The Bible is 100% true and to be read literally

jesus_freak said:
Wow I get the idea that I am talking to a bunch of teenagers who love Star Trek...Come on and admit it
Click to expand...

I'm 27 and don't like Star Trek. I could photcopy you my passport, but you'd still have to take my word on the Star Trek thing.

That "admitted", care to address my previous point? I'm learning pretty rapidly that you're not really interested in engaging in substantive debate, JF.
 
Maybe you should get back to your own OP instead of doing your Jack Chick imitation.
 
jesus_freak said:
Judas could have tied a rope to a tree branch that extended over a cliff (after all, you have to get some space between your feet and the ground to hang yourself). In this situation, the rope/branch could have broke before or after death, and Judas plummeted to the ground and landed on some jagged rocks.
Click to expand...

But the bible does not say this, does it? You are just speculating. Your thread says "The Bible is 100% true and to be read literally" and yet when I point a clean contradiction you resort to speculating.

Now which verse is correct in this 100% true bible of yours

Did Judas hang himself

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)

or by falling

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)

No speculating now.....
 
jesus_freak said:
Maybe you really should start to give it thought, and give me an answer.
Click to expand...

Can you actually read? That little epithet perfectly sums up his opinions, in a witty and concise manner. I sense you're being deliberately obtuse, now.
 
jesus_freak said:
God gets mad at people like you that fall for Satans tricks because he sent his only Son to die for you so that you could have etenal life but you are not willing to see admit that...it's like you have closed your eyes and coplain because you can not see!
Click to expand...

Gee, and I thought the bible says that god is a god of love

"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (James 5:11)
"For his mercy endureth forever." (1 Chron. 16:34)
"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (Ps. 145:9)
"God is love." (1 John 4:16)
 
Okay, I have a bible question for you JF.

What were the last words of Jesus Christ?
 
Which mountain is it from which all the nations of the world may be viewed? (Matt 4:8 if you're following along at home)
 
cyborg said:
I fail to the relevance.

Do you believe your background is relevant to the truth of the Bible?
Click to expand...
You have stumbled into the problem of solipsism, which is the underpinning of much magical thinking.
 
Hi ya fellas... I'm no biblical scholar and so if I have gotten something wrong I hope you can forgive (and enlighten) me :wackyunsure:... Well my thought is this: if the grrrrreat flood is the result of man's sinful behavior why didn't the G.O.D send his son (Apolonius Christ) to the world then to asume their sin instead of instigating a massmurder from which the only survivors were one man, his family and a few animals... Can anybody say inbreeding... all together now ...1 ...2 ...3 ...INBREEDING!!!
 
jesus_freak said:
Really you are falling back on lies already?
Click to expand...
No, we are playing word games with you because you are convinced of something that can only be true by allowing you word games way beyond those we are doing to you/with your material. If the Bible is inerrant, is the word of god incarnate, then you can't have the excuse of mis-translation/copy errors/ printers devils, etc. If god (existed and) meant the bible to be inerrant, it would be. There would be no need for a discussion like this, no question that needed footnotes to "cover it". Every version of the bible would be, regardless of language, the same. That is not the case so either the bible is not actually the "WORD OF god" or it is, but he slipped up after the first writing. You wish to believe otherwise and are free to do so but your "evidence" - at least that you have presented here - does not begin to support that belief. What you have may be called delusion or faith (or both) but it is not evidence or a search for truth.

By the by, I am 60. And, while Star Trek is ok and I watched it, I am not now, nor have I ever been a Trekkie.
 
Last edited:
jesus_freak said:
Maybe you really should start to give it thought, and give me an answer.
Click to expand...

I've given it all the thought I need to, thank you. It took me many, many years to get over the egocentrical notion that death was something I would "experience", when in fact it is (from my viewpoint) no different from the eternity that lapsed before I was born. I don't waste too much time worrying about that, either.

Also, if I am wrong and there is eternal life after death, then it would be an existence without entropy (you know, that pesky force of nature that guarantees that nothing lasts forever), and therefore without time. This existence would be so different from anything I've experienced that I couldn't even imagine what it would be like (if it's even logically possible). Therefore, there is really no point in thinking about it.

Don't presume to know whether or not I have given something thought. There was a time when my beliefs weren't that much different from yours. Unfortunately, I wasn't as skilled as you at reconciling inconsistencies in my belief system, so I simply stopped believing in things that are inconsistent with reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom