Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
 

Some facts regarding some of the Bible...

The external evidence test

Was the New Testament discredited by modern discoveries?

I’ve heard it said that New Testament passages are inaccurate,
unhistorical or unscientific.

That used to be claimed… because often the New Testament was the only source for such statements. But there’s no excuse now. Some modern writers are lying about this matter.

And others are ignorant of the facts. But
let me fill you in with what’s been happening...

Five porticos at the Bethesda pool

The book of John (5:1-15) relates how Jesus healed an invalid by
the pool at Bethesda, which John describes as having five porticoes
(colonnaded porches). Because no such place had been found, critics were fond of asserting that John was wrong.

Then one day the pool was found and excavated. And you know
what? Archaeologists discovered five porticoes – exactly as John
had described. (Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998,
p. 99)

The census at Jesus’ birth

Again, critics argued that Luke’s portrayal of events surrounding
the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1-3) was wrong. The critics asserted
there was no census, that Quirinius was not governor of Syria at
that time, but later. And that everyone did not have to return to his
ancestral home for taxing.
However, archaeological discoveries have since shown that:

1. Regular enrollment of taxpayers, as well as a 14-year census,
were begun under the emperor Augustus, just as Luke
wrote.

2. Quirinius was governor twice, including the time Luke says.

3. The conduct of a census did require that people return to
their homes to complete the family registration. (A papyrus
has now been found in Egypt confirming this.) (Josh McDowell,
The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Nashville: Thomas Nelson
Publishers, 1999, pp. 63,64)

Alleged geographical “mistakes”...
Again, it was believed that Luke was wrong in implying that
Lystra and Derbe (but not Iconium) were in Lycaonia (Acts 14:6).
They based their criticism upon a statement by Cicero.
Then Sir William Ramsay found a monument that confirmed
Luke’s statement. (Joseph P. Free, Archaeology and Bible History. Wheaton:
Scripture Press, 1969, p. 317)

Nazareth existing in first century
Yet, despite the mountain of evidence supporting the truth of the
New Testament accounts, there are still some writers who peddle
the same outdated nonsense to us.
Thus, in one of David Icke’s books, he says concerning the first
century, that ‘NAZARETH DID NOT EXIST AT THAT TIME.’
(David Icke, The Big Secret. Wildwood, MO.: Bridge of Love Publications, USA, p.99)
Oh, do come on. The place was so real between the years AD 44
and 50, that it merited an emperor’s decree carved in stone and
directed probably at the people living there.
How do we know? From Nazareth, Jesus’ home town, there came to light in 1878 a
most interesting slab of marble, inscribed in a Greek text. For many years it lay in the
Froehner collection, its value unrecognized until 1930. It is now in the Louvre, Paris.

The text contains a decree issued by an unnamed Roman emperor
prohibiting under penalty of death, any kind of tomb robbery,
including tombs of relatives, or the moving of a body to another
place. It reads:

Ordinance of Caesar. It is my pleasure that graves and
tombs remain undisturbed in perpetuity for those who
have made them for the cult of their ancestors, or
children or members of their house. If, however, any
man lay information that another has either
demolished them, or has in any other way extracted
the buried, or maliciously transferred them to other
places in order to wrong them, or has displaced the
sealing or other stones, against such a one I order that
a trial be instituted as in respect of the gods, as in
regard to the cult of mortals. For it shall be much
more obligatory to honor the buried. Let it be
absolutely forbidden for anyone to disturb them. In the
case of contravention I desire that the offender be
sentenced to capital punishment on charge of violation
of sepulture.

What date is that inscription?
It has been placed somewhere between AD 44 and 50, which was
during the reign of Claudius Caesar, who was noted for his
persecution of the Jews. This was not many years after the death of
Jesus.

It is believed that the preaching of the resurrection had already
begun in Rome by this time. Perhaps this decree reflected the fact
that the enemies of Christianity had faced up to the empty tomb
story.

The placing of the decree on a rock in the little, unimportant town
of Nazareth where Jesus was reared, indicates a possible
relationship between the decree of Caesar and the empty tomb of
Jesus.

Nazareth did not exist at that time? This discovery knocks that
claim on the head!”
Alleged personality “mistakes”

Interesting, isn’t it? The critic shouts himself hoarse. Archaeology
comes along. And the New Testament is vindicated. It happens
time and again. That’s a one-sided contest, if you ask me.

Here’s another example. Luke had claimed that Lysanius, the
tetrarch of Abilene, ruled Syria and Palestine (Luke 3:1) at the start
of John the Baptist’s ministry in AD 27.
The only Lysanius known to ancient historians was one who was
killed in BC 36. So Luke was accused of being mistaken.
However, an inscription now found at Abila near Damascus
speaks of “Freedman of Lysanias the Terarch”, and is dated
between AD 14 and 29. (F.F. Bruce, “Archaeological Confirmation of the New
Testament”. In Carl Henry, ed., Revelation and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1969, p. 321)

Want more examples?:
Paul makes mention of the Corinth city treasurer, Erastus
(Romans 16:23). During excavations at Corinth in 1929, a
pavement was found inscribed: ERASTVS PRO:AED:S:P:
STRAVIT (‘Erastus, curator of public buildings, laid this
pavement at his own expense.’) (F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents:
Are They Reliable? Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter Varsity Press, 1964, p. 95)

Luke gives to Publius, the chief man in Malta, the title ‘first man
of the island’ (Acts 28:7). Inscriptions have been unearthed that do
give him the title of ‘first man’. (F.F. Bruce, “Archaeological Confirmation of
the New Testament”. In Carl Henry, ed., Revelation and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1969, p. 325)

Luke was assumed to be wrong for using the term politarchs to
denote the civil authorities of Thessalonica (Acts 17:6) – because
‘politarch’ is not found in classical literature. However, there have
now been found some 19 inscriptions that make use of that title.

One of the inscriptions was discovered in a Roman arch at
Thessalonica and in it are found the names of six of that city’s
politarchs. (Ibid., pp. 325,360)

Pontius Pilate
The New Testament records that Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea when
Jesus was crucified (AD 31).
However Icke the critic claims that ‘Pontius’ was a fictitious name invented only after
AD 85. Icke also asserts that the Gospel of Luke was written after this date.
Icke claims that a man called Pliny visited a place called Pontus from the year AD 85
onwards ‘and this is the origin of the first name of Pontius Pilate. He was only called
Pilate in Matthew and Mark,… but in Luke, the one Piso wrote with Pliny, Pilate
suddenly acquires the name, Pontius. Luke was written in the very years that Pliny began
to visit Pontus.’ (David Icke, The Big Secret. Wildwood, MO.: Bridge of Love
Publications, USA, p. 110)
Thank you, David Icke for that contribution. So is Icke right? Or
the Gospel of Luke? Now let archaeology be the referee…

His name on historic inscription:
In 1961, at the city of Caesarea, an Italian excavation uncovered a huge block of
limestone. It bore an inscription containing the name – wait for it - ‘Pontius Pilate’. The
block, probably from the period of Emperor Tiberius (AD 12 to 37) is engraved with the
words:
………S TIBERIEVM [Tiberieum]
……[PO]NTIVS PILATVS [Pontius Pilate]
[PRA]ECTVS IVDA[EA]E [Prefect Judea]

The first word, ‘Tiberieum’, probably refers to a temple dedicated
to the emperor Tiberius.
Mentioned by Roman historian:
Is that all? Not quite. The well known Roman historian, Cornelius
Tacitus (born around 52 AD), also mentions Pontius Pilate, and
states that Pontius Pilate crucified Jesus Christ. In 112 AD, Tacitus
became Governor of Asia. He wrote in his history:

Nothing which could be done by man, nor any amount
of treasure that the prince could give, nor all the
sacrifices which could be presented to the gods, could
clear Nero from being believed to have ordered the
burning, the fire of Rome. So to silence the rumor, he
tortured and made false accusations against those who
were called the Christians, who were hated for their
large following. Christus, the founder of the name, was
executed by Pontius Pilate, the Judean procurator,
during the rule of Tiberius. [AD 14 to AD 37] (Tacitus,
Annals, 15:44; cited by Justin Martyr, Apology, 1.48. Emphasis added)

He further says:
At his coming the lame shall leap, tongues that stammer shall
speak clearly, the blind shall see, and the lepers shall be
cleansed, and the dead shall rise and walk about. And you
can learn that he did all these things from the Acts of Pontius
Pilate.
Pontius Pilate a fictitious name invented after AD 85? Icke,
what’s got into you?

Summary
Colin Hemer, a noted Roman historian, has catalogued numerous
archaeological and historical confirmations of Luke’s accuracy.

His report is voluminous and detailed. His research includes:

· Specialised details, which would not have been widely
known except to a CONTEMPORARY researcher such as
Luke who traveled widely. For example, exact titles of
officials, identification of army units, and information about
major routes.
· Details which archaeologists know are accurate but cannot
verify as to the precise time period. Some of these are
unlikely to have been known except to a writer who had
visited the districts.
· Correlation of known kings and governors with the
chronology of the narrative.
· Facts appropriate to the date of a contemporary but not to a
date earlier or later.
· ‘Undesigned coincidents’ between the writings of Luke and
Paul.
· Other materials, the ‘immediacy’ of which suggests that the
author was recounting a recent experience, rather than
shaping or editing a text long after it had been written.
· Cultural or idiomatic items now known to be peculiar to the
first century atmosphere, but not later. (Colin Hemer, The Book of
Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990,
pp.104-107)

One archaeologist carefully studied Luke’s references. He
discovered that Luke names 32 countries, 54 cities and 9 islands
without an error! (Norman L. Geisler and Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask.
Wheaton, Ill.: Victor, 1992, p. 385)

Ramsay the skeptic
One of the greatest archaeologists
of all time was Sir William Ramsay.

As a student in the German historical school of the midnineteenth
century, Ramsay was firmly convinced that the New
Testament book of Acts was a fraudulent product of the midsecond
century AD.

In his research to make a topographical study of Asia Minor, he
was compelled to consider the New Testament writings of Luke.
Here is how he relates his experience...

I began with a mind unfavourable to it… but more
recently I found myself brought into contact with the
Book of Acts as an authority for the topography,
antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually
borne upon me that in various details the narrative
showed marvellous truth. In fact, beginning with a fixed
idea that the work was essentially a second century
composition, and never relying on its evidence as
trustworthy for first century conditions, I gradually
came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and
difficult investigations. (Edward Musgrave Blaiklock, Layman’s
Answer: An Examination of the New Theology. London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1968, p. 36 – quoted from Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and
the Roman Citizen)

You know, guys, as a result of that, Ramsay was
forced to do a complete reversal of his beliefs. He concluded after
thirty years of study that ‘Luke is a historian of the first rank; not
merely are his statements of fact trustworthy… this author should
be placed along with the greatest of historians.’ (Sir W. M. Ramsay, The
Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1915, p. 222)

Luke’s “unsurpassed… trustworthiness”

In fact, Ramsay concluded that ‘Luke’s history is unsurpassed in
respect of its trustworthiness.’ (W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the
Roman Citizen. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1962, p. 81)
Since then, further discoveries have shown New Testament
writers such as Luke to be careful historians.

The verdict of Roman historian A.N. Sherwin-White. He declares:
For Acts [in the New Testament] the confirmation of
historicity is overwhelming…. Any attempt to reject its
basic historicity must now appear absurd. Roman
historians have taken it for granted. (A.N. Sherwin-White,
Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, reprint edition.
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978, p. 189)

Dr Gleason Archer undertook a painstakingly detailed
investigation into this question. Notice his report:

As I have dealt with one apparent discrepancy after
another and have studied the alleged contradictions
between the biblical record and the evidence of
linguistics, archaeology, or science, my confidence in
the trustworthiness of Scripture has been repeatedly
verified and strengthened by the discovery that almost
every problem in Scripture that has ever been
discovered by man, from ancient times until now, has
been dealt with in a completely satisfactory manner by
the biblical text itself – or else by objective
archaeological information. The deductions that may be
validly drawn from ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, or
Akkadian documents all harmonize with the biblical
record. (Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982, p. 12)

And former skeptic Josh McDowell adds his testimony:
After trying to shatter the historicity and validity of the
Scripture, I came to the conclusion that it is historically
trustworthy. If one discards the Bible as being
unreliable, then one must discard almost all literature of
antiquity.
One problem I constantly face is the desire on the part
of many to apply one standard or test to secular
literature and another to the Bible. One must apply the
same test, whether the literature under investigation is
secular or religious.
Having done this, I believe we can…say, ‘The Bible is
trustworthy and historically reliable. (Josh McDowell, The
New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Nashville: Thomas Nelson
Publishers, 1999, p. 68)

What gets to me is the way the critics try to hide all this evidence from us. Is it because they suffer
from a lack of integrity? Or more likely that they’re just quoting someone else who is as ignorant as they
are?
These very critics you put your trust in, are not going to help you survive death. But that Deliverer they
like to attack so much – what if He really is the only answer to man’s problems?

Jonathan Gray
http://www.beforeus.com

Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
 

[QUOTE=Norval;18709]Puts on the rubber boots and wades in. Waves a hand at Musado. :thumb_yello:

First I would like to point out that this thread demonstrates certain specific tactics of "agents" in forums This one is added to our research list, thank you all.
[QUOTE]


Wow accusation's on a extreme level, If I were a Disinformation Agent I'd get paided for this ****, Sadly I don't so no....no "Agents" here.

Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
 

uhmmmm sorry.

There is no way I was thinking of anyone in particular. That research and investigation is after the collection of posters methodologies.

Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
 

Torah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah

bostonirish22
What a fantastic collection of writings. Have read them to many young ones over the years. Makes one want to go looking through old attics. :yikes:

Yet, you may want to do more research about bibles. Moses's first five books of the bibles, the basic Torah, are in all most all bibles I have read. Actually, in all of the bibles I have read. (sighs, I really need a life, :lmao: , about a couple dozen)

Stabris8
Nice posting of info there. :thumb_yello:

Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
 

I grew up catholic and read the bible many times as a child.

A rip-roaring read full of grandeur, intrigue, politics and begatting.

I remember walking to church every morning before school for lent one year because I felt pretty strongly about my faith.
When I turned 13 I felt differently.

Faith in God is to be respected as is the choice not to believe in that God which isn't a lack of faith but a belief in something else.



The 'bible' was created at Nicea over several councils was it not.

It tried to cover a lot of bases and erase some others in the name of empire and control.

Jesus was created to satisfy the pagan element being a hybrid of many
of their beliefs - Horus, Krishna and Hebus.

The faith matters not the book because it's not the word of God nor does it claim to be. It's a work of man and as flawed as we are but in the end
we are all Brothers and Sisters and we should respect each other as such.

Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
 

I always say,

One must understand the concept of the breaking of the bread.

Simple,Efficient,Philosophical.

Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
 

The Bible is a spiritual uplifting, Holy Book. I study the bible since my childhood, and to my amazement some things are true ,other things are just plain and simple fairy tales. No offense. We as human can be divinely inspire but we do not have all the answers.When the Bible was cannonized at the council of Nicea a theology was agreed upon which in reality was 360 degrees
from what the experience of the real Teachers of that time was, for example Jesus mother, many holy books are kept from public view and even burned.
We are getting half truth base on the understanding of the Theology form at the council of nicea. A real shame if you ask me. Nevertheless God, Prime Creator,the Origin, The first dude, or whatever you wish to call him is found here in the Bible highly restricted to a narrow view. While the story of our Origin is so much more incredible. Bible Doom's Day , has created the chosen ones vs. the unchosen, Great idea hah. Dominion of fear by the use of religion
using God to promote me the CHOSEN ONE.
Asking questions , meditation and yes divine inspiration will unlock the true secrets of the Bible or for use of a better word the universe. The problem is that when I think myself to be the only one who is divinely inspire, Oh hell,
my ego got in the way of my inspiration and so creates the flaw in my divine inspiration. 7 billion interpretations of the truth.....:trumpet:

Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
 

i had a nice long talk with my best friend and my dad the other day, about the bible and the differences between the catholic one and some of the protestant ones. and i know that there are versions they use that do not include parts of the old testament. so stop shutting down what i know to be fact before you frustrate me to tears. yeah, the ones you read may have been "whole," but all i'm TRYING to say is that there are some that aren't.

Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
 

Thanks! :naughty: this subject is of great interest to me! In addition, I do love to read and research; if nothing else but to verify my personal curiosity on a wide variety of topics! :insane:

Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
 

The fact is this. The bible has remained true in its entirety. Can man be trusted?

Romans 3:4
Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge."

Jesus fullfilled over 300 prophecsies about himself which he was destined to fullfill. I say if you are going to be trusting anyone in the entire history of this world then I cannot think of anyone but the Lord Yeshua Messiah.

Matthew 5:18
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Deuteronomy 29:29
The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.

John 15:7
If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you.

Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
 

i have been into mtsar for some time, read all his work, seen all his videos, and lecture... now, i wouldnt touch his work with a ten fot pole..lol

he is not that good of an researcher as he thinks or would like you to think he is, hes "facts" are so filed with things he have made up that its more confusing then enlighten, like putting bible text together that dont belong together and telling us that its an clue... i use to buy alot, but not anymore... i dont get blinded by incredible storys that dont have leads....

Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
 

Here we go again. Confusing the message with the messenger.

Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
 

hmm... a few of my thoughts on the matter:

1) First, a note to ForsakenFalcon - please don't take offense, but your comments would be taken more seriously if properly presented. You can start by using proper English (your spelling is atrocious). In addition to clearly presenting your view, I suggest that you take care to demonstrate a healthy respect for other opinions. I do want to point out that I believe your question is a worthy one if it's asked with a genuine and open desire to seek answers (which you seem to indicate); it opens the door to a conversation.

2) A critique is more substantial when supported with primary source documents; reference your source.

3) Regarding the existence of God, James writes, "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe - and shudder!" (James 2:19).

4) The Bible claims that it is from God. For example, in II Samuel 23:2 David, author of many Psalms, stated that what he wrote came from God. Jeremiah declared the same thing (Jeremiah 1:4), as did the Apostle Paul (I Thessalonians 2:13). Peter says Paul's writings are "scripture" (II Peter 3:16). Jesus Himself makes many statements about the Bible's trustworthy character (Luke 16:17, 24:44, John 17:17). Notably, Jesus routinely considered all Old Testament stories to be trustworthy accounts (Luke 11:51, 17:26-33).

5) Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, wrote about wisdom from the spirit (I Corinthians 2:6-16). I will quote a section of the passage to convey the essence of the message, but I strongly recommend reading the passage in its entirety: "Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."

Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
 

» Project Avalon Forum » Project Avalon » Off-Topic
» How can We take the Bible seriously? by ForsakenFalcon

As a part of Project Avalon's Ground Crew building, this forum has afforded those of us that have made the bible / ET / UFO connection to come together and discuss a topic that has been shunned and disrupted in most other forums. This posting was made in the "Avalon off topic" area of the forum. It should probably be in the "Camelot Conspiracies" area of the forum. The primary goal of my posting is to show to others that they are not alone in trusting what the bible is really all about, and that, is the ET / UFO connection.

Yes, one of the greatest Conspiracies is keeping the bible/UFO/ET connection secret. :mfr_omg:

Oooooopppssss :yikes: The rest of the story only gets better.

Those of us that "know" these things also know that there are those "that will never understand, even if you explain it to them in detail."

For those that have made the connection, also know, we tried. :trumpet:

So I don't "frustrate you to tears" bostonirish22, I mention this,
"It's not what you know, or don't know, but what you know that isn't so that will hurt you." Will Rogers, 1938
Ask those that told you these things, to show you these things. :original:

Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
 

[QUOTE=Gordo;20330]hmm... a few of my thoughts on the matter:

1) First, a note to ForsakenFalcon - please don't take offense, but your comments would be taken more seriously if properly presented. You can start by using proper English (your spelling is atrocious). In addition to clearly presenting your view, I suggest that you take care to demonstrate a healthy respect for other opinions. I do want to point out that I believe your question is a worthy one if it's asked with a genuine and open desire to seek answers (which you seem to indicate); it opens the door to a conversation.
[QUOTE]

No offence taken, first of all about the spelling and grammer well not everyone here is "educated" so I do genuiely have dislexcia, secondly I do respect every one's opion and aspects of the whole thing I guess You could say I'm just very direct in what I ask, 3rd while I am seeking ALOT of awnser's I think We as a whole place to much emphasise on this book when there is gotta be a ton of thing's out there that tell us the real fact's and as for majority of the positive messige's it has while there honorable and all it's still just in the long run basic common scence and decientcie.

Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
 

Personal opinion: Take the words of Jesus seriously and throw the rest away ... it just confuses people and diverts from the teaching. Or keep the rest as a history. If people really followed the words of Jesus, that's a master teaching. We would all be so empowererd that this world would really be a paradise. He said: "All that I can do, you can do, and more," but nobody believes him. We could all be healers, we could all have plenty of food. But nobody believes him.

Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
 

The Bible is the Word of God

Come on you guys! God has other things to do beside inspiring some obtuse writings. What about the Quran, the Rig Veda, the Upanisad? As far has inspired books go, I'll take the "Law of One"

Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
 

I'm not confusing anything, I was just stating that this guy had a differnet point of view. I wasn't saying that it was true. the fact of the matter is none of us knows what the truth is and won't until we either drop dead or have everything reveiled to us . all these points of view are just opions.

Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
 

you ever been smacked over the back of the head by an angry priest holding the king james ? you'll take that pretty seriously.

Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
 

Hi,
I also am new to this form. How can you take the Bible seriously? Well, That is quite a personal question....What I mean is that the Bible is a road map to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ , God's son.
God created the world and all that is in or around the world. God created you! God had Angels, his Arch Angel Lucifer was Beautiful! Was as close to Perfect as he rose in God's aproval. Lucifer became God's number one Angel. God let Lucifer have the Highest position a Angel cold have. Well, it went to Lucifer's Head! He started beliving he was as powerful and as Wonderful as God, He was so convensing he had 1/3 of all the Angels in Heaven beliving Lucifer was as powerful as God. God saw Lucifer's heart,God saw wickedness, & vanity. So God tossed Lucifer and the Angels that were belivers of Lucifer (that was 1/3 of all the Angels in Heaven) God tossed them into Hell. Doing so, God told Lucifer that because of his vanity and his lies (Lucifer had told the Angels in Heaven he was as equal to God) God told Lucifer; I created you, I made you the most Beautiful Angel of all ... the "Arch Angel", I let you run my kindom for me. I gave you the power you had, I loved you and trusted you. You have sinned, for you know what you did was wrong, and you talked 1/3 of all my angels into beleving in you! I will cast you and your follwers into a pit of fire, misery, doom for etrinty! I will also make you the Uglist, Most Hdeous beast ever!So God did what He said he would and he renamed Lucifer, Satan.
God still loved the 2/3 Angels in Heaven that did not rebell. However, God was lonely. God could talk to the Angels ... But they did not understand having a relationship with God, or even a conversation with God...Because they were created to care for God, to do as God told them to do.
God wanted to create man with the free will to choice to respect God and Love God. So he created man in his own image. That also ment giving man the ability to make decisions that might not be Gods will. God gave man a beautiful land to live in. God loved Man (AKA Adam)just as much as we love our own children. God enjoyed spending time talking to man and watching man see things God had Made, much like a father enjoys seeing his son master something for the first time, like riding his bike for the first time. God gave man pretty much freedom to do what man wanted to do. God made a restriction for man. You can eat all the fruit you want, however, You May Not Eat from the tree of knowelge. So man did pretty much as he wanted, keeping in mind Not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowelege.
Man was allowed to name named all the animals. Man noticed all the animals had Mates. All but Man. Man did not have a mate. He asked God for a mate. God Put Man into a deep sleep and used one of mans ribs to create a mate for Man. (AKA EVE, also known as Woman) Adam was very Pleased! God let Man and Woman have pretty much all the freedom they wanted. The only restriction was not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowelege. For awhile they were fine with not going near the forbidden tree.
Then Satan started visting them. Just simple talk at first. Then Satan suddley turnned the conversation towards the tree of knowelege. At first Man and Woman were afraid to even talk about the tree. However, over time and conversation with Satan they grew more comfortable with talking about the tree of knowlege.... then they grew comfortable with standing nextto the tree. And we all know that Satan helped them feel so comfortable that he started talking about why they could not eat the fruit of knowelege. Satan told Man and Woman; God does not want you to eat from the tree of knowelege because God knows you will be like Him, You will know as much as he knows. Over a period of time Man and Woman grew comfotable with the idea of being like God. So one day Satan encouraged them to eat from the tree of knowlege, this time Woman ate the fruit and than gave it to man who also ate the fruit. Suddenly they knew they were naked, they ran and covered themselves with leaves. God was walking in the garden he created for man and spent allot of time with man and woman visting in the garden. However, this time when God called out for Man and Woman to come and vist they hid form him. God found Man and asked did you not hear me call you? about thst time Woman walked up to man and God. Man said yes we heard you but we were necked and did not want you to see us that way. God than asked man; Who told you that you were necked? Man, did you eat from the tree of knowelge? You did did'nt you?
Man replyed, Woman ate the fruit and than gave me the fruit to eat.
Well, Man and woman had disobade God, they had sinned against God. So God sent them out of the Garden. God told man since you disobaded my word, I will let you live however you with have to work very hard to make a living for you and Woman. God turned to Woman and told her; for you sin Woman, I will give you children...however childbirthing will be very hard and painful to go through. So, God sent them out of the Garden.
That stopped the relationship directly between God and Man. Man and Woman both had put SIN in between God and themselves indoing so, they coldnot have the personal relationship with God they once enjoyed.
When we put sin into our lives it is put between God and urselves..... So we cannot come to God and have a relatioship with God. For we have let Sin get in between God and ourselves.
Back in the days before Jesus ministerd to us. In order to have our sins taken away, and be pleasing to God. Man had to pick their best Animal or their best crop, take it to the Prest God had choisen,to have it sacreficed for Atonment for thir sins.
God loves us so much that he sent his only son down to be born and to be sacerficed and the final atonmnt for our sins.
Satan tried everything to get Jesus (God's Only Son) to bow down and worship him. However, Jesus loved his father and his father's Creation (Man and woman) so much that he was willing to be the final sacrefice for our sins, for each Man and Womans sins! By Jesus dieing on the cross, we can now have a relationship with God, through God's Son Jesus. Jesus is the one we go through. Jesus was given the power to forgive us for our sins. Jesus Loves us and wants to have that personal relationship with us!
That is why I said about taking the Bible sirreouly is a personal thing....Becauce the Bible is a tool to that relationship with Jesus and his Father, God. The more you read the Bible the More you will see that Jesus does stand at the door of our hearts and knock asking to be let in. Asking us to trust and belive in him. Jesus said about the people who were not born durning the time Jesus walked this Earth; Blessed is though who saw and Belived, Blessed are those who have not seen yet, still belive! That is what we call faith!
I am sorry this is so long! I really wanted to show you who the Bible was written about, and what happend.
God Bless You, Step out on Faith and give Jesus your heart ...I Promise You will Not Regreat giving your heart to Jesus!
In Jesus Name,
Sahara

Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
 

A very good reason to take the Bible seriously.

Humans because of our present level of technology can answer questions that have plagued scholars for millennium. Questions asked of Ezra about three millennium ago can now be answered. Questions asked of him such as, "Go, weigh for me the weight of fire, or measure for me a blast of wind, or call back for me the day that is past … or show me the picture of a voice … if you solve one of them for me, then I will show you the way you desire to see … You cannot understand the things with which you have grown up; how then can your mind comprehend the way of the Most High?"

Since we can now answer these questions and we can now comprehend, there is a responsibility that accompanies this comprehension. That also makes us responsible for being able to understand the message.

Of course we can answer these very technical questions today!

Fire by BTU's. Wind by anemometer.

Voice modulation wave. Like a .wav file.

Recall a day, would you want that on DVD, or VHS?

The Latin Vulgate, Great Bible (1539), Douay Bible (1609-1610), Moscow Patriarchate (1956), Geneva Bible (1560), Bishops Bible (1568), King James Version (1611), Revised Standard Version (1957) and the New Revised Standard Version (1989) all contain those questions posed to Ezra.


An excerpt from the Preface of Edgar J. Goodspeed, The Apocrypha, An American Translation, published October 1938 and The Complete Bible, An American Translation, October 1939, which may explain why some people have not heard of The Second Book of Esdras, but are well advised to obtain a copy and start studying.

:thumb_yello:

Re: How can We take the Bible seriously?
 

Hi Sahara.
You say Lucifer was cast prior to the exsistence of humans.
alot of othere sources depick He was cast out "After" Adam was surposeable created because He was jealous of our free will and such.