The witness to Jesus

[MHz]

We should differentiate between the original Torah or the first books of the Holy Bible, and between the present Torah which is almost included in the Old Testament.

The Torah is just the first 5 books of the NT. Moses taught the oral version of the earlier times during the 40 years in the desert. The other Books were written before Daniel. All but one was written before Daniel and the first 5 were written down while the exile was going on. Here's one point that could end the discussion in my favor right away. What if it was Daniel (and his 3 friends) that wrote down the Torah for the first time rather than Ezra? Daniel was alive for quite some time, how long was Ezra in service as the path being taken to show the early OT was corrupt means a Prophet was not an 'accurate Scribe'. That would mean it applies to all Prophets, that simply isn't the case. The exile could have had a brand new letter perfect (to the way God wanted it) OT in print by the time the Temple was first opened.
B.C.E. Old Testament

• c. 2166 to c. 1876 Job
• c. 1446 to c. 1406 Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
• c. 1406 to c. 1050 Joshua, Judges
• c. 1050 to c. 931 Ruth, Samuel, Psalms, Song of Solomon, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes
• c. 875 Obadiah, Joel
• c. 790 Jonah, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah
• c. 732 to c. 726 Nahum, Zephaniah
• c. 640 Jeremiah, Lamentations, Habakkuk, Kings, Daniel, Ezekial
• c. 586 to c. 538 Haggai, Zechariah
• c. 458 Chronicles, Ezra, Esther
• c. 444 Nehemiah, Malachi

When Were the Books of the Bible Written? : Media History Project : U of M

If the claim that Ezra was in error is false then then that laves Moses as being in error. that doesn't work either if the Bible remains intact.

I believe in the original Torah that it was certainly revealed from God as guidance and light to the Children of Israel and to all humanity (and genie-kind); because it is the revealed word of God.

Your definition says 'original' means just the first 5 books, the link below say there are errors. There aren't any, in the OT or the NT, which ones do you see as the 'best'? I didn't get a reply to the last time I went over a few, there is no incentive to do more before the merits of the answers already given.

But there have been much change and alteration by the following generations (serious changes that relate to the essence of the belief); although not all of it was altered but it resulted in a confusing books that mixed the true with the false and changing the lawful into unlawful and the forbidden into allowed thing.
The Torah [or Hebrew Bible] of Ezra
Some Books, Of The Hebrew Bible, Are Lost
The Lies Of Ezra About The Prophets
The Mistakes In The Torah Of Ezra

Lets cover the ones I already answered first, why was the Aaron answer 'wrong'. Making the golden calf was a sin, Aaron didn't worship it, that is why he didn't die with the rest, Moses killed a man before and God still called him for service. Aaron also worked with gold when making the temple furnishings. That all adds up to whoever said the OT was in error is in error themselves.

I would only go as far as saying the text of the Bible is just like God intended (English version is limited to just the KJV1611 Edition). The true message is still there but it doesn't fit in with what is being passed around today as to 'meaning'.

N.B.
The present Torah (included in the Old Testament) is the Torah written by Ezra after their return from the captivity of Babylon.

Prove it wasn't Daniel and his friends?

The same is true about the original Gospel which was the word of Jesus and what He was instructed by God to say and work, and which was collected and written by his disciples to whom God revealed to write it down. To this original Gospel I do believe.

The text is accurate, that good enough for now.

But in the following generations, and because of the wickedness of disbelievers and the cunning of the governors, and other factors, the present Gospels included serious changes that altered the religion of God from the exclusive devotion to God alone into something like or worse than idolatry and enthusiasm about Jesus until they considered him God and son of God and part of Trinity along with God Almighty.

There is not one verse in the NT that promotes anything but worship to God alone. The same one, and only, Jesus worshiped. Even when appearing as a Angel in Re.22 that same theme is reinforced.
The trinity is false, God, the Holy Spirit, and Christ (the Son) are the only 3 that are above all things created, that part is true.

The Four Gospels

Therefore, to Jesus: the prophet, apostle and righteous servant of God -- I do believe, but to Jesus as God or son of God or part of Trinity together with God -- I don't believe and I reject this absolutely.

That is because all such claims are not logical and not reasonable, but only they say we find it written as such in our Gospels

That part isn't an issue, listening to the two Laws and going by them is, the Bible defines who will be in the 1/3 that remain alive at His coming, it is belief that He died and rose again from the grave that gets a person over that hurdle. When He brings all the dead from the 12 Tribes and the Church (Gentile believers in God) No matter how much reverence is given to Jesus it is never as much as is given to God because that is where the 'thanks for sending Him' ends up. It means that Proverbs 8 is Christ's resume as being the Judge, no OT Prophet or NT Apostle has that same amount of wisdom.

N.B. If such changes are related to some part of some rites, it may be forgiven; but the changes have been serious to change the doctrine of the exclusive devotion to God alone into devotion to Jesus himself;
while in the Old Testament the changes included many fabrications about the noble prophets of God and about God Almighty Himself (so that Jacob wrestled with him and overcame Him and took a promise by force out of Him; although some say it was an angel and even then it is wrong and he cannot wrestle with the angels and Jacob was the righteous "servant of God" as the title Israel implies.)

i.e. the changes touched the basis of the doctrine of the exclusive devotion to God alone according to The First Commandment.
And this necessitated that God should sent a new apostle: Mohammed. Because the picture of the religion of God had been changed upside down.

i.e. a man who wanted to believe, will be confused because he would find before him the idolatry and could not find the pure religion of God: the exclusive devotion to God alone without associate or equal. Then on the Judgment Day, he will have the right to say: I could not find the truth of the pure monotheism to follow it. Therefore, God sent the new apostle Mohammed to explain the truth to them.

There is not one verse that would back up what you claim.

ie#1- not true, there is no 'demand' that people preach the gospel accurately when there are said to be false Christians operating in that period, that is why everything we promote should be verified by reading the various references. Just a few such acts put the trinity, pre-trib rapture in their proper place. That doesn't mean you will be able to convince anybody but yourself what the 'view is'.

ie#2 the man isn't putting in any effort on his own, he is relying on others to do the work for him. That is a sheeple and they number many, that doesn't make them right.

So to Moses and Jesus I believe as do I believe in Mohammed, but to the enthusiasm about anyone of these noble prophets I don't believe.

That's not true, by promoting the the Torah and Bible have errors in them but the Quran has not one is promoting one man (sent by God) over another. The NT put John and Jesus as being anointed by God even before they were born, that is greater than Moses and John says to Jesus that he is barely worthy to tie His shoes, none of that takes away from the first Law.

Thanks for sparing us that, at least. But I say again, if you're going to use only one badly outdated and inconsistent source book and insist that it's all literally true and correct, you will be led astray.

Reading a cook book when you have a Ford that needs repair is being led astray.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I said that because you allways slip from the main point and go repeating Hitchin and Dawkin words

They're my own words and my own conclusions, arrived at well before I read any of what Hitchens and Dawkins have written on the subject. I just happen to agree with most of it, and it seemed relevant in the context at the time. Experience ought to have shown you by now that it's futile to try to keep a thread focused on a single idea.

Reading a cook book when you have a Ford that needs repair is being led astray.

So is reading the Bible when you want to understand the reality around you.

 

[darkbeaver]

Pretty sweeping assumption, you can't possibly know that, and quantum theory seems to suggest that it did. "Nothing" is unstable so "something" is far more likely than "nothing." Your claim doesn't solve anything anyway, it just pushes the problem back one step: where did the One Who created it come from? If you're going to claim that he was always there and is uncreated, you might as well claim that the universe was always there and uncreated, it explains just as much. You're just trying to explain one complex problem by postulating something even more complex that, not coincidentally, is untestable. You've explained nothing, and have in effect claimed that no explanation is either possible or necessary. Good religion maybe, but bad science.

"Nothing is unstable so something is far more likely than nothing"? And yet you defend your atheism religiously. Nothing does not and never has been something that can become unstable, but a belief along those lines certainly does indicate spiritual instability. I will PM you the name and address of a prominent certified Witch Doctor in your village.

And in the days of great grampy squared there came to be a huge and terrible din yonder in the fenceless nothing and lo the earth did smoke and shake and stability was created. It was big with a bang.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

"Nothing is unstable so something is far more likely than nothing"? And yet you defend your atheism religiously.

If you were as up on physics as you pretend to be you'd recognize the phrase "nothing is unstable" and know what it means in the context of quantum theory, and if your thinking skills were what you'd like to think they are you'd know that your second sentence is a non sequitur.

 

[eanassir]

Dexter, here when replying to my post, you also slipped away. Because if you want to discuss the subject, you should do this one point after another; because giving many points at a time will confuse the mind and in case one truly seeks after the truth, he may not find it.
=================================================

MHz, the difference is so obvious between the original books revealed from God and between the now availble books. Even different and recent versions have brought a big variation from the original: i.e. in every new version they are making much change and alteration by the way of the translation.

Moreover, Moses is not like Ezra.

Moses is a righteous prophet of high rank: to whom God spoke and parted for him the sea and gave him water out of the rock in addition to giving him the tablets inscribed with words written by God Himself. Moses was of a great rank and favored by God. What you say that he killed a man before he was sent as an apostle: this was according to God's decree: Moses did not intend to kill the Coptic, but rather he wanted to discipline him, but the man died, and he asked God's forgiveness so God Most Forgiving forgave him his sin, and that was the decree of God so that he will go to Sinai to Midian, to stay there for 8 years, then to return when he was 40 years of age and God spoke to him and sent him to Pharaoh and to his people.

While Ezra was not any prophet: he was a scribe with Nabuchodonosor at Babylon, then when he wrote the Torah including the books fo the Old Testament, he made many alterations and distortions.

About Daniel, he wasn't in a situation at Babylon to write the extensively large Torah collection of books, if he can do anything, he will wrtie a new book. Jesus also brought a new book: the Gospel, while the Torah collection of books of the Old Testament is so extensive, and he had no time to do such a thing; he rather left that to Prophet Ahmed who will come later on with a new book: the Quran including everything: the law in addition to everything else.
Prophet Ahmed as Mentioned in the Gospel

 

[Dexter Sinister]

...giving many points at a time will confuse the mind...

Not mine.

 

[eanassir]

=========================================

A nice tale:

It may not be true, but it explains part of the subject.
A man who was a Christian studying in the church under the instruction of an old aged clergy; he wanted to investigate about Muslims in the mosque, so he pretended that he was a Muslim and went to the mosque and attended the prayer; the imam of the prayer recited some of the Quran and he made some mistake, and there were many men who corrected for him the recital.

Then he went to his clergy who dictated for him some of the Bible, then the clergy was sleepy or between sleep and wakefulness, when he was dictating parts of the Bible. Now a seller passed by in the street shouting: Tomato the kilo by one dinar!
so the clergy and he was half asleep said while dictating the Bible: Tomato the kilo by one dinar! intermingled with the Bible text dictation. The young man awakened the clergy and told him about what he dictated, and they laughed at that.

But the young Christian went the next day and converted, and said: When the imam was wrong there were many who corrected for him at once, while the Bible is so extensive and can be intermingled and mixed with some intruding words.

It means: the Quran is known by heart as you know a poem.

Not mine.

It is useless to discuss, because you don't want to reach the truth.

 

[MHz]

MHz, the difference is so obvious between the original books revealed from God and between the now availble books. Even different and recent versions have brought a big variation from the original: i.e. in every new version they are making much change and alteration by the way of the translation.

Any Bible today can be used to 'prove' salvation is coming. I have already said to 'study the intricate details' you need one translation only, KJV1611. Here is the reason why, first it was copied from 'original texts', that makes it a 'first edition' and the Royals of England own the copyright. Any other book that claims to be the Bible can follow the same format to a certain extent but it cannot be an exact copy. If you want to compare the changes that's fine, I even start, one verse has the term 'all flesh' and another version had the words 'all mankind'. Given the specific verse it affect who will see salvation. One is correct and the other is not, the proof is found in various other verses that have not been changed. Another reason to use the 1611 edition is it is public domain in that it can be quoted extensively and does not come under the same rules as 'other editions' where there is a demand to identify them. It is a for profit book, meant to line the pockets of men with gold rather than being the best attempt at bringing the true word of God.

If you would like that verse I referenced be shown and the verses that do the verification I don't have an issue with that. I would like the version the Qur'an gives for the same topic though.

It concerns the 'sparrows' God sees when they 'fall', do those specific birds (and other flesh) have (eternal) life in the place called 'the new earth'

Moreover, Moses is not like Ezra.

Now suddenly all messengers sent by God do not have the same station, Jesus says they were all brothers, that means each presented flawless works 'to the people'. Ezra was given the task to teach the Torah to the people, renewed as exile probably didn't see a lot of large gatherings. That means he had something to teach from when he first started the mission God had for him. That would also go for Saul in the NT, he wasn't sent out to the nations without a copy of the 4 Gospels. God is not sloppy or lax, as soon as something 'can be acted on' it is.

Re.22:9
Then saith he unto me,
See thou do it not:
for I am thy fellowservant,
and of thy brethren the prophets,
and of them which keep the sayings of this book:
worship God.

Ezra would have been as accurate in writing what God wanted as the writer of Revelation was, not as beloved but accurate all the same.

Moses is a righteous prophet of high rank: to whom God spoke and parted for him the sea and gave him water out of the rock in addition to giving him the tablets inscribed with words written by God Himself. Moses was of a great rank and favored by God.

That fine, Ezra heard the same voice. Moses didn't get the books in perfect memory by His own will and effort, that would be the same for any writer in the Holy Bible. The shortest is Zephaniah and if he was a speedy Scribe one day and there it is, yet the whole book is anout the coming of Christ when the wicked of the earth see it as described in Re.16 as the 7 vials. How about Jude, one page summing up the way fallen angels came into being, followed by a larger book describing their fate. Those books are not as important as the exodus but they are still 100% authentic in describing the 'big picture' In the NT it is all about the bruise to Satan's head when prophecy is given. In the times that are said to fulfill something that is to do with Satan bruising the hell of Eve's seed, Jesus. Those two events allows the whole Bible to be divided into the prophecy and fulfillment of those two events.

Suddenly there are ranks, is that why Ezra is accused of being the one to make errors? Accusing Moses or Daniel would mean there were no errors.

What you say that he killed a man before he was sent as an apostle: this was according to God's decree: Moses did not intend to kill the Coptic, but rather he wanted to discipline him, but the man died, and he asked God's forgiveness so God Most Forgiving forgave him his sin,

So does that cross off the error about Aaron?
(your link)
"Then, dear reader, look and contemplate: Is it logical that a prophet makes for his people a calf of gold, then he asks them to worship it, and makes a solemnity for it, then builds an altar so that they may sacrifice for it!? Aren’t these mere lies of Ezra against Aaron?"

and that was the decree of God so that he will go to Sinai to Midian, to stay there for 8 years, then to return when he was 40 years of age and God spoke to him and sent him to Pharaoh and to his people.

I guess I better bone up on the years after the desert, more went on that I had allowed for.

Ex.7:7
And Moses was fourscore years old,
and Aaron fourscore and three years old,
when they spake unto Pharaoh.

While Ezra was not any prophet: he was a scribe with Nabuchodonosor at Babylon, then when he wrote the Torah including the books fo the Old Testament, he made many alterations and distortions.

Not true, Neb could have been dead when Ezra was first even 'noticed' let alone given a mission.

The Book of Ezra describes how he led about 1,500 male[2] Judean exiles living in Babylon to their home city of Jerusalem (c. 458 BCE), where he enforced observance of the Torah and cleansed the community of mixed marriages.[3][4] עזרא הסופר ʻEzrâ ha-Sofer, or "Ezra the scribe"[5] is highly respected in the Jewish tradition.[6]

About Daniel, he wasn't in a situation at Babylon to write the extensively large Torah collection of books,

In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim (BC 606), Daniel and his friends Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were among the young Jewish nobility carried off to Babylon. The four were chosen for their intellect and beauty to be trained as advisors to the Babylonian court,(Daniel 1) Daniel was given the name Belteshazzar, i.e., prince of Bel, or Bel protect the king!(not to be confused with the neo-Babylonian king, Belshazzar). Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were given the Babylonian names, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, respectively.[2] At the close of his three years of discipline and training in the royal schools, Daniel was brought into public life. He soon became known for his skill in the interpretation of dreams


The time and circumstances of Daniel's death have not been recorded. However, tradition maintains that Daniel was still alive in the third year of Cyrus according to the Tanakh (Daniel 10:1). He would have been almost 100 years old at that point, having been brought to Babylon when he was in his teens, more than 80 years previously.

if he can do anything, he will wrtie a new book.

He had lots of time and 3 friends to help and he was visited by Angels fot the writing of his named book so the same Angels (plural) could have made the words of the Torah back to being letter perfect. Both to show the bruise to the heel had many details and to make sure the prophecies given were back to their exact wording also.

Jesus also brought a new book: the Gospel, while the Torah collection of books of the Old Testament is so extensive, and he had no time to do such a thing; he rather left that to Prophet Ahmed who will come later on with a new book: the Quran including everything: the law in addition to everything else.
Prophet Ahmed as Mentioned in the Gospel

He was never meant to be His own witness

Joh.5:31
If I bear witness of myself,
my witness is not true.

All writing was done after the cross and it was given in the same manner as any OT Prophet, as well as having 'signs following' to show they were sent by God.

So is reading the Bible when you want to understand the reality around you.

I'm not trying to solve the global warming/cooling debate with the Bible, however our financial markets could use an upgarde to the OT version of banking if all people are deemed to 'brothers' to the bankers.

It's too bad the few verses it takes to cover that is something you aren't interested in considering. Even a Athiest shouldn't have problems defining if anybody on earth is left out. I say it includes everybody and no other input from anywhere is needed (although it is available)

Re.1:7
Behold,
he cometh with clouds;
and every eye shall see him,
and they also which pierced him:
and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him.
Even so,
Amen.

 

[eanassir]

How scholars go in error and misguidance

There are people who studied the Torah: Jewish scholars and they studied in details: they knew a lot: they hide much about many things they know. The same is about Christian scholars and Muslim scholars.

Abu Abd Allah said: I don't say they have not studied: (the Muslim scholars he meant); they studied for long years, but they see the falsehood and the enthusiasm and the associating of the Imams [Jesus and the saints] with God, and yet they are silent, and do not tell people this is wrong, and you have to devote yourselves to God alone.

Therefore, these scholars of Jews, Christians and Muslims in fact are the scholars of error and misguidance.
They mislead people and mislead themselves by stirring the enthusiasm about Jesus, the prophets, the imams, the saints and the sages, while they rather should tell people to devote themselves to God alone.

So such invitors to the enthusiasm and association will be punished more than other people, because people hear their words and walk according to their instruction thinking they are rightly guided.

Therefore, you will lose MHz and everyone who insists on the enthusiasm and neither will Jesus avail him against God's punishment prepared for those who equalize God with His created beings.

While man is not obliged to such enthusiasm, he should respect Jesus and all other prophets and be modest and should glorify God alone and so will prosper and be successful.

I find the same with those who glorify Ali; see my post #95 (Example of glorifying Imam Ali (and Jesus Christ) ) above. And see how this shirk or association with God is so sensetive, then how about taking any creature as God Himself or son of God or part of Trinity; this indeed is the top of the enthusiasm and shirk and association with God.

Moreover, if Jesus himself truly had said such a thing, then he would have deserved Fire Hell for such claim.
As it is in the Quran 21: 29

وَمَن يَقُلْ مِنْهُمْ إِنِّي إِلَهٌ مِّن دُونِهِ فَذَلِكَ نَجْزِيهِ جَهَنَّمَ كَذَلِكَ نَجْزِي الظَّالِمِينَ

The explanation:
( We never sent any messenger [to his people] before you [Mohammed], unless We revealed to him [saying]: "There is no god [in the universe] but I [: God]; so [O people] serve Me [alone.]"

They say: "[God] Most Gracious has begotten daughters (or a son.)" Be glorified [and exalted God above that]; but they only are honored servants.

They speak not [concerning the intercession] until He [permits them], and they act according to His command.

He knows what is before them, and what is behind them, and they offer no intercession except for those with whom [God] is well-pleased and they stand in awe and reverence of His [glory.]

Anyone of them who says: "I am a god besides Him", We will reward him with Hell: thus do We reward wrong-doers.)

 

[MHz]

So such invitors to the enthusiasm and association will be punished more than other people, because people hear their words and walk according to their instruction thinking they are rightly guided.

Therefore, you will lose MHz and everyone who insists on the enthusiasm and neither will Jesus avail him against God's punishment prepared for those who equalize God with His created beings.

While man is not obliged to such enthusiasm, he should respect Jesus and all other prophets and be modest and should glorify God alone and so will prosper and be successful.

How is saying the Lord's prayer at the beginning of every prayer equalizing Jesus with God?

The blind Jews wouldn't recognize Jesus for who He is, for that they are to be reduced to just 144,000 by the day returns. Anybody else in the same frame of mind will be joining the dead as part of the 2/3. Why would you even consider a blind Gentile making out better than them?

 

[Cliffy]

YouTube - Can I get a Witness-Marvin Gaye

 

[eanassir]

How is saying the Lord's prayer at the beginning of every prayer equalizing Jesus with God?

The blind Jews wouldn't recognize Jesus for who He is, for that they are to be reduced to just 144,000 by the day returns. Anybody else in the same frame of mind will be joining the dead as part of the 2/3. Why would you even consider a blind Gentile making out better than them?

No one is equal to God.
Jews divided into two parties: some believed Jesus and became the Christians, and others disbelieved him and stayed as Jews; so God gave the victory for the believers against the disbelievers and the believers were victorious.

Their Stand Against the Christ

 

[MHz]

No one is equal to God.

Before I let you latch on to what false Christian s teach we are going to have to get this one issue settled. The NT can be divided into two sets of books, one set is the 4 Gospels and the writings of His Apostles and Disciples. Both fully support your quote. The part you have in common with a blind Jew is you reject Jesus. That isn't my cross to bear, nor does it even matter at the moment. Dex would like to find some 'proof', so would a lot of people. From the time the temple was torn down (by the people of the prince to come, the Romans soldiers) until Jesus's return nothing happens until the last 3 1/2 years. Everything good and bad thing that happens is entirely on the shoulders of men. For Christians it means a continuation of false Christians ruling the nest for the most part, that is why wars are supported that go beyond the barrier to evil that armies were meant for.

Jews divided into two parties: some believed Jesus and became the Christians, and others disbelieved him and stayed as Jews; so God gave the victory for the believers against the disbelievers and the believers were victorious.

Christians are also divided into two groups, the return sees the sheep/goat judgment for those that 'publicly' confess that Christ is Lord then treat others just the opposite of the Law. (2nd Law) The 1st Law is broken by not listening to Jesus's directions. By the time the last few years rolls around to unfolding everybody on earth will have heard of God (not Jesus, God) and that means a relationship exists, for good or bad. Rejecting Jesus has consequences, they are spelled out in the 7 letters. If you are an (need to) overcomer at Jesus's return, those shortcoming means that person with experience the 7 vials of Re.16 and the 1,000 years in hell. That is called Great Tribulation, 2/3 of those living will experience that. The 1/3 that remain alive see that event as detailed in Re.10. One would be a liar or just stupid to say Re.16 would be the better choice. I'm trying for the 1/3 group (attained by following Law two) Cliffy will be trying for the 2/3 group just because I'm going for the other group. After reading the two different versions he's making a stupid decision, gerry has said the same thing. It wouldn't bother me to see them get their wish.

Back to you, we can cover all the verses where Jesus gives glory to God alone and instructs us to do the same or we can examine the who is saved for life in the 1,000 years and why belief in God isn't going to help as that only covers Law 1. That person still had a spot in the new earth but they do not qualify to be alive and be witnesses to Satan and the fallen angels being sent to the lake. Nor do they reside in New Jerusalem. They live outside that huge city and they are part of the larger group that make up all of mankind.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

It is useless to discuss, because you don't want to reach the truth.

Sure I do, but I see no reason to think you or MHz have any of it. You both claim to have a divinely inspired book that contains it and you can't even agree between yourselves. You obviously don't believe each other, why should anyone else believe either of you?

 

[MHz]

All he would have to do is read the 7 letters and compare those 'attributes' to people described in the Quran and see what their fate is, You are either with Him or you are against Him. (difference being a one day suspension according to God's view of things)
BIG NEWS FLASH Nobody believes me lol, even Colpy is spouting Scripture to me, (wrong one but whatever lol) If I can come up with several supporting verses/passages that's good enough for me as it is two more than any other proposed doctrine uses.

Neb was an Atheist when he first heard of God, he was a true believer before he died. To make sure God put him through some things that no others have been through, all that just so He could refer to him as 'His servant' in some almost obscure verse.

BTW for the ones that don't believe me, that includes you, offer up no defense that is any better, it's even a tad worse if :well he said it's this way ......). Let alone being quite willing to endure endless questions. It was worth going over once, and it would be again if it was with somebody new. It's the same deal right down to the 7 days in Ge.1, matching the Bible to science requires making the days longer by the power of 10 for each day, and then it fits quite nicely. That's quite a whole you dug for yourself, you are a non-believer, no matter what 'new information' comes across your plate.

Watch, it will be the same as it was with you, lots of proposals and questions and rebuttals but not one will ever be acknowledged as having merit. Luckily you don't see God as being a topic to take seriously, sit back and watch the opposite side of the spectrum, taking God too seriously in a time when we are without the proper guidance to do better than we are at the moment. If we could follow God rules, let alone get one common view of what is going on (Dex's valid point) then we wouldn't need God to be with us 'daily' (which is the promise He does give us)

 

[Cliffy]

Constantine was a pagan until his death bed and he authorized the compilation of the bible.

 

[MHz]

Constantine was a pagan until his death bed and he authorized the compilation of the bible.

So what, God never called him a Servant let alone had him do great deeds. Granted Rome is mentioned in all her glory and the tarnish but that covered the 400+ years she ruled over the Holy City.
God was only concerned with getting the text into circulation, that is why men were already 'on their own' when the time you are referencing. I'll call the writing the important, you go chase some other dream all you like.

 

[Cliffy]

So what, God never called him a Servant let alone had him do great deeds. Granted Rome is mentioned in all her glory and the tarnish but that covered the 400+ years she ruled over the Holy City.
God was only concerned with getting the text into circulation, that is why men were already 'on their own' when the time you are referencing. I'll call the writing the important, you go chase some other dream all you like.

It never got into circulation until Gutenberg invented the printing press. It was closely guarded by the RCC until the protestant reformation because they were rightfully fearful that in the hands of the uninitiated it would become a dangerous book. They were right.

 

[MHz]

Circulation means reading, devout Chrisatian Scribes would have been hand copying scrolls from when they were first given to the writers.

So the OT was a closely guarded document of the RCC?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

That's quite a whole you dug for yourself, ...

The truth was at the bottom of it.