kazadoom said: That is not true superchunk. The book of James defines what true faith is. Salvation is only by Grace through faith, but James defines what that faith looks like. James states that faith without works is a dead faith, in other words non-existent. That does not contradict anything. It is merely the Bible defining itself. You need faith to be saved, and works are the evidence of that faith. You are not saved because you do good things, you do good things because you are saved.

 I would generally agree with you. However, I know for a fact there is a part where Paul/Saul says specifically that works get you no where and only, I repeat only faith in Jesus is needed.

To me there is an obvious contradiction between what Paul and James said. 

Here is a decent discussion on the matter. Here they suggest that James and Paul are mearly choosing their words based on their audiences. i.e. telling them what they want to hear rather than the absolute truth. This also suggest that God is not the author, as God would have one way not a few essentially different ways.

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/james/Background/FaithWorks.htm 

marciosmg said: @superchunk - i have been reading a bit on the subject and many scholars say that what James said is not a contradiction to what Paul said. I dont have time to do this now as i have to leave, but if you look it up on google or wikipedia (epistle of james), you´ll find what i am talking about. Thanks for all the information you gave me today. P.S. - all this thing about contradictions in the bible (i mean in the new testament), seems to be because each was written to a specific group in mind, so they would emphasize different things and maybe that gives people an idea that is contradictory. But you know more this than me, because you have a degree on this, so i will just shut up now. Thanks again.

 You're right. I said, I view this a s a contradiction. Read my post just above. same topic. To me when one says one thing and some one else purportedly from the same group says something different then that is a contradiction. If others want to think it is ok since it is a different audience then that's their thing. It sounds dishonest for them to tell people what they want to hear just to sell them the idea.

bluesinG - pretty common ones there.

#1 -
Ahaziah's age of confirmation

The "problem":

The King James Bible (as well as the majority of "original manuscripts") says of Ahaziah:

2Ki 8:26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.

And it also says:

2Ch 22:2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.

The "stock" answer:

The King James Bible and vast majority of "original" manuscripts are obviously wrong. It is a simple copyist error.

The truth:

Look again at the context of 2nd Kings 8:26:

2Ki 8:25 In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign. 26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

This was eloquently explained in the notes from the Geneva Bible (circa 1599 A.D.). I'll just quote it:

"Which is to be understood, that he was made king when his father reigned, but after his father's death he was confirmed king when he was forty-two years old, as in 2Ch 22:2."

So there you have it.

#2 -

view the pronoun "he" in the phrase "Jehoiachin was eight years old when 'he' began to reign", as referring to his father Jehoiakim spoken of in verses 4 - 8. Only in the 2 Chronicles passage is there an antecedent in the previous verse referring to his father.

"Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and his abominations which he did, and that which was found in him, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah: and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead. Jehoiachin was eight years old when he ( Jehoiakim - his father ) began to reign, and he ( Jehoiachin- his son) reigned three months and ten days." The passage in 2 Kings 24:8 where it says Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he began to reign has no such antecedent

therefore like the first it is a matter of telling how old he was when his father began to reign and then how old he was when he himself began to reign.

The bible cannot be used as the basis for any scientific research since it requires faith at a certain point.

Personally, I believe the bible was written at a time when people when came up with mystical reasons for natural phenomena.

As for Noah's Ark, the world was simply not covered in water for 40 days and 40 nights. The mass extinction that would have ensued would not have been recovered from to this day. Not only that, there is simply no record for it. There are records of many parts of many continents being covered at some point, but we are talking about geologic time here. Nothing like that has existed since the end of the last ice age (and a long time before that). Humans and close genetic cousins have been around for a pretty long time, far longer than many creationists believe that even the earth had been around.

Life has been on earth for a few billion years, most of that being single celled organisms whom we have to thank for pumping oxygen it the atmosphere. Complex life pops up about 600 million years ago.

No, man did not exist at the same time as dinosaurs. They are separated by several million years. First of all, the conditions are completely wrong for dinosaurs to exist. All the flora and fauna at that time of the dinosaurs was suited to the same very warm wet environment in which they lived. So, even if you want to say that they were created to be next to man, God would have to have been a complete retard with no understanding of the environment he created. It would be on the level of buying a bowling ball sized fishbowl filling it with saltwater and tossing a koi from a big pond in it. The fact of the matter is that when people from that time saw something they didn't understand, the stories of the creature grew to be far larger than the creature. If man had lived in an environment of any other era than the one we exist in today, they would have either been food for something else or would have had nothing to eat. The reasons you don't see big reptiles around today is that the world is simply just not warm enough for them. Mammals are much better suited to this generally colder climate.

It is a copout argument to say that the earth was created with a history. It is a child-like response to someone bringing you evidence that the past wasn't the way you think it is.

superchunk said: kazadoom said: That is not true superchunk. The book of James defines what true faith is. Salvation is only by Grace through faith, but James defines what that faith looks like. James states that faith without works is a dead faith, in other words non-existent. That does not contradict anything. It is merely the Bible defining itself. You need faith to be saved, and works are the evidence of that faith. You are not saved because you do good things, you do good things because you are saved.  I would generally agree with you. However, I know for a fact there is a part where Paul/Saul says specifically that works get you no where and only, I repeat only faith in Jesus is needed. To me there is an obvious contradiction between what Paul and James said.  Here is a decent discussion on the matter. Here they suggest that James and Paul are mearly choosing their words based on their audiences. i.e. telling them what they want to hear rather than the absolute truth. This also suggest that God is not the author, as God would have one way not a few essentially different ways. http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/james/Background/FaithWorks.htm

 Again, you may see it as a contradiction, but it is not.  Paul is right in saying that you cannot be saved by works and James is right in saying that true faith is backed up by works.  There is no contradiction there.  This is why someone can be saved on their death bed when there is no chance of works, and why someone cannot say that they are a Christian and live in deliberate sin against God.  Once again, You are not saved by doing good, you do good because you are saved.  Righteousness cannot be gained by doing good things, it can only be obtained through faith in Christ.  That faith will result in doing good works.  That is what James is saying, if you are not obeying the scripture and then say you are saved, you are not, because saving faith results in obedience.  You ought to be able to see this.   

kazadoom said: superchunk said: kazadoom said: That is not true superchunk. The book of James defines what true faith is. Salvation is only by Grace through faith, but James defines what that faith looks like. James states that faith without works is a dead faith, in other words non-existent. That does not contradict anything. It is merely the Bible defining itself. You need faith to be saved, and works are the evidence of that faith. You are not saved because you do good things, you do good things because you are saved. I would generally agree with you. However, I know for a fact there is a part where Paul/Saul says specifically that works get you no where and only, I repeat only faith in Jesus is needed. To me there is an obvious contradiction between what Paul and James said. Here is a decent discussion on the matter. Here they suggest that James and Paul are mearly choosing their words based on their audiences. i.e. telling them what they want to hear rather than the absolute truth. This also suggest that God is not the author, as God would have one way not a few essentially different ways. http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/james/Background/FaithWorks.htm Again, you may see it as a contradiction, but it is not. Paul is right in saying that you cannot be saved by works and James is right in saying that true faith is backed up by works. There is no contradiction there. This is why someone can be saved on their death bed when there is no chance of works, and why someone cannot say that they are a Christian and live in deliberate sin against God. Once again, You are not saved by doing good, you do good because you are saved. Righteousness cannot be gained by doing good things, it can only be obtained through faith in Christ. That faith will result in doing good works. That is what James is saying, if you are not obeying the scripture and then say you are saved, you are not, because saving faith results in obedience. You ought to be able to see this.

     Damn.  He said ought to.  Something's wrong with you if you can't understand the very clear fact that opposites can both be true at Liberty University.

 

Timedog said: Re; Liberty University http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_z85O0P2M&source=rss Also, cocks

This YubeTube video is pretty awesome. It's Dawkins taking questions at a school in Lynchburg, and a bunch of students from Liberty University are there to talk to him. It's a nice look at what kind of people come out of the same educational tradition as Kazadoom.

 

 

 

 

 

Simple really John 4:16

Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” (John 14:6).

The father being god in heaven.

Is it just me or is this thread reaching the epic threshold.

kazadoom you do have some stamina for arguing this subject, you are slowly cycling through half the vgchartz community. While others against you come and go you remain.

Why so much noise about this topic? Jesus is the only way to heaven. The bible says it and everything the bible says is the truth. You can choose to ignore it but that doesn't make it any less true just like PS3 fanboys refusing to accept Wii is next gen does not change the fact that Wii is currently kicking PS3's butt.

And if anyone thinks the bible is inconsistent it is because he doesn't understand it.