jm951 0 #126 January 23, 2007 We know less of Homer, Plato, Ceasar and Aristotle than we do about the authors of the Bible. As for the Catholic church, sorry to say this but, they've been known to be very, very wrong. If you think that every church is going to be strictly on message and doctrine, then go read up on the churches at Ephesus, Laodacia, Smyrna, Thyatira and see what they were up to. After growing up in a very legalistic environment, I've found that what "others" say is in the Bible often is nothing more than a snippet taken out of context to prove some personal point or to gain control over others. It took getting into it myself with a copy of Strong's Concordance to get at the meat of what was being said. That was a very liberating experience, and I haven't looked back since. If you are really serious about wanting to know what the Bible really says on things, I'd urge you to get an NIV study edition (much easier to read) and Strong's. Read a passage, understand the background, lookup the original meanings of words in Strong's and then pray and think through what you've read. Back to the subject of end times, things are certainly looking that way. Isreal is again a nation surrounded by enemies, they are working on getting the items necessary for the Temple either found or remade, behavior that would have shocked people even in the drug soaked 60's is passing as acceptable. Even so, the Bible is very clear that nobody knows the exact time and that we should be ready at all times. Submitted for further reading http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html http://www.allaboutgod.com/is-the-bible-true.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #127 January 23, 2007 >By your analogy, textual criticism, historicity, proper translation, context >doesn't matter. Uh . . . no. Translations, context, accuracy etc are all important, and our understanding of them has changed over the ages as we've learned more about the original texts (and, of course, as older information is forgotten/lost.) That does not mean that Thomas Aquinas was wrong, nor does it mean that you're wrong. Both of you were right - based on what you knew at the time. "What you know at the time" changes. You can both have equally valid points even if they differ in the details. >It's all what it means to me. If I'm ok with that, then whatever makes >me happy. Is that responsible? Responsible? To whom? To yourself? Yes. If whatever you believe meets your own criteria for validity, accuracy and pertinence - then you'd be a fool _not_ to believe it. To others? I don't think you have any responsibility to force others to believe anything at all, or to correct them if you believe them to be in error. You have every right to say what you do believe, and you have done so here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #128 January 23, 2007 Dave, Did you mean to respond to me or Bill? Jay Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jm951 0 #129 January 23, 2007 More of a general response to the gist of the current thread direction. Totally in support of your Biblical position my friend. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #130 January 23, 2007 QuoteMore of a general response to the gist of the current thread direction. Totally in support of your Biblical position my friend. Well, if you're Bill, one's position can can be very subjective and that's ok. If I have a red house and most people (who aren't color blind) also agree that my house is red, it is perfectly alright if Bill (who isn't color blind for my example) says that he really believes that my house is purple. He sees that my house is made of bricks and it probably is really red as most people agree who've actually looked at it, but he really likes the color purple. He likes to think that my brick house is purple. That's what he takes from his drive through my neighborhood every time comes by. He really likes that purple brick house that I live in. It doesn't matter that my house is really made with red brick. The facts aren't as important as my feelings as long as it works for me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jm951 0 #131 January 23, 2007 Like they say in West Virginina, it's all relative Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #132 January 23, 2007 QuoteWe know less of Homer, Plato, Ceasar and Aristotle than we do about the authors of the Bible. Which authors of the Bible? Where is there any independent verification of the majority of OT authors? The life of (I assume you mean Julius) Caesar is extremely well documented by multiple independent sources. Ditto for Augustus, Tiberius.... Your statement is simply incorrect.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #133 January 23, 2007 > If I have a red house and most people (who aren't color blind) also >agree that my house is red, it is perfectly alright if Bill (who isn't color blind >for my example) says that he really believes that my house is purple. Given our topic, I have a better real-world example for you. My house is white. I have a neighbor who thinks it's white, but who sometimes calls it bianco. (He's italian and english isn't his first language.) He lives in our neighborhood and no one minds; he's a nice guy. If he lived in the Pajarito neighborhood, of course, he'd be ridiculed. How absurd that someone would have a different word for the same color! How foolish and quaint. He'd be treated with a sort of amused contempt that someone could be so stupid and blind to think that any language other than english could possibly be a valid way to express oneself. I like my neighborhood the way it is, and I think Emilio does too. There's room for people like him there, even if he does see things (and describe things) a little differently than the norm. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jm951 0 #134 January 23, 2007 QuoteQuoteWe know less of Homer, Plato, Ceasar and Aristotle than we do about the authors of the Bible. Which authors of the Bible? Where is there any independent verification of the majority of OT authors? The life of (I assume you mean Julius) Caesar is extremely well documented by multiple independent sources. Ditto for Augustus, Tiberius.... Your statement is simply incorrect. Here's some stuff from the archaeological record- http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/arch-ot.html http://allaboutarchaeology.org/bible-archaeology.htm Some interesting facts about Homer, etal- http://www.biblestudy.org/maturart/is-bible-the-word-of-god/chapter2.html http://www.worldinvisible.com/apologet/bible.htm Compare the number of existing works from authors that are not questioned in secular circles to the number of known NT manuscripts. Next read up on the Dead Sea Scrolls in the archaeology links. Try it, you might find some very interesting things. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
