Quote: › “Please keep in mind that I use scripture to interpret scripture.”

That seems to me to be a difficult task?

Quote: › “You do inherit a sinful nature from Adam. However, you are right, you do not inherit the past acts of sin that are in your family history.”

But Adam sinned without a sinful nature as he was not born but created?
He had freewill and choose to sin. In effect, how is that different from all other people? Apparently being without a sinful nature does not mean that you will not sin as Adam did?

Quote: › “Sin requires death as a payment. Adam sinned and as a result he died.”

Did Adam go to heaven?


Do I understand all this correctly?

Adam sinned, and therefore we all inherited a sinful nature.
The OT laws had to be followed to the letter before Christ.

Christ died for several reasons:
1: God sacrificed Jesus to take away the spiritual death penalty for sin?
2: To demonstrate God’s mercy and justice towards sinners to us?
3: To show the people that the OT should not be interpreted to the letter anymore but in the spirit, so no more killing sinners?

Please feel free to correct me when I’m wrong. And thanks for doing your best to get your point across.

Harrie,

Quote: › That seems to me to be a difficult task?

It is. But it is the only way to interpret scripture properly and accurately. It is also a must.

Quote: › But Adam sinned without a sinful nature as he was not born but created?

In a sense Adam inherited his sinful nature from his act of sin. But the sinful nature to the rest of humanity since is like a genetic defect of sorts.

In order to have someone to truly love, love must be a choice or else it is against their will.

God wanted mankind to choose Him. So He gave mankind this freedom of choice. However, there was a condition to this choice. Choose right and live, choose wrong and die. This death is not some knee-jerk reaction to our choice, it is a natural result of this choice. Since God is life in Himself, not to choose life means choosing death.

Quote: › Apparently being without a sinful nature does not mean that you will not sin as Adam did?

Being without a sinful nature just means that you have not been corrupted by sin. However, we all still have a freedom of choice just as Adam did. We are, however, corrupted by the sinful nature and do not choose the right. Mankind was seminally present in Adam and is under the same condemnation as Adam. However, we still have a choice to choose the right and reject the wrong.

All men sinned in Adam but, men are condemned by their own sins and not Adam's or any others sin.

Quote: › Did Adam go to heaven?

The bible is silent on this issue so I must be also. I can only speculate he did because he had a close relationship with God.

Quote: › Do I understand all this correctly? Adam sinned, and therefore we all inherited a sinful nature. The OT laws had to be followed to the letter before Christ.

Yes. The OT believers did do this. See Joseph and Mary for an example. Christ said the Pharisees missed the point and He was right. The OT people should have always exhibited mercy and forgiveness in exacting the requirements of the law. The literal interpretation of the law was strict enough to show that mercy is what God was intending for these strict requirements. However, the people of Israel, under the influence of the sinful nature, missed this point entirely. The people who didn't "sin" needed just as much forgiveness as those who did "sin". The sinful nature blinded them, and us as well, to this fact. No one can keep the righteous requirements of the laws so we need God's mercy. And if we need God's mercy then we should be merciful ourselves. God said "I desire mercy not sacrifice."; meaning, the laws are God's requirements, and if God is merciful, then we should be merciful as well.

Quote: › Christ died for several reasons: 1: God sacrificed Jesus to take away the spiritual death penalty for sin? 2: To demonstrate God’s mercy and justice towards sinners to us? 3: To show the people that the OT should not be interpreted to the letter anymore but in the spirit, so no more killing sinners?

Point one is correct. But point two was not necessecarily to demonstrate God's mercy and Justice but to exact His mercy and justice. It did demonstrate it but that was not the sole reason for it. Point three is correct.

You are understanding this very well.

Quote: › “In a sense Adam inherited his sinful nature from his act of sin.”

I can’t understand this? First Adam had no sinful nature as he was created directly by God. Then he sinned anyway. This means to me that it does not matter if you have a sinful nature or not.

Quote: › “Mankind was seminally present in Adam and is under the same condemnation as Adam. However, we still have a choice to choose the right and reject the wrong.”

I still can’t understand this. Perhaps we could inherit a sinful nature, but how can being seminally present make us inherit a sin? (I also don’t believe we were seminally present, but that will be another discussion.)
How can the sin itself cause a sinful nature regardless the method?

Quote: › “God wanted mankind to choose Him. So He gave mankind this freedom of choice.”

Doesn’t God already know what every individual that was born and will ever be born will choose?



God made sure that the OT was written the way it is.
The people before Christ followed the OT to the letter.
God sent Christ to take away the spiritual death sentence for sin, and to show the people that the OT should not be taken literally, and to exact God’s mercy and justice.

Why couldn’t God write the OT more clearly? If He inspires to write something like this:

Exodus 35:2: ““For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.”

Then I can understand very well that many people take that literally? (I did) It clearly says: “must be put to death.” It does leave little to no room for discussion? (without the NT)

And why can’t God take away our spiritual death sentence right away? Why did He create a spiritual death sentence in the first place?


I’m not sure I understand this: “exact God’s mercy and justice.” How should I interpret it?


Thanks for your effort.

Harrie,

Quote: › This means to me that it does not matter if you have a sinful nature or not.

Adam didn't have a sinful nature before he sinned. He had one after though. Before adam sinned, he had an uncorrupted freedom of choice. After he sinned, he had a corrupted freedom of choice. He could still do good deeds, but now his good deeds were marred by sinfulness. Now mankind, being generated from Adam, inherited this sinful nature because all of our genetic make-up comes from Adam. All of our genetic make-up is what I mean by seminally present.

Mankind, because of this sin of Adam, has inherited this sinful nature, this genetic flaw or disposition towards sin.

Remember that sin is missing the mark of God's standard of holiness and conduct. Any deviation from this standard is sin. Sin is not just some horrible offense like murder or rape. It can also be, simply, not praying for someone. This may seem like just a brainfart or something but it is a command from God Himself. Any command from God that is not obeyed is sin.

You don't have to have a sinful nature to sin, Adam proved this. God say all that He made and it was "good". You sin because of your choices. However, in the case of the children of Adam, all mankind, we are born with this sinful nature already inside of us. We are basically born with two strikes against us already. This is why we need Jesus Christ as Savior. He is our final defense against the wrath of God. He is our ONLY defense against the wrath of God.

Quote: › Perhaps we could inherit a sinful nature, but how can being seminally present make us inherit a sin?

I'm not sure if you meant a specific sin or not, but if you did, we did not inherit Adam's sin only his sinful nature.

Quote: › How can the sin itself cause a sinful nature regardless the method?

Sin causes spiritual and physical death. This spiritual and physical death is therefore our sinful nature. Our bodies and spirits are dead because of the effects of this sin. However, physical death is not instantaneous like spiritual death. Spiritual death causes physical death. Like depriving the body of water. The body doesn't automatically die. It can be very vigorous for a long time and even give birth to other life. This is wy mankind has been around for this amount of time. However, we all are born spiritually dead and only Christ can give us that kind of life again.

Quote: › Doesn’t God already know what every individual that was born and will ever be born will choose?

Yes. However if He made only the people He knew would choose Him, would there be any comparision for them to be grateful for. We cannot have light without darkness, otherwise light would cease to be light it would just be. And that is not really much to go by. If all you eat is pudding, and pudding tastes great, then what about steak and fish and corn on the cob and so on? You would have no basis of comparision and no reason to be grateful for the different foods. To be sure this is a horrible analogy but it is still analoguos to this line of reasoning.

If God made us choose Him then it wouldn't really be a choice, would it? We would be thankless, and indifferent and probably rather ungrateful. The spoiled rich kid, you know? There has to be a reason for choice. Love is that reason. Love allows us to choose freely. Love allows us to say no to evil and yes to good.

There is another reason for this. Evil. If we don't know the difference between good and evil because we have not had experience with it, then good would cease to be good. With the freedom of choice, God gave us the ability to choose good instead of evil. This makes good, truly good, and evil, truly evil. With out this basis of comparison then good and evil don't really exist.

God gave us this freedom of choice to choose good and reject evil so we could see the value in determining the difference between the two.

Quote: › God made sure that the OT was written the way it is. The people before Christ followed the OT to the letter. God sent Christ to take away the spiritual death sentence for sin, and to show the people that the OT should not be taken literally, and to exact God’s mercy and justice.

Oh but the OT did have to be taken literally. The sentence must be carried out in the prescribed manner. The laws were harsh to show the need for grace and mercy. These are a must for any Christian. We must show mercy because we were shown mercy. The OT laws are still binding if you live by them. But never could a person do that. All mankind deserves the same death that is prescribed in the OT. But we don't have to experience it because Christ paid for our sins and abolished the law for us.

We now uphold the spirit of the law, which desired mercy above all. The law pointed to the need for mercy and forgiveness. Remember Joseph? He was about to break the law by secretly divorcing Mary. But the spirit of the law is demonstrated in the fact that Joseph could have had her stoned and he would not have broken any laws at all. God's law of forgiveness is higher than His laws of retribution and Joseph was declared righteous by this act. He trusted God.

Quote: › Why couldn’t God write the OT more clearly?

He did write it clear enough for us be because of sin we don't listen. We never did trust God, ever.

Quote: › And why can’t God take away our spiritual death sentence right away? Why did He create a spiritual death sentence in the first place?

He did take it away instantly. The moment we believed in Christ as Savior.

I can only speculate as to why He created a spiritual death sentence. I find reason to believe that God may be giving us a chance for redemption and repentence by not physically killing us the moment we first willfully sin.

Peter wrote that God doesn't want anyone to perish but to come to Him in repentance and receive forgiveness. This is where I find the basis for this belief.

Quote: › I’m not sure I understand this: “exact God’s mercy and justice.” How should I interpret it?

Christ wasn't an example for us to follow to "get right with God", He was our source of forgiveness. He is the only way for us to "get right" with God. Trust in His sacrifice is the only means of obtaining forgiveness and mercy, there is absolutely no other way at all. Christ had to die for us or else we could never get right with God.

Quote: › “This is why we need Jesus Christ as Savior. He is our final defense against the wrath of God. He is our ONLY defense against the wrath of God.”

But like I said before, isn’t Christ God? The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? So why does sent God Himself to rescue us from Himself? I keep having serious problems with the concept of Christ.

So is the following correct? (I’ll keep checking not to get lost.)
Adam did not have a sinful nature. He sinned, and now he somehow DID have a sinful nature. His nature changed because of something he did. And we inherited Adam’s nature. To save us from the wrath of God for having a sinful nature, God sent Himself as a sacrifice in the form of Jesus.

Jesus did not have a sinful nature like Adam, would it be theoretically possible for Jesus to sin anyway?


Harrie: “Doesn’t God already know what every individual that was born and will ever be born will choose?”

Quote: › “Yes. However if He made only the people He knew would choose Him, would there be any comparision for them to be grateful for. We cannot have light without darkness, otherwise light would cease to be light it would just be.”

In that case God NEEDS evil to be good Himself?

Quote: › “The OT laws are still binding if you live by them. But never could a person do that. All mankind deserves the same death that is prescribed in the OT. But we don't have to experience it because Christ paid for our sins and abolished the law for us.”

God makes laws He knows people will not be able to obey. He thereby sentences us to death, but than comes to earth in the form of Christ to save us from Himself? And that way shows His mercy?

Quote: › “He did take it (spiritual deathsentence) away instantly. The moment we believed in Christ as Savior.”

But how about the people before Christ?

Quote: › “He (Christ) is the only way for us to "get right" with God. Trust in His sacrifice is the only means of obtaining forgiveness and mercy, there is absolutely no other way at all. Christ had to die for us or else we could never get right with God.”

It is a concept still too difficult to understand for me.

Harrie,

Quote: › But like I said before, isn’t Christ God?

God is spirit. Christ is God in the flesh.

Quote: › So why does sent God Himself to rescue us from Himself?

God had to send His Son Jesus to die for us on our behalf because we can't do this ourselves. Punishment for sin is death. Now, we can't die and then pay for our sins. Jesus died and paid for those sins. His sacrfice was perfect because He didn't have a sin nature and therefore any sin. So his sacrifice was sufficient for all mankind because that is God's requirement. The requirement of the law was to obey perfectly. This is something we cannot do because of our sinful nature. Jesus didn't have it so he could. he did. And now we, because of Jesus, can obey God by believing in Jesus. That is all God asks of us. Too many people make it out to be some monumental task but it needn't be.

God's requirement for us is to believe on the one whom He has sent. John 6:29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."


Believe means to trust or rely upon. That is all.

Quote: › So is the following correct? (I’ll keep checking not to get lost.) Adam did not have a sinful nature. He sinned, and now he somehow DID have a sinful nature. His nature changed because of something he did. And we inherited Adam’s nature. To save us from the wrath of God for having a sinful nature, God sent Himself as a sacrifice in the form of Jesus.

Yes.

Quote: › Jesus did not have a sinful nature like Adam, would it be theoretically possible for Jesus to sin anyway?

Some say He could but didn't. Some say He couldn't at all. I believe the latter.

This seems to be a paradox of scripture but it isn't. God cannot sin. Jesus is God. Therefore, Jesus couldn't sin. If He could then, he could still sin now, and then none of us are safe.

Quote: › In that case God NEEDS evil to be good Himself?

No. God is good in and of Himself. Only we need to have a contrast to be able to see if God is good. This is one reason why God allowed sin to happen.

Quote: › God makes laws He knows people will not be able to obey.

God's laws show how utterly sinful sin really is. They were not given arbitrarily. They did have a purpose then and still do now.

Quote: › He thereby sentences us to death, but than comes to earth in the form of Christ to save us from Himself? And that way shows His mercy?

Adam sentenced us to death by his actions. God decreed to Adam that he must obey. Adam's disobedience caused our death sentence to be carried out. It was a covenant, an agreement, a contract. Adam did not fulfill his end, so God fulfilled His. If Adam would have obeyed then God would still be keeping Adam alive today. Though the world would not be what it is now. Sin has corrupted this world more than most people care to know.

Quote: › But how about the people before Christ?

They were covered for a time by the sacrifices they gave for sin. This is what part of the law was about. It foreshadowed the ultimate sacrifice of Christ. Spoke of His coming.

Quote: › It is a concept still too difficult to understand for me.

God had a law. That law was broken. Man needs punished. Jesus took our punishment for us. Faith in Christ is our way of saying thank you. That same faith is all that is required of us. It is accepting what Christ has done for us.

The following you agreed was correct or told me yourself:

Adam did not have a sinful nature.
He sinned, and now he somehow DID have a sinful nature.
His nature changed because of something he did.
We inherited Adam’s nature.
God's laws show how utterly sinful sin really is.
Christ is God in the flesh.
To save us from the wrath of God for having a sinful nature, God sent Himself as a sacrifice in the form of Jesus.
Jesus took our punishment for us.
Faith in Christ is our way of saying thank you.
God is good in and of Himself. Only we need to have a contrast to be able to see if God is good. This is one reason why God allowed sin to happen.



I can understand the construction, but I can’t understand the logic behind it.

The main problem I think is that God sent Himself to save us from Himself? To me that makes little sense.



Another question: why, for example, did God not implant His will in the minds of people at creation, of course leaving their free will intact to act upon it or not? That way there would be no discussion about God’s will and no arguments about translations or interpretation? We would all know exactly what God expected from us?

Look for example at the well known discussion around a bat being called a bird in the Bible, while a more correct translation should have been something like ‘winged creature.’

If God allowed such mistakes in translations, could it be possible that the people who wrote down the Word of God made mistakes as well?

Harrie,

Quote: › The main problem I think is that God sent Himself to save us from Himself? To me that makes little sense.

God wants all men to be saved. But no man can save himself. God so loved the world that He sent Jesus to save the world for them. Jesus was not a man in heaven before He was born in Bethlehem. He is now, but not then. He came to earth in the exact form of a man in order to pay for the sins of man. In the OT, men used animals to cover, or temporarily pay for, their sins. But they were insufficient because they were animals and not man dying to pay for sin. Jesus was fully man and fully God at the same time. So his sacrifice is even greater than just an ordinary man. He is a higher form of life, to use a poor analogy, but higher nonetheless. So His sacrifice was sufficient for all mankind. Past, present and future. It is of infinite value. God desires followship and communion with us so much that He sacrificed His own Son on our behalf. However He couldn't turn a blind eye to His own holiness and allow us into heaven with sin inside of us. It had to be purged from us. Christ took the burden and penalty of sin upon Himself and appeased the righteous requirements of the law for us so that all who believe in Him can have access to God.

Remember, it is foolishness to the natural man. So that is why it doesn't make sense to many. They must be born again and have the Holy Spirit of God inside of them to understand how much the sacrifice of Christ is worth.

Quote: › why, for example, did God not implant His will in the minds of people at creation, of course leaving their free will intact to act upon it or not?

Then we would not be truly free. To be truly free as you are suggesting is to be able to reject God. That is why God made Adam the way he was. However, true freedom for a sinner is to choose God's will.

Quote: › If God allowed such mistakes in translations, could it be possible that the people who wrote down the Word of God made mistakes as well?

No, because Peter said the writers were carried along by the Holy Spirit when they wrote the books of the bible. However, God is powerful and wise enough to know that a translation is just that. It is not the original document or even carbon copies of the original. It is difficult for man to express thoughts, ideas and words from one language to another in a perfect manner. Hovever, all of the english translations of the bible have the correct core doctrines of Christianity in them. They only differ on peripheral issues and archaic words. Except the New World Translation by the Watchtower Soceity, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Joseph Smith translation. These are corrupted to the core because they reflect the teachings of their false apostles and teachers. Even secular translators argue for the incompetency of these translations.

You should go to a website that specializes in this sort of thing. www.bible.org is one. www.christiananswers.net is another.

Quote: › “(‘why God not implant His will in the minds of people at creation’) Then we would not be truly free. To be truly free as you are suggesting is to be able to reject God.”

If God would have implanted the essence of the Bible in man’s mind there would not be any discussion about its meaning, but it would not have any consequences for freewill. It would be like carrying a copy of the Bible in your head. It would be at least clear to everybody what God expects from us, even for peoples who live in the middle of the Amazon forests.

Quote: › “(…) Peter said the writers were carried along by the Holy Spirit when they wrote the books of the bible. However, God is powerful and wise enough to know that a translation is just that.”

Clearly a bat is not a bird, yet it is in the Bible like this.
Why is God able to guide the writers of the Bible, but not the serious scholars that translated the Bible? They could have wrote ‘winged creatures’ instead of ‘bird’ so there would not be any misunderstanding. Do you think that the writings the Bible was based on were all the original writings and that none of them was copied by others to finally end up in the Bible as we know it?

Also very confusing is this: (Job 3
"4 - Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
6 - Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;"

God could easily explain that the earth is a globe and revolves around the sun, instead He inspires the writers of the Bible to write something down that make the earth look like something flat that rests on foundations and has a cornerstone. The earth clearly has no foundations or cornerstone? God is all knowing so something must have gone wrong writing it down? If I understand it correctly, this is not a flaw in translation like the bat comment is?
And I know that even scientists use words like ‘sunset,’ but they are people speaking to people who live in this time and age. God must have realized that the Bible would need to last for millenia?

What I can’t understand is how God can use Himself as a sacrifice for Himself. But like you suggested I will try and find some answers at the sites you named.

Harrie,

Quote: › If God would have implanted the essence of the Bible in man’s mind there would not be any discussion about its meaning, but it would not have any consequences for freewill. It would be like carrying a copy of the Bible in your head. It would be at least clear to everybody what God expects from us, even for peoples who live in the middle of the Amazon forests.

He did. It is called the conscience. The conscience determines right and wrong for us. However, before you go too far with this, our conscience was damaged in the fall. Adam had a conscience. He knew the command. He disobeyed his conscience and God.

Anything that has life in it has the breath of God. It is their conscience in man and instinct in animals.

People even in the Amazonian rainforests believe in a deity. Some say it is for supperstitious reasons, they cannot explain lightning or something. But it is their conscience. Paul wrote about this in Romans 2:12-16:

12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

This means that God's righteous requirements of the law are indeed written in the hearts of men and their conscience is their guide. Their thought are defending and accusing them at the same time. This means that sin has infected even the conscience of man. He knows to do right and therefore does not need the law, but does the wrong and therefore is under the condemnation of the law as a lawbreaker.

So far from being left alone, God is near to each one of us as our conscience.

Quote: › Why is God able to guide the writers of the Bible, but not the serious scholars that translated the Bible?

He is. But shcolarship of ancient languages is better today than in 1611 when the King James version you are using was made. God works with man's limitations. At no point does the term "winged creature" and "bird" conflict with one another.

None of the essential Christian doctrines is hampered by these minor nuances in translations.

The translations today are based upon older and more reliable to the original documents than in 1611.

Quote: › God could easily explain that the earth is a globe and revolves around the sun, instead He inspires the writers of the Bible to write something down that make the earth look like something flat that rests on foundations and has a cornerstone. The earth clearly has no foundations or cornerstone? God is all knowing so something must have gone wrong writing it down? If I understand it correctly, this is not a flaw in translation like the bat comment is?

This is used to show that God's creation is unmovble and shows that the earth is God's center of the universe. It shows the steadfastness of God.

Quote: › And I know that even scientists use words like ‘sunset,’ but they are people speaking to people who live in this time and age. God must have realized that the Bible would need to last for millenia?

He does. And He is speaking to the people in the days they wrote the bible, using their vernacular.

I think conscious and religion are not the same. I think a conscious has to do with emphatic feelings that do not need religion. I do not believe in God, but I do not go around raping, stealing, killing or whatever, even when I think I will not get caught.

People in a rain forest have very different beliefs from Christianity, they believe in evil spirits that roam the forest and such. There is even a tribe somewhere who admires traitors. A missionary noted that they got exited when they heard how Judas betrayed Jesus. They explained to him that the admired Judas.

Quote: › The translations today are based upon older and more reliable to the original documents than in 1611.

Will they be different in meaning or only be easier to read?

Quote: › At no point does the term "winged creature" and "bird" conflict with one another.

But I wasn't talking about 'winged creature' in relation to 'bird,' I was talking about a bat being called a bird:

(Leviticus 11:19) - "These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, 14and the kite and the falcon in its kind, 15every raven in its kind, 16 and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, 17and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, 18and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, 19and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat."

I would expect that God would not let this happen?

Quote: › This (foundations of earth, cornerstone, Jobe 3 is used to show that God's creation is unmovble and shows that the earth is God's center of the universe. It shows the steadfastness of God.

Are you serious about this?
The text is:
"4 - Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
6 - Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;"

Quote: › "And He is speaking to the people in the days they wrote the bible, using their vernacular."

But you are talking about an all knowing God, not a normal man who lived in those days. There would be nothing confusing even for the ancient people if God would simply explain it the way it is, instead of the way people in the old days thought the world around them was constructed? God should know that people would read the Bible for thousands of years to come?

Why not simply say that the earth is the center of God's universe? By the way: the earth isn't in the center of the universe.



A completely different question, so I hope you will tolerate me a bit longer:

What parts of the Bible clearly announce the coming of Christ?

Harrie,

Quote: › Why not simply say that the earth is the center of God's universe? By the way: the earth isn't in the center of the universe.

I didn't say that. I said the earth is the center of God's universe, meaning that there is no other life in the universe that God is concerned about. The earth is indeed not in the physical center of the universe. I'm not that stupid or obtuse. But it is indeed in the spiritual center of the universe.

Quote: › Are you serious about this?

As far as I explained above, yes.

Quote: › But I wasn't talking about 'winged creature' in relation to 'bird,' I was talking about a bat being called a bird:

The people who translated the word into bat didn't have the understanding we have today. To them maybe a bat was a form of bird. We don't and won't know that for sure.

Quote: › Will they be different in meaning or only be easier to read?

They are freer from copyist error. God does allow for this to happen and trains scholars to determine the differences in manuscripts. Besides, the errors in copying do not reflect any core doctrines.

Quote: › I think conscious and religion are not the same.

I never said they were either. Our conscience is God's law written on our minds. Religion has to do with worship, not necessarily right and wrong.

Quote: › I think a conscious has to do with emphatic feelings that do not need religion.

I agree with this.

Quote: › I do not believe in God, but I do not go around raping, stealing, killing or whatever, even when I think I will not get caught.

This is God's signature inside of you. Even in this fallen world God gives you a conscience so you can hopefully determine right from wrong. This is also a witness of the fact that we are created in the image of God. However, before you say that God created a faulty creature, remember the fall and its effects from sin.

Even though we are created in the image of God, sin has so marred this image as to be unrecognizable at times. That is why we need Christ as savior. To rescue us from this marred image and recreate us in His image as righteous and holy.

Quote: › “(…) I said the earth is the center of God's universe, meaning that there is no other life in the universe that God is concerned about. The earth is indeed not in the physical center of the universe. (…) But it is indeed in the spiritual center of the universe”

If there is no other life I suppose God created the universe for us alone? If earth is the spiritual center of the universe, than why didn’t He put earth in the physical center as well? Isn’t this human wishful thinking? Like we have thought for many years that the earth was the middle of the solar system? Even some evolutionists place humans at the top of evolution for this human reason.

Suppose there is other life in the universe? If God created the universe and everything in it then do you think He wouldn’t be concerned about that life?


(Job 3
“4 - Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
6 - Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;”

You said about this:

Quote: › “This is used to show that God's creation is unmovble and shows that the earth is God's center of the universe. It shows the steadfastness of God.”

I have some difficulties reading all that in it. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Quote: › “The people who translated the word into bat didn't have the understanding we have today. To them maybe a bat was a form of bird.”

I agree. Obviously God did not guide the serious scholars who translated the Bible. So how can you be sure that God guided the people who wrote it? You can’t use Bible quotes to prove it as those quotes could be unguided as well? And if I understand it correctly, the original writings of the Bible are gone and is the Bible based on copies?

Quote: › “They (modern translations) are freer from copyist error. God does allow for this to happen and trains scholars to determine the differences in manuscripts. Besides, the errors in copying do not reflect any core doctrines.”

I simply can’t imagine why God would allow mistakes in the Bible, translations or not? If God is able to inspire people to write down His will correctly, than it should be more likely that He inspires people to interpret the Bible correctly to be able to translate it correctly?


Then there are many writings that were once considered to be the word of God, but were banned oneday. Consider for example the Nag Hammadi finds:

Nag Hammadi


In such writings they talk about a team of archonts that created Adam and that God’s mother Sophia gave Adam life. This indicates that there were many writings that were thought to be inspired by God, but they clearly conflicted with each-other concerning core doctrine. Considering the vast amount of writings that claim to have been inspired by a Deity, how do you determine which of those might be correct? And how do you know that any of them is correct?
To me it seems that many Christians feel uncomfortable with the OT; in discussions at other forums (not religious forums but with Christians visiting) they assure me that I should look much more to the NT and not to dwell on the OT, and quite a few only know Genesis and have no idea what’s in Leviticus. Many hotel rooms only offer the NT. Do you think the OT is also on its way to become ‘apocryphal?’ Or simply cut lose and forgotten?

It also strikes me how much discussion there is among Christians about the interpretation of the Bible. I can understand scientists fighting about the details of evolution as they are human beings seeking their way through data without the guidance of a higher being. But if God inspired the writing of the Bible then how can this happen?


At this moment I think we can see the ‘birth’ of a new religion in the New Age movement. This seems to be a blend between Western and Eastern religion and some more ingredients, but it is still in a state where there is no clear doctrine yet, or at least much less clear than the Christian teachings are now. Many believers agree about certain things, but there are still way too much differences among them. It will be a matter of time when a more homogenous doctrine is formed. Do you think Christianity never had such a past?

Quote: › “Even in this fallen world God gives you a conscience so you can hopefully determine right from wrong. This is also a witness of the fact that we are created in the image of God. However, before you say that God created a faulty creature, remember the fall and its effects from sin.”

It still seems unfair to me to burden humanity for Adam’s sin (or sinful nature,) but that aside. Why are humans created in the image of God?

Harrie,

Quote: › If earth is the spiritual center of the universe, than why didn’t He put earth in the physical center as well?

I don't know. Perhaps gravitational forces are too strong in the center, I really have no answer for this.

Quote: › Suppose there is other life in the universe? If God created the universe and everything in it then do you think He wouldn’t be concerned about that life?

Statistically speaking there could be, but the bible is silent on this. And if there was other life on other planets, God would be just as concerned about them as well.

I said:

Quote: › “This is used to show that God's creation is unmovble and shows that the earth is God's center of the universe. It shows the steadfastness of God.”

You asked:

Quote: › How did you arrive at that conclusion?

The foudations indicate something rather permanent. God has decreed the earth as unmovable. As unmovable it also shows that God deals with the earth in an unmovable fashion. He is concerned with only the earth.

Quote: › Obviously God did not guide the serious scholars who translated the Bible.

No, He did guide them. He does want His word translated correctly into other languages. But in the case of idioms and vernacular and meanings in other languages, He also allows for these seeming discrepancies.

Quote: › So how can you be sure that God guided the people who wrote it?

Other than having the Holy Spirit inside of you, you cannot. This answer does not sit well with many people but this is the answer scripture gives us. If the bible is indeed God's word to us, then we must interpret what God says using what He says. We cannot interpret God's word on our own.

Quote: › And if I understand it correctly, the original writings of the Bible are gone and is the Bible based on copies?

Yes. However, the oldest manuscripts are evidence to sustain the bible's freedom from error in the newer manuscripts. There are errors in the bible from copying. However, before you think it has been totally corrupted, I must say that these errors are 95% misspelling and the rest do not conflict with any of the core doctrines of the faith whatsoever.

Quote: › I simply can’t imagine why God would allow mistakes in the Bible, translations or not?

This is another illustration of the mercy and forgiveness of God. It also illustrates His sovreignty as well. Even though copyist errors are found from time to time, this doesn't diminish the purity of the scriptures. It allows for mans weaknesses and mistakes.

Quote: › If God is able to inspire people to write down His will correctly, than it should be more likely that He inspires people to interpret the Bible correctly to be able to translate it correctly?

He does do this. He has given the gift of teaching to many people over the years. Only when man interprets the bible from a natural perspective does it then become corrupted. God warns us of these people and to not follow them and their teachings.

Quote: › Consider for example the Nag Hammadi finds:

The biggest difference between the NH finds and the bible is doctrine. The reason for discarding them from the canon of scripture is that they contradict the teachings of the bible. Some criteria for determining the authenticity of the various books contained in the bible are:

1. Written by an apostle. An apostle was one who had actually seen the risen Christ. All NH books were written well after John the Beloved died around 110 AD.

2. Written by an associate of the apostle. This would include Mark and Luke and Acts. These two had walked with Peter and Paul. They wrote an account of the life of Christ and the birth of the church. They were very close to the events they wrote about. They also wrote these books before the apostles were martyred. This leaves out any possibility of incorrect or falsified or embellished information.

3. Written by the Lord's brothers. This includes James and Jude. They had seen the risen Lord as well.

4. The books must compliment the teaching of Christ. If they don't they are not from God. This is why the Koran is not scripture.

There are many other rules to determine the canon of scripture by also. See the websites I gave you for more detailed information about this subject.

Quote: › Do you think the OT is also on its way to become ‘apocryphal?’ Or simply cut lose and forgotten?

The first part of your question is, never. The second part is perhaps it may happen. However, a true Christian will never forget his heritage in the OT.

Quote: › But if God inspired the writing of the Bible then how can this happen?

Man is given over to weakness. We are to study to show ourselves approved by God. Some divisions are allowed for certain reasons.

1 Corinthians 11: 18-19:

18In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval.

The unity of the faith is not around mode of baptism or these things but around the person of Christ. If a denomination doesn't believe in the diety of Christ, Watchtower Society, they are not a Christian denomination. I don't care what their title is. Or if they twist the truth of the deity of Christ, Mormonism, they are not true Christians either. This is what the bible declares, not me.

Quote: › It also strikes me how much discussion there is among Christians about the interpretation of the Bible.

Many Christians believe in a pre-trib rapture, many don't. However, when all is said and done they still call each other brother because they share the common faith of Christianity. They believe in the Lord Jesus Christ together and are saved together.

John emphasizes love, Paul emphasizes preaching, James emphasizes good deeds, Jude emphasizes apologetics, Peter emphasizes holy living. Each of these guys emphasizes a different aspect of the Christian religion but they all agree that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God and are therefore brothers in the faith.

Quote: › Do you think Christianity never had such a past?

Do you mean never or ever. I'm not clear on this.

However if you mean ever, I think the Christian religion was united since the beginning. In Acts 15, the brothers went to Jerusalem to see if what they were preaching was right. They were right because the Jerusalem council agreed with the teachings they espoused. There was a common unity among them even though some still had close ties with the Judaism they had converted from. Remember that Christ was an adherent of Judaism when He was on this earth. He still followed the law of Moses. But He followed and taught it in a way that was the truth of the Spirit of the law not in the letter of the law. Christ truly understood the law, He wrote it. He gave the true meaning to the law. So for some of the brothers to adhere to some of the commands of the law, like eating pork, was something they did out of respect for the law. However, Jesus made all foods clean and therefore did not impose the requirements of the law on Gentiles. But both Jews and Gentiles are united in Christ regardless of there dietary freedoms and restrictions.

Quote: › Why are humans created in the image of God?

You will have to ask God for that answer. I don't have it.

Quote: › “The foundations indicate something rather permanent. God has decreed the earth as unmovable. As unmovable it also shows that God deals with the earth in an unmovable fashion. He is concerned with only the earth.”

We should read this metaphorically you mean?

You interpret ‘unmovable’ as ‘concerned with only the earth?’ I can’t read that in it. I associate foundations and cornerstones with a building standing on something else. Certainly not with a globe traveling around a sun.

And how do you know to take something literally and when metaphorically? And why would God do this as it would easily lead to misunderstanding and misinterpretation. Why didn’t He simply write it down the way you interpret it if He meant it that way?
Not to mention that many, if not all, Christians of the past used to read such verses literally and thought the earth was flat? And in the center of the universe for that matter. I think that many thought the firmament was a solid dome resting on the earth. The holes in it were the stars. If God would have been more clear


I said:
“And if I understand it correctly, the original writings of the Bible are gone and is the Bible based on copies?”

Your answer:

Quote: › “Yes. However, the oldest manuscripts are evidence to sustain the bible's freedom from error in the newer manuscripts.”

How do you know if the originals are gone? You can’t compare anymore?

Quote: › “He has given the gift of teaching to many people over the years. Only when man interprets the bible from a natural perspective does it then become corrupted. God warns us of these people and to not follow them and their teachings.”

I agree that perspective indeed influences the way the Bible is interpreted. How can this be if the Bible is inspired by a God that wants us to know His truth? If you read a scientific paper for example, then there is very little, if any, room for different interpretations, even when some scientists might not agree with the conclusion. So language can certainly be used to be clear, certainly when a God is involved it should be?

And why does God needs to warn the religious for the natural perspective if the natural perspective is nonsense? Wouldn’t your logical God given mind help you come to that conclusion?

Quote: › “The biggest difference between the NH finds and the bible is doctrine. The reason for discarding them from the canon of scripture is that they contradict the teachings of the bible.”

I agree. So they had a number of religious writings and selected the ones that fitted their view?
You name a number of criteria, but as all the original writings of the Bible are gone you have no idea if the copies are correct or not. They might have been previously selected by others. And how do you know if they even have been written by the people who claim are the authors? In ancient times it was quite common to put the name of an authority under their own ideas to give them more weight. This happens even today.
This applies to your first 3 criteria.
Interesting info concerning this:




The 4th lifts itself up by the shoelaces:

Quote: › “4. The books must compliment the teaching of Christ. If they don't they are not from God. This is why the Koran is not scripture.”

So how did you know you started out with the right teaching? You might have started out with the wrong ones, like all the other teachings did according to you?
The Koran also claims the same for the same reason.

#4 actually reminds me of what a Muslim in ancient times once said while ordering the burning of books: “if it is not in the Quran it is false, if it is in the Quran it is not needed, so all other books are obsolete.”

If you use only your own teaching to measure the truth of a statement, you will never ever be able to determine if a statement in reality is false or not? If you gather the truth from as many sources as possible, wouldn’t you have a much better chance to determine what is correct or not?

In this case: if the Bible does not agree with any other source, than that other source is incorrect, for the Bible states the Bible is correct. The fact that many other holy books also state that they are correct and all other books are incorrect, proves that it is not correct as the Bible is correct. You will be reasoning in circles.

You are born in a Christian nation. Do you think you might have been a Buddhist when raised in, for example, a Tibetan family? (True Buddhist are not known to use pressure to convert others to Buddhism.)