- This topic is empty.
- Posts
The Evidence
From 1972-1982 the Ben-Gurion University (in Israel) conducted an extensive archaeological survey of the northern Sinai area. They documented 284 sites in northern Sinai where pottery shards and other remains of ancient occupation were found. These sites were arranged in groups with larger sites in the center and smaller sites on the outer edges of the group. They found that the larger center sites were “base sites” where central activities (such as buying and selling) occurred, that the medium-size sites were family living areas, and the small outer sites were encampments for shepherds. They found that the people who lived at these sites were nomadic, wandering from place to place. They said “In most of the sites there is no evidence of solid building, and it looks as if the inhabitants lived in booths, tents, or lean-tos.”Gerald E. Aardsma, Ph.D., showed back in 1995 that these encampment sites were made by the Israelites early in the Exodus. They reveal, in fact, the first three stops along the route of the Exodus: Succoth, Etham, and Pi-hahiroth. These Sinai sites fit the Biblical account very well.
Chronological Issues
So why do most archaeologists say the Exodus never happened? Because the pottery they've found in the Sinai is from about 4,500 years ago, while the traditional date for the Exodus is only about 3,500 years ago. They assume that this pottery must not be from the Exodus because of its date.But the traditional date for the Exodus is wrong. Dr. Aardsma has shown that a full millennium has accidentally been overlooked by biblical chronology scholars in the past. (See What is the missing millennium discovery?) When the overlooked millennium is restored to biblical chronology, the problem of the missing Exodus pottery shards disappears.
Conclusion
Because the archaeologists have been looking for the Exodus in the wrong time period, they haven't found it. Unfortunately, they have then gone on to conclude that the Exodus must never have happened. This is the wrong conclusion. When you look in the right time period, there's plenty of evidence to show that, in fact, the Exodus did happen, just as the Bible describes it.The foregoing article was based on research reported on in The Biblical Chronologist Volume 1, Number 6 and The Biblical Chronologist Volume 2, Number 1. Full details and references to the scholarly literature can be found there.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 11 2010,02:48) If you cannot prove that the exodus didn't happen claiming that it didn't happen is simply inflammatory at best. What is the deeper philosophical context you are attempting to place the dialogue in? If the Exodus never happened what would that mean? Would the event prove to you that God does indeed exist if it were proven to be true?
The fact that you cannot prove there was no exodus does not mean it did happen. The most reasonable thing to say is that it is a fact that it did not happen.If reality is inflammatory then perhaps those with the belief system that demands adherence to things that never happened are the ones with the issue.
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 11 2010,02:55) The Evidence
From 1972-1982 the Ben-Gurion University (in Israel) conducted an extensive archaeological survey of the northern Sinai area. They documented 284 sites in northern Sinai where pottery shards and other remains of ancient occupation were found. These sites were arranged in groups with larger sites in the center and smaller sites on the outer edges of the group. They found that the larger center sites were “base sites” where central activities (such as buying and selling) occurred, that the medium-size sites were family living areas, and the small outer sites were encampments for shepherds. They found that the people who lived at these sites were nomadic, wandering from place to place. They said “In most of the sites there is no evidence of solid building, and it looks as if the inhabitants lived in booths, tents, or lean-tos.”Gerald E. Aardsma, Ph.D., showed back in 1995 that these encampment sites were made by the Israelites early in the Exodus. They reveal, in fact, the first three stops along the route of the Exodus: Succoth, Etham, and Pi-hahiroth. These Sinai sites fit the Biblical account very well.
Chronological Issues
So why do most archaeologists say the Exodus never happened? Because the pottery they've found in the Sinai is from about 4,500 years ago, while the traditional date for the Exodus is only about 3,500 years ago. They assume that this pottery must not be from the Exodus because of its date.But the traditional date for the Exodus is wrong. Dr. Aardsma has shown that a full millennium has accidentally been overlooked by biblical chronology scholars in the past. (See What is the missing millennium discovery?) When the overlooked millennium is restored to biblical chronology, the problem of the missing Exodus pottery shards disappears.
Conclusion
Because the archaeologists have been looking for the Exodus in the wrong time period, they haven't found it. Unfortunately, they have then gone on to conclude that the Exodus must never have happened. This is the wrong conclusion. When you look in the right time period, there's plenty of evidence to show that, in fact, the Exodus did happen, just as the Bible describes it.The foregoing article was based on research reported on in The Biblical Chronologist Volume 1, Number 6 and The Biblical Chronologist Volume 2, Number 1. Full details and references to the scholarly literature can be found there.
Surely this reading of it contradicts the timescales of the genealogies of the OT.I note that the website you lifted this from:
http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/exoduspottery.php
Quotes Ecclesiastes 7:24:That which is far off, and exceeding deep, who can find it out?
They seem to be claiming to know who can find out and who can't…
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 11 2010,08:50) Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 11 2010,02:48) If you cannot prove that the exodus didn't happen claiming that it didn't happen is simply inflammatory at best. What is the deeper philosophical context you are attempting to place the dialogue in? If the Exodus never happened what would that mean? Would the event prove to you that God does indeed exist if it were proven to be true?
The fact that you cannot prove there was no exodus does not mean it did happen. The most reasonable thing to say is that it is a fact that it did not happen.If reality is inflammatory then perhaps those with the belief system that demands adherence to things that never happened are the ones with the issue.
Stuart
How can you use he word “fact” how would you derive this Fact?The absence of evidence is not the evidence of Absence.
Your logic is extremely faulty to say the least and you are not reasonable about this issue at all, for instance what would be the reason the story would be conjured up?
It does not serve a positive perception of the Jewish culture since it is filled with embarrassing information that have caused the Jews untold Misery.
Is it reasonable to conclude that Jewish history would embrace a holy book that admits to Idol worship after God had delivered them? Unless it was true or at least remembered as true? These writings are not written as folklore or as works of fiction so why are you being so unreasonable?
BD
Quote How can you use he word “fact” how would you derive this Fact?
A fact is something that would be perverse to deny. It is perverse to claim that the biblical exodus happened because you would expect evidence for it where there isn’t any. You appear to have replied with archeology of some other time of human occupation, although the nature of that find is laughable in the face of the numbers of people alleged to have been in that area at the time.Quote The absence of evidence is not the evidence of Absence.
Yes it is. It is a fact that there was no biblical flood because the comparative evidence is that particular traces will be left by a flood, but there are no traces in existence that correspond to the flood myth. With the exodus you would have to explain why there is no evidence of human habitation in that place at that time.Quote Your logic is extremely faulty to say the least and you are not reasonable about this issue at all, for instance what would be the reason the story would be conjured up?
Why did christians invent the Jesus myth? The reasons will not be that dissimilar.Quote It does not serve a positive perception of the Jewish culture since it is filled with embarrassing information that have caused the Jews untold Misery.
You are missing the importance of the martyr mentality.Quote Is it reasonable to conclude that Jewish history would embrace a holy book that admits to Idol worship after God had delivered them? Unless it was true or at least remembered as true? These writings are not written as folklore or as works of fiction so why are you being so unreasonable?
They are completely written as works of political fiction.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 11 2010,14:03) BD Quote How can you use he word “fact” how would you derive this Fact?
A fact is something that would be perverse to deny. It is perverse to claim that the biblical exodus happened because you would expect evidence for it where there isn’t any. You appear to have replied with archeology of some other time of human occupation, although the nature of that find is laughable in the face of the numbers of people alleged to have been in that area at the time.Quote The absence of evidence is not the evidence of Absence.
Yes it is. It is a fact that there was no biblical flood because the comparative evidence is that particular traces will be left by a flood, but there are no traces in existence that correspond to the flood myth. With the exodus you would have to explain why there is no evidence of human habitation in that place at that time.Quote Your logic is extremely faulty to say the least and you are not reasonable about this issue at all, for instance what would be the reason the story would be conjured up?
Why did christians invent the Jesus myth? The reasons will not be that dissimilar.Quote It does not serve a positive perception of the Jewish culture since it is filled with embarrassing information that have caused the Jews untold Misery.
You are missing the importance of the martyr mentality.Quote Is it reasonable to conclude that Jewish history would embrace a holy book that admits to Idol worship after God had delivered them? Unless it was true or at least remembered as true? These writings are not written as folklore or as works of fiction so why are you being so unreasonable?
They are completely written as works of political fiction.Stuart
Who would expect evidence? I didn't even have evidence that someone lived in this home before I lived here so what does it mean not to find something it could very well be that things were found by some other people and moved, that is the MOST reasonable explanation and as far as the Biblical flood what do you mean there are no traces of a flood in that region.? The flood came to the people of Noah, how can you possibly know it didn't occur do you think you could even determine the last time it flooded in my house? use your sense man.Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 11 2010,14:45) Who would expect evidence? I didn't even have evidence that someone lived in this home before I lived here so what does it mean not to find something it could very well be that things were found by some other people and moved, that is the MOST reasonable explanation and as far as the Biblical flood what do you mean there are no traces of a flood in that region.? The flood came to the people of Noah, how can you possibly know it didn't occur do you think you could even determine the last time it flooded in my house? use your sense man.
If you would not expect evidence of a large number of people being in one area for a significant period of time, how do you explain the evidence that we do find of human settlement? That shouldn't be there wherever it is found, according to your logic.Are you seriously suggesting that there is no way of telling if flooding has happened in the past few thousand years?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 11 2010,16:03) Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 11 2010,14:45) Who would expect evidence? I didn't even have evidence that someone lived in this home before I lived here so what does it mean not to find something it could very well be that things were found by some other people and moved, that is the MOST reasonable explanation and as far as the Biblical flood what do you mean there are no traces of a flood in that region.? The flood came to the people of Noah, how can you possibly know it didn't occur do you think you could even determine the last time it flooded in my house? use your sense man.
If you would not expect evidence of a large number of people being in one area for a significant period of time, how do you explain the evidence that we do find of human settlement? That shouldn't be there wherever it is found, according to your logic.Are you seriously suggesting that there is no way of telling if flooding has happened in the past few thousand years?
Stuart
It was a nomadic movement so it was not a settlement and as far as a flood is concerned I am telling you that it is not possible to know the extent of a flood thousands of years ago and how could you?Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 11 2010,17:19) It was a nomadic movement so it was not a settlement and as far as a flood is concerned I am telling you that it is not possible to know the extent of a flood thousands of years ago and how could you?
It took them forty years to make a two week trek.
That does not seem very nomadic. They must have spent
a great deal of time in one place, or just walked in circles.Tim
Quote (TimothyVI @ Sep. 11 2010,20:17) Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 11 2010,17:19) It was a nomadic movement so it was not a settlement and as far as a flood is concerned I am telling you that it is not possible to know the extent of a flood thousands of years ago and how could you?
It took them forty years to make a two week trek.
That does not seem very nomadic. They must have spent
a great deal of time in one place, or just walked in circles.Tim
…leaving shoes and pottery behind them……or not.
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 11 2010,17:19) as far as a flood is concerned I am telling you that it is not possible to know the extent of a flood thousands of years ago and how could you?
How can we be confident that a meteorite hit the earth 65 million years ago?Global events leave global traces. Is this seriously news to you??
Stuart
Quote (TimothyVI @ Sep. 11 2010,20:17) Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 11 2010,17:19) It was a nomadic movement so it was not a settlement and as far as a flood is concerned I am telling you that it is not possible to know the extent of a flood thousands of years ago and how could you?
It took them forty years to make a two week trek.
That does not seem very nomadic. They must have spent
a great deal of time in one place, or just walked in circles.Tim
a two week trek?Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 13 2010,07:15) Matthew 6:9-13 (King JaIn thmes Version) 9After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11Give us this day our daily bread.
12And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen
Sura #1
1 In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
2 Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds;
3 Most Gracious, Most Merciful;
4 Master of the Day of Judgment.
5 Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek.
6 Show us the straight way,
7 The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.This is a pretty clear example
There are many so called god's but only one true God and that is YHWH, you need to only go to YHWH, throught the Son, and all that you need is the Scriptures, you don't need any other books. They only confuse you,
Quote 7 The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray. “Who go not astray”, astray from what ? Astray with the Son of God ? Is following the Son of God going astray Bod ?
1 Cor 8:5…For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords),
Yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.
Quote (shimmer @ Sep. 13 2010,09:17) Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 13 2010,07:15) Matthew 6:9-13 (King JaIn thmes Version) 9After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11Give us this day our daily bread.
12And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen
Sura #1
1 In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
2 Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds;
3 Most Gracious, Most Merciful;
4 Master of the Day of Judgment.
5 Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek.
6 Show us the straight way,
7 The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.This is a pretty clear example
There are many so called god's but only one true God and that is YHWH, you need to only go to YHWH, throught the Son, and all that you need is the Scriptures, you don't need any other books. They only confuse you,
Quote 7 The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray. “Who go not astray”, astray from what ? Astray with the Son of God ? Is following the Son of God going astray Bod ?
1 Cor 8:5…For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords),
Yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.
Quote Is following the Son of God going astray Bod ? Of course not Jesus IS the way to Follow.
Quote Yet for us there is one God, the Father This is the point where you can learn that The Father IS THE GOD(ALLAH)
Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 13 2010,11:30) Quote (shimmer @ Sep. 13 2010,09:17) Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 13 2010,07:15) There are many so called god's but only one true God and that is YHWH, you need to only go to YHWH, throught the Son, and all that you need is the Scriptures, you don't need any other books. They only confuse you,
Quote 7 The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray. “Who go not astray”, astray from what ? Astray with the Son of God ? Is following the Son of God going astray Bod ?
1 Cor 8:5…For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords),
Yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.
Quote Is following the Son of God going astray Bod ? Of course not Jesus IS the way to Follow.
Quote Yet for us there is one God, the Father This is the point where you can learn that The Father IS THE GOD(ALLAH)
Quote Of course not Jesus IS the way to Follow. good, then read your Bible and put away your Quran.
Quote This is the point where you can learn that The Father IS THE GOD(ALLAH) I already know the Father, do you ? (Remember, in the Quran, Allah is no-ones Father, so who is your Father)
Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 11 2010,23:55) Quote (TimothyVI @ Sep. 11 2010,20:17) Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 11 2010,17:19) It was a nomadic movement so it was not a settlement and as far as a flood is concerned I am telling you that it is not possible to know the extent of a flood thousands of years ago and how could you?
It took them forty years to make a two week trek.
That does not seem very nomadic. They must have spent
a great deal of time in one place, or just walked in circles.Tim
a two week trek?
Egypt to Canaan is a little over 200 miles.
I could walk 20 miles a day and not break a sweat
without God leading me the wrong direction.I am pretty sure that his original chosen people did not know when they left Egypt, that God's plan was for them all to die in the desert before reaching the land of milk and honey.
Tim
Quote (TimothyVI @ Sep. 13 2010,23:02) Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 11 2010,23:55) Quote (TimothyVI @ Sep. 11 2010,20:17) Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 11 2010,17:19) It was a nomadic movement so it was not a settlement and as far as a flood is concerned I am telling you that it is not possible to know the extent of a flood thousands of years ago and how could you?
It took them forty years to make a two week trek.
That does not seem very nomadic. They must have spent
a great deal of time in one place, or just walked in circles.Tim
a two week trek?
Egypt to Canaan is a little over 200 miles.
I could walk 20 miles a day and not break a sweat
without God leading me the wrong direction.I am pretty sure that his original chosen people did not know when they left Egypt, that God's plan was for them all to die in the desert before reaching the land of milk and honey.
Tim
I'm not sure of the mileage but the KEY critical component that you missed was the TERM “WANDERING” that's what they were doing once you understand that it should not be so difficult to understand because I will tell you right now you can come to my state and without any signs or maps you will be wandering around and have no DIRECTIONS on how to get to my house.What you don't understand is that as soon as they came out of egypt God gave them immediate directions of where to go but they were afraid of the people that lived there and were disobedient to God so God said that they would “Wander” when they became obedient they found the land immediately.
Don't act like you can't relate, have you ever lost your keys or something of value and could not find it despite your best efforts maybe even incorporating your friends and to no avail you could not find it and then maybe a week or two or in some cases years later you find that very same thing in what would be considered right under your nose the whole time?
If you tell me it never happened to you I will not believe pretty much anything else you say after that…Lol.
Seriously it happens
Hello Asana…
Sorry for the delay in my response. I've been very busy. Anyway, I hope you are doing well and I hope you had a wonderful labor day weekend.
Quote Francis
Therefore, the curse Christianity… and Paul is speaking of is our lack of obedienceAsana
Are you saying Christ became disobedient for us? If so that would change his natureNo… I was saying WHAT the curse was FOR. It was FOR our lack of obedience… not for Jesus' lack of obedience… but for OUR lack of obedience.
But as for HOW Jesus was cursed, it was when He was crucified. When Jesus was cursed, He was not being personally cursed because He was never disobedient to begin with. The curse He ws under for us was His crucifixion.
———————————————————–
Quote Francis
Instead… scriptures says that Christ as God is immutable (Hebrews 13:8; Malachi 3:6), and cannot change in His divine nature. In Hebrews 1:12 the Father says of Jesus, “You remain the same, and your years will never end.” And so the word “curse” cannot mean that Jesus' entire “substance” or “being” is being altered or changed.Asana
So taking on Sin is not a change of nature when it says he BECAME SIN?No… it is not. Becoming sin IS NOT THE SAME THING AS being a sinner. I have said this over and over in my last post and I gave at least 4 rational reasons which supports the contention that they are NOT the same thing. If you disagree, then you need to not only rebut each of the reasons I gave you… but you also need to give positive reasons to SUPPORT YOUR OWN CONTENTION that they are the same thing. You have done neither… and because you haven't, this means I have successfully rebutted your claim that you have “debunked Trinity”.
———————————————————-
Quote If he was not always sin and became SIN that would mean his nature has inherently changed. Jesus was never sin because He was never a sinner… He never sinned. Now.. when Jesus “became sin for us”… that does NOT mean that Jesus became a sinner… and so His nature NEVER changed or was altered.
The thing you appear to be hung up on… and fixated on… (which is something you won't address in here)… is your assumption that to “become sin” is the same thing as “being a sinner”. This is an assumption of yours for which you have done nothing to support either through the use of the dictionary or the Bible or Wikipedia or Etymological research. You just assert it uncritically.
Now, as for my position… in direct rebuttal to this unfounded and unsupported assumption of yours… I went and did some research and then I gave you at least 4 rational reasons which supports my contention that to “become sin” is NOT the same thing as “being a sinner”.
And so I'll say it again, if you disagree with me, then you need to not only rebut each of the reasons I gave you… but you also need to give positive reasons to SUPPORT YOUR OWN CONTENTION that they are the same thing. You have done neither. You can't just make up things in a discussion or in a forum and then expect that people will simply uncritically accept whatever you assert. I would never expect you to uncritically accept what I say, and therefore there is no reason for me to uncritically accept what you say.
Asana… all you need to do is point to the relevant Etymological research that shows that the words and/or phrase, “become sin” is the same thing as “being a sinner”. When you can do that, then you've made a good case for your contention.
But you never did any such thing. I on the other hand gave you 4 reasons to show that they do not mean the same thing. It's the same with the word “curse”. I used the dictionary… and you did not. I could not find any documents which supports your definition and understanding of the word “curse” and you won't or can't supply any.
And therefore, since you have done nothing to rebut my arguments against your position… or have given any positive reasons to support or defend your own position concerning the “curse” and “sin” as found in Galatians 3: 10-12 and 2Corinthians 5:21… then it can be reasonably shown that I have successfully rebutted your claim that you have debunked the Trinity.
———————————————————————–
Quote You spend a great deal of time trying to get around hard facts. If what you are saying had any validity the scriptures would not say that the second time he will appear without sin: “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation” (Hebrews 9:27-28)
If he bears SIN you cannot say that God bears sin and at the same time say that there is no sin in God. GOD IS HOLY and cannot bear sin. Francis STOP PLAYING.
First of all… contrary to what you assert, I have indeed presented hard facts. I at least was willing to go to the dictionary and the Bible and Wikipedia to show that you were using a defintion for the word “curse” which was not found anywhere in these sources. So this is an untrue statement on your part.
Secondly… when we read your latest response, we can immediately see that you have tried very hard to get around the hard fact that you'vebasically ignored just about everything I have painstakingly researched and presented to you in rebuttal to your claim that you've successfully debunked the Trinity.
The hard fact is that the following is a list of what you've basically ignored from my latest post to you:
1)… You gave a definition for the word “curse” without any supporting material to show that your definition of the word was correct. And yetwhen I gave you an opportunity to show us that you were correctly using the word “curse” in your post, you did nothing in that regard.
2)… I gave you a list of definitions for the word “curse” straight from the dictionary, which were contrary to your definition… and I gave you a chance to show how I was in error… and yet you did not rebut or deal with any of the definitions I supplied.
3)… You assumed that to be “made sin” is the same thing as “being a sinner” without supplying any supporting Etymological research to show that your assumption was correct.
4)… I gave you at least 4 reasons in support of my contention that to be “made sin” is NOT the same thing as “being a sinner”… and yet you did not rebut any of these reasons.
5)… And since we are talking about facts, I have consistently demonstrated that Jesus' crucifixion is considered a historical fa
ct by the best and brightest and overwhelming number of Critical Historians around the world. You have disagreed… along with Muhammad and the Quran, and yet you will not give any postive case to show that Jesus' Crucifixion is not a historical fact. It's a hard fact that you will supply no evidence for this position of yours.Now… I only bring all this up because you wrote to me and said that you really hoped that I will make a commitment to intellectual and spritual honesty. In light of the hard fact that you have consistently ignored much of what I have written to you… especially when I cite evidence in support of my position… it is you who maybe should make a commitment to intellectual and spiritual honesty.
I don't want to say that because I admire you as a person and I admire your energy and zeal and commitment to your beliefs. I think you are a good person and I have always said this about you, and so I don't want us to throw accusations and innuendos at each other. I don't want our conversation and our relationship to degenerate into a “mud-slinging” contest. I know that Jesus wouldn't want that from either of us… and I'm pretty sure that Allah wouldn't want that either.
Thirdly… It appears to me that you don't seem to make any effort to study or understand scripture for the sake of comprehension. You don't appear to try and understand what the Jewish writers meant when they wrote a particular verse found in the Bible. It appears that you will read a translation and then just uncritically assume that you've understood what the translation said with no regard to examining multiple translations for better comprehension in the pursuit of scholarship and knowledge. You appear to cherry pick translations for the sole purpose of looking for specific phraseology and expressions which will aid you in your attempt to attack those things in the Bible that you don't want to believe.
Now I may be wrong about you… and if I am, then I wish to apologize. But what other conclusion can I come to when we see what you just did in quoting Hebrews 9:27-28?
You say that I spend a great deal of time trying to get around hard facts. Well… nothing could be further from the truth of course, as I have repeatedly demonstrated in here. But speaking of hard facts… let's examine the hard fact of what you did with Hebrews 9:27-28.
One of the hard facts which you appear to be trying to get around is the fact that multiple Biblical Translations exists. What I never seem to see you do is to list the various translations whenever you quote a verse. You appear to use one translation only. To me, this shows that you are not at all interested in trying to comprehend the verse in question. In contrast, if you look at my past posts in here, I have often listed what mutliple translations will say about a verse so that we can get a better idea of what the verse is actuallysaying.
And so, I will do this again with Hebrews 9:27-28. The following are different translations for the verse in question:
Hebrews 9:27-28 (Amplified Bible)
And just as it is appointed for allmen once to die, and after that the certain judgment, Even so it is that Christ, having been offered to take upon Himself and bear as a burden the sins of many once and once for all, will appear a second time, not to carry any burden of sin nor to deal with sin, but to bring to full salvation those who are eagerly, constantly, and patiently waiting for and expecting Him.Hebrews 9:27-28 (American Standard Version)
And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment; so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation.Hebrews 9:27-28 (New American Standard Bible)
And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.Hebrews 9:27-28 (New King James Version)
And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.Hebrews 9:27-28 (King James Version)
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.Hebrews 9:27-28 (New International Version)
Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.Hebrews 9:27-28 (The Message)
Everyone has to die once, then face the consequences. Christ's death was also a one-time event, but it was a sacrifice that took care of sins forever. And so, when he next appears, the outcome for those eager to greet him is, precisely, salvation.Hebrews 9:27-28 (21st Century King James Version)
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the Judgment, so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto those who look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin, unto salvation.Now remember…. you only quoted ONE TRANSLATION for Hebrews 9:27-28… the King James Version… and from that one translation, you went and assumed all kinds of things about what the writer of Hebrews was saying. In contrast… to be completely fair… what I've done is show different translations for that same verse. Why is this important? Because if we are honest about our scholarship and we truly have a desire to understand a verse, we need to gain a detailed understanding of the words in question and why the letters in the Bible were written in the first place… and we need to understand its context, its theme, its structure, etc.
To do this…. which is the only honest way to understand what was written 2,000 years ago… we have to understand that some Bible translations are more interpretive than others, and this is usually done to simplify the reading. One translation may sound very different from other translations, when in actuality, they are generally saying the same thing. But because they sound different, people may assume that they mean different things. This is basically true for all the major translations, though slight differences do exist. This is why it is helpful to study more than one translation if one does not know the original Hebrew or Greek. Even then it is helpful to see how other scholars have viewed the text.
For example, you will often choose the KJV translation, as you did for Hebrews 9:27-28. But here is the problem when you keep doing that… although the King James Version is often a reliable translation, a few things are difficult to understand, because the translation is almost 400 years old. And the New King James Version corrects some mistakes which occured in the original. So… relying solely on one translation can sometimes cause difficulties… vague and/or questionable translations… which can often be cleared up by using modern translations and also by cross-referencing other translations.
You made a mistake in your understanding of Hebrew 9:27-28… and this can be seen when we use other translations. Let's go back to what you originally said:
“If what you are saying had any validity the scriptures would not say that the second time he will appea
r without sin:“So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation” (Hebrews 9:27-28)
If he bears SIN you cannot say that God bears sin and at the same time say that there is no sin in God. GOD IS HOLY and cannot bear sin. Francis STOP PLAYING.”
Do you see the mistake you made? You assumed that Hebrews 9:27-28 was saying that Jesus will appear the second time WITHOUT SIN… as if Jesus had sin in Himself in THE FIRST PLACE during His first appearance.
But that is not what Hebrews 9:27-28 says. When we read all the different translations, we see that Hebrews is saying that when Jesus comes back the second time, it is NOT FOR THE SAME REASONS He came the first time. The first time Jesus came was to deal with sin by offering to bear sin on our behalf. But the second time He comes, Jesus will have NOTHING TO DO WITH BEARING SIN again… but to offer salvation. Jesus already bore sin once the first time around… and so the second time He comes, it is not to bear sin again.
That is what the verse is saying.
Fourthly… You are making the same mistake you did when you kept confusing “being made sin” with “being a sinner”. All you've done here is replace the words “being made sin” with “to bear sin”. But the point is that to BEAR SIN is not the same thing as BEING A SINNER anymore than “being made sin” is the same thing as “being a sinner”.
Fithly… I am not playing. I have always maintained that God is Holy and that there is NO SIN IN GOD.. or in Jesus. Where your mistake is when you assume that to bear sin is the same thing as being a sinner… that is to have sin inside of them (which is what a sinner is). You also kept assuming that to be made sin is the same thing as being a sinner (which is to have sin inside).
That's the mistake you keep making. And so there is nothing I have said which suggests that I believe that Jesus ever became a sinner… or that sin could be found in God or in Jesus. It's impossible for such a thing to happen. And the scriptures NEVER teach that there was ever sin in Jesus or in God or that Jesus became a sinner or that God became as sinful as man.
So to sum up… you made 5 mistakes when you wrote the following:
You spend a great deal of time trying to get around hard facts. If what you are saying had any validity the scriptures would not say that the second time he will appear without sin:
“So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation” (Hebrews 9:27-28)
If he bears SIN you cannot say that God bears sin and at the same time say that there is no sin in God. GOD IS HOLY and cannot bear sin. Francis STOP PLAYING.
—————————————————————————
Quote I do enjoy our dialogue but I see so you defying reality so much and it's really not what you should be doing. I don't defy reality. Indeed, the opposite is actually true. I embrace and celebrate reality… and there is no greater reality or fact than Jesus is God Incarnate and it is only through His death and resurrection that we are saved.
Now, I'm NOT saying that you should uncritically believe me about Jesus being God Incarnate. No way. We should always check facts and think for ourselves. But when it comes to reality and historical facts and research, and objective material, etc… I have put more of that into my posts than you have put into yours.
Quote You will say that death doesn't change substance although you say that Jesus is 100% Man and 100% God even if just the Man died that is changing at least the substance of Jesus who is composed of 100% God and 100% Man but you won't even admit that basic clear and logical fact. How did the physical death of Jesus' earthly body change the substance of Jesus' nature as God? How is that even possible? Especially in light of the fact that Jesus… as God… has power over all earthly things in the first place? Indeed, when Jesus is resurrected, does this not show that death did not change even Jesus' earthly body? Where is Jesus' bones and body now?
Now… I realize that as a Muslim, you do not believe that Jesus died on the cross. But the point is that within Classical Christianity, there is no contradiction or logical probem you keep looking for.
Quote You will make sin not sinful a curse not be a curse and almost any mental gymnastic you will perform to justify your view. First of all, it is you and Muhammad and the Quran who exhibites mental gymnastics whenever the question of Jesus' death on the cross is discussed. The mental gymnastics required on your part to deny that Jesus' crucifixion is a historical fact, is truly breathtaking.
Secondly… I have never denied that a curse is a curse or said that sin is not sinful. Where we differ on is the meaning of the phrases “to be made sin” and “to bear sin”. That is where we differ. I have pointed to the Bible itself… to the dictionary… to Wikipedia… and to reason in an genuine effort to show that “to be made sin” is not the same thing as “to be a sinner”. And that “to bear sin” is not the same thing as “to be a sinner”.
I have given you many reasons in support of what I have asserted and I have given you every opportunity and fair chance to intellectually rebut what I have said. You've done nothing to rebut the reasons I have given and you have done nothing in the way of presenting a positive case for your own position.
I have been completely fair and reasonable with you at all times in our discussions. The day a person begins to suggest that scholarship is really “mental gymnastics” in disguise… is the day when reason has been thrown out the window.
Quote The bottom line is if the substance of Jesus did not change how is it you believe that the substance of those who believe will be changed? I really don't understand your question. But I will say this, while the substance of God can never change, the substance of man can change because man is not God. And so if Jesus is God, then it is a perfectly logical thing to say that the substance of Jesus can never change because God can never change. But if man is not God… as we both know we are not… then man's substance can be changed by God.
That is what happened on the cross. The bottom line is that you neve been able to show any logical contradiction or fallacy in what I've written. Not once have you ever demonstrated any logical error in what I've written. That's doesn't mean I am infalliable… only that you have never been able to identify any logical fallacy on my part in any of the discussions we have had.
Quote I have already debunked the trinity completely… When and where did you do that? I agree that you TRIED to debunk the Trinity… but you did so by missuing words and terms… and when I pointed our your mistakes, you have not once made any attempt at all to defend the very defintions you used and which you relied on in your attempt to debunk the Trinity.
Quote …if you choose to continue believing it that's your choice, it's disrespectful to the Sovereign nature of God but that may not bother you. Truth and reason and scholarship and logic is never disrespectful to the Sovereign nature of God. God HImself is truth… and He gave man the ability to use reason and logic so as to do scholarship and think rationally in the pursuit of truth. So I have done nothing, nor have I said anything in any of my discussions with You which can be construed as being disrespectful by anyone.
I choose to continue to believe in truth and the pursuit of truth. There is nothing disrespectful or evil or wrong about that.
The difference of opinion we are having is agreeing on what the truth is. That's the disagreement between us.
And yet when you continue to believe that it is not an historical fact that Jesus was crucified, it is you who appears to be disrespectful towards truth. I hope I'm wrong, and I want to believe I am wrong because I believe with all of my heart that you are a good person.
Please Asana… let's not let our discussions degenerate into personal attacks. That won't get us anywhere. We can have strong disagreements about our beliefs, and yet remain friends.
God Bless You!
Respectfully
FrancisFrancis,
Listen to what The SPIRIT says:
But Jesus was saying, ” Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing ” And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves.
Luke 23:33-35If Jesus forgave them for Crucifying him, how could he bear their sin?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
