely accepted by Biblical scholars that thse genealogies were added in after the exile.  If Moses had indeed written these books, why did he not once include the name of the Pharaoh of the Exodus?  Several times in the verses cited is it said, as often
elsewhere in the Five Books, "Pharaoh king of Egypt," as if Pharaoh were the name of the king instead of simply the official title of the ruler. Pharaoh's name was never used because the author DID NOT KNOW HIS NAME.  In later and more historical books, several Pharaohs are mentioned by their proper names, such as Pharaoh Necho (2 Chron), Pharaoh Hophra (Jer.), and Shishak, king of Egypt (1 Kings).

Further proof follows in Deut. concerning the graphic detail of the death and burial of Moses.  How could he have written this himself? If you claim that Moses was given this information by divine means, doesn't that negate this verse, "but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day"?

Another proof...In the same chapter is another similar proof of much later authorship by some other than Moses; for it is written: "And there hath not yet arisen a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses" (verse 10) -- a statement which could only have been made after many later great prophets had arisen with whom Moses could be compared. Moses could not himself have written that no prophet had arisen "since" himself when he was yet alive and when no prophet could as yet be his successor.

One more...Exodus 11:3 states "the man Moses was very great"; and in Numbers 12:3 is the information, "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth." Such a meek man would probably not have made such immodest boasts of himself. It had to have been some later chronicler. This conclusion is strengthened by the use of "was" and "were," in the past tense. And Moses no doubt well knew the name of his own pagan father-in-law; but the latter is variously named in the Five Books by four different names: Jethro (Ex. 3:1); Reuel (Ex. 2:18); Raguel (Num. 10:29); Jether (Ex. 4:18);and in Judges he is given a fifth name, Hobab (Judges 4:11), all which indicates several different authors, or one very careless one, but not Moses.

I think that's plenty to show my point.

 

[Arkanjel]

I must say, Im quite puzzled by your answers here Dark Virtue. What exactly is it that you DO believe. Please give us your testimony so we can all understand you a little bit better. I do have a few bits of scripture that display a great example of foreknowledge. That being things described in the bible that we have only recently confirmed with science and exploration.

Job 38:16 16 Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?
By springs of the sea they mean springs of the sea. The underwater gysers that pump water out of them from underground. I dont know of many OT deep-sea divers that had submarines capable of going to the depths at which these things reside.

Job 38:25 25 Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder;
A way for the lightning of thunder? It has just been discovered that lightning first makes its path before the visual flash of light.

Job 38:31 31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?
Even now we can barely grasp the gravitational influences that stars have on each other, yet God tells us even back then that such things do exist.

Job 40:15 15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
Here God confirms the story of creation. Not to mention this was also done by Jesus. This behemoth is what we call a dinosaur today, probably a brachiosaurus. When this was written the word dinosaur was not yet thought up. Also this is a great evolution theory killer.

Also you had asked about a prophecy concerning Jesus....I think. Here are just a few.
I think there are about three hundred altogether.
Isaiah and Psalms are the two you are looking for.
Born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:21-23)
A descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 22:18; Matthew 1:1; Galatians 3:16)
Of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10; Luke 3:23, 33; Hebrews 7:14)
Of the house of David (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Matthew 1:1)
Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4-7)
Taken to Egypt (Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:14-15)
Herod´s killing of the infants (Jeremiah 31:15; Matthew 2:16-18)
Anointed by the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11:2; Matthew 3:16-17)
Heralded by the messenger of the Lord (John the Baptist) (Isaiah 40:3-5; Malachi 3:1; Matthew 3:1-3)
Would perform miracles (Isaiah 35:5-6; Matthew 9:35)
Would preach good news (Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:14-21)
Would minister in Galilee (Isaiah 9:1; Matthew 4:12-16)
Would cleanse the Temple (Malachi 3:1; Matthew 21:12-13)
Would first present Himself as King 173,880 days from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25; Matthew 21:4-11)
Would enter Jerusalem as a king on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9; Matthew 21:4-9)
Would be rejected by Jews (Psalm 118:22; I Peter 2:7)
Die a humiliating death (Psalm 22; Isaiah 53) involving:
- rejection (Isaiah 53:3; John 1:10-11; 7:5,48)
- betrayal by a friend (Psalm 41:9; Luke 22:3-4; John 13:18)
- sold for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12; Matthew 26:14-15)
- silence before His accusers (Isaiah 53:7; Matthew 27:12-14)
- being mocked (Psalm 22: 7-8; Matthew 27:31)
- beaten (Isaiah 52:14; Matthew 27:26)
- spit upon (Isaiah 50:6; Matthew 27:30)
- piercing His hands and feet (Psalm 22:16; Matthew 27:31)
- being crucified with thieves (Isaiah 53:12; Matthew 27:38)
- praying for His persecutors (Isaiah 53:12; Luke 23:34)
- piercing His side (Zechariah 12:10; John 19:34)
- given gall and vinegar to drink (Psalm 69:21, Matthew 27:34, Luke 23:36)
- no broken bones (Psalm 34:20; John 19:32-36)
- buried in a rich man´s tomb (Isaiah 53:9; Matthew 27:57-60)
- casting lots for His garments (Psalm 22:18; John 19:23-24)
Would rise from the dead!! (Psalm 16:10; Mark 16:6; Acts 2:31)
Ascend into Heaven (Psalm 68:18; Acts 1:9)
Would sit down at the right hand of God (Psalm 110:1; Hebrews 1:3)

In Christ,
Gabriel

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] (Arkanjel @ Aug. 19 2004,2:49)]I must say, Im quite puzzled by your answers here Dark Virtue. What exactly is it that you DO believe. Please give us your testimony so we can all understand you a little bit better. I do have a few bits of scripture that display a great example of foreknowledge. That being things described in the bible that we have only recently confirmed with science and exploration.

I am a riddle, wrapped in an enigma, shrouded in mystery!

Actually, I am one of those few people you will meet that could argue both sides equally well.  I grew up Christian and was quite solid in my faith.  But the more I researched, the more I learned, the less I could honestly believe in the Bible.  So now, well, I consider myself a FreeThinker.

So when I ask questions, I see it from both sides and I will make sure that you really work for the answer and not spout useless drivel and preprogrammed responses.

As for what you refer to as "foreknowledge", I'll give you the best example I can think of.  Pluto was discovered in 1930.  But the Sumerians, a civilization that existed 6,000 years ago already knew of its existence.  They knew the number of planets in our solar system, their relative size and location from them and even knew what color they were, something we guessed erroneously in the 1970's.

Now was that information a prophecy of some sort?  Not at all, it has nothing to do with the Bible whatsoever.

As far as Christ is concerned, I'm more interested in historical references to Him outside of the Bible. Several of those prophecies have been shown to be falsified to lend credence to Christ. And that is definately a subject for another thread.