the codex sinaiticus

@OldArmy

eta, some Christians find it ... unpleasant

eta2
o and the Codex Vaticanus

the oldest that might be closest to the truth

So... Is that how the RX7 and Miata came to be? They sacrificed the V8 for the wankle and the 4pot?

......... no

i like the D

fucking GOLD!

speaking of things that bother me, the Zoroastrian account on the Apocalypse, this one part of it.

7. "And great battles shall have happened three times, in three places, in internecine dispute, O Spitaman Zartosht!
8. "One was in the reign of Kae-us, when it was with the Beneficent Immortals with the help of the devs.
9. "And the second will be when thou, O Spitaman Zartosht, wilt have accepted the Religion and wilt have thy conference, when king Vishtasp and Arjasp ill-born-of-Eshm will be engaged in the war of Religion, in internecine dispute, on the Sapit-razur;" [know that there was some one who said that it was in Pars.]

10. "And the third will take place when thy millenium will end, O Spitaman Zartosht! when all the three, the Turk, the Tazik, and the Aruman will arrive at one place;" [know that there was some one who said that it was the field [118] of Nihavandak;] "all men of the Iranian villages which I, Ohrmazd, created, will come to Patash-khvar-gar, from their own place"; [know that there was some one who said that it was Atar-gushnasp on the deep lake Chechast of warm water which is opposed to the devs; know that even thither Religion became manifest; know that there was some one who said that it was in the month of Pisces; Atrok said that it was in the month of Cancer;] "they will be so assailing those from amongst those of the seed of Eshm, over these Iranian villages which I, Ohrmazd, created, O Spitaman Zartosht! that out of these men towards Patash-Khvar-gar and Pars, and those animals residing in burrows, residing on the mountain and residing in the sea, only the whale will then remain.

11. "For, when the husband will be able to save himself, he will not remember his wife, children, and wealth."
12. Thereupon Zartosht said: "O Creator! give me and give my grandsons death," [that is, let them not live in that perverse period.]
13. He, Ohrmazd, replied: "Do not be afraid, O Spitaman Zartosht! for the day when the tenth century of thy millenium, the Zartoshtian, will end, no wicked person will pass from this millenium into that millenium."

sounds like nuclear oblivion of the middle east to me.

Eta, I was selfish in my outburst, I was selfish for wanting to be different, because I see her, along with the others that have seen her aswell, I forgot my place, she only Embraces those when there time is ready.

Only when your time is ready will you be back to the void, I am just hopelessly impatient.

You know, i hate it, i have read so much yet so little, religion after religion, non belief to no belief, science and math, i cant learn all that is currently known, its impossible, our life span is too short to amass such a large amount of knowledge, all the books, all the scientists and philosophers, i only see pieces of it, the damned truth, with more answers comes more questions, and more questions and more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more, no closer, no farther, neither here, or not here, all around, but unseen, so close, yet so far, and a life to short to find it.

the truth, Truth is what drives me to such spiritual insanity
Tao Te Ching 14
Look, and it can't be seen. Listen, and it can't be heard. Reach, and it can't be grasped. Above, it isn't bright. Below, it isn't dark. Seamless, unnameable, it returns to the realm of nothing. Form that includes all forms, image without an image, subtle, beyond all conception. Approach it and there is no beginning; follow it and there is no end. You can't know it, but you can be it, at ease in your own life. Just realize where you come from: this is the essence of wisdom.

when i dream, i stand naked in a sea of white sand, with the sun to the left, moon to the right, and a black hole in the center of the sky, with light dots of distant stars, i see a single black egg with the words "truth/god is beyond/within this shell/vessel", the words are in Ancient Chinese, but for some reason, i know that is what it says, i hold it in my hands, i try to brake the egg, but it is a strange metal, no tools around, only my hands, nothing but sand as white as rice, i break my teeth, i break my bones, i pull out my left eye and stuff the egg in the socket out of sheer frustration, nothing, dead silence, with only gentle winds to brush the sand.

i know you are there damn it.
i scream but you do not respond.
you see and hear all that is your creation.
but you dont let me touch you.
i need it, i need you desperately, all of humanity needs you.
but you cant be held.
you are our shadow.
i see you cast on the ground by the sun.
i try to grasp but all i feel is dirt, grass or concrete.

and others dont see it.
they dont see and not see, what i know and dont know.
i have some family and a husband.
but its not enough.
i drown my misery in material things and relationships with people.
but you are in the distance.
always watching always hearing.
never touchable.
grand gentle mother of all things, of all creation.
a creation so great that no matter how far we get in science and math we will never discover all your mysteries.
and they dont see not see it.
they either believe in something else.
or are totally blind, and say that their is no evidence of your existence.

im all alone with you in this sea of white.
your in my hands but i cant touch you.
so clear with your black metal finish.
words perfectly carved.
i can only assume the fetal position.
and hold you close to my heart.
in this sea of sand.
here but not here.
heres not here.

all i want is sleep.
with you gently stroking my head.
as i lay my head on your lap.
to be a child, something i never got to be.
at the end of all things.
but i guess i have to wait 60 more years.

why wont you hold me?
why wont you hold anyone?
please let me see you hold someone.
you barely caress me with your shadow.
please hold me.

please.

Sorry for lack of clarity, some passages were fabricated and others altered. Source for this is the introduction chapter to The Essential Gnostic Gospels published by Shamballa. I would need to look for an exact page number and see if they cite a source as well, not even sure if I have that book anymore come to think of it...

As to the first time you're hearing it, it's not surprising as most faithful take their holy books as absolutes from God, even though none of them are.  Everything is subject to the individuals own point of view. Therefore we must always be careful and take nothing on blind faith.

I hope you can hold tight a bit, I have something to say to this but parts guy just dropped off stuff for me so I have a date with a beat to fuck Peterbilt now

I agree about the blind faith comment. I'll do some digging on this, and consult my pastor.

Sorry LittlePony, not trying to jack your thread. I have nothing else to add or say really so I'm out. Please consider what I said earlier.

It sounds as though this thread has started delving into Textual Criticism.

I appreciate the civility on display. Sadly these kind of discourses do not happen often.

@littlepony, as you had mentioned, there was not a specific question but just sharing your thoughts. While I do not agree, I do appreciate your explanations as it allows me to ponder the views that others hold and how I might witness to them. I do pray that your heart might be open to God's love and salvation He has offered to you by dying on the cross for you. From my study no other god did that.

@dillonivik: speaking of the verse question, this is a MAJOR study that has stretched back to the beginning of Creation (Satan questioned Gods word when talking with Eve).

There are many who make very strong evidences that are based upon the actual Greek and Hebrew texts. I am no expert but have done some reading. One author I would recommend is Dean Burgon (he has at least 4 books that I would say gives a great start Here). His work on Textual Criticism and the damage it did and does is well documented. If I remember the statements wondering about Codex Vaticanus as well as Siniaticus this answers that.

@OldArmy

I hope you don't mind me jumping in with this author recommendation. And please, by all means post what you find out as I do enjoy learning.

Ok, hope you all have a great weekend.

ETA: there are other scholars to the same caliber as Burgon, but their names escape me at this time.

I am ashamed of my selfishness, edited outburst post.

On this post or the other?

Actually, I find that in our outbursts often contains more factual truth about where we are at and what we are really wanting than is ever stated in guarded conversation.

What I read is someone who is seeking for truth. Jesus said, "I am the way, The TRUTH, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." He also said, "Sanctify them by the truth; your WORD is truth".

In this thread it seems you wanted to just voice your thoughts and that is what this thread is for.

I guess my question is, are you seeking with an open heart? That, I am able to work with, answer questions and maybe help. I won't claim any superiority because I am still learning as well. However, I am 100% confident in my faith and Scriptures and their accuracy.

I know there was a little bit of movement into Textual Criticism and I am interested in the other posters thoughts.

But this is your thread and if you have questions or wish to have a dialog,  I will do my best to answer. In either case, you have my prayers.

ETA: also, seeking truth is NEVER selfish. However, truth is not what we design it or estimate it to be. It is not subjective but objective. It is also absolute. Sometimes, it hits me hard and I must yield. I can't just pretend that truth is anything but what it is.

my long post above, that is what

this thread is about voicing my thoughts, but anything is allowed

@Jarem08

There is nothing wrong with voicing thoughts.

I read through the thread and did enjoy the discussion.

I just wanted to make the statements that I did because if it was a post of seeking, I wanted to see where you were after this thread and maybe also help.

There were some great answers in here and the last thing I want to do is detract from any of that. I have about four projects going on now (one of which is a reading assignment hence I am able to type this on my not-so-smart-phone) so I don't remember everything mentioned in the thread. I would have to go back and re-read if needed.

All that to say if you do have a question, I will answer or get an answer as the case may be. I may not be able to answer right away though.

Just offering any help I can and telling you that I am praying.

thanks

I will accept responsibility for that. I tend to be more critical of long standing religions that are less tolerant of other faith systems.

There is nothing to be ashamed of. You painted in my mind a very beautiful picture of someone who knows more on an emotional level than the conscious rational mind is able to deal with currently.

What I wanted to say earlier is essentially that in my mind faith is not necessarily what God is but that God exists. I used to get wrapped up in what religion was the oldest thinking it would be more pure, and in finding clues as to ultimate meaning. I called this cerebral faith. I have decided ( my wife helped push me this direction) that ultimate meaning doesn't matter right now. Maybe when I meet God I will learn it. I have found it a hard process but very liberating to try to not worry about it. Try to live your life rather than spend your time searching for what it might be.
What I am trying to say is ultimately, try to stay out of your head do to speak. The heart and soul know much, the mind can easily get in the way.

Its not a problem. I just want to be cognizant of the OPs original intent for the post. If he is ok (@littlepony) with allowing a slight divergence, I would feel comfortable with a longer and deeper discourse. Just don't want to troll .

I wish to dig a little.

First, there is nothing wrong with questioning and being critical...as long as there is a point of arrival to a choice. The direction and decision is up to each individual.

In regards to your final statement, I understand the concept but the philosophy behind it may be confusing me.

When you say tolerant, do you mean acceptance? There is a difference and if you wish to continue talking, I can explain.

I probably should have asked, is this a conversation you want? I am not saying this snarkly but an honest question because I don't want to waist your time and I know my time is sometimes very tight.

I again will not push the issue as that is not my purpose. And please don't read this as an attack. There is no animosity or anger. Just a desire to help lead, teach and guide others to the truth of God's love and Salvation.

Seriously, I love this type of stuff, you are not even on the radar as far as launching an attack.

Anyway, when I say tolerant I mean a willingness to accept an alternate path. From the reading I have done there are so many similarities that I have a very hard time with exclusivity of salvation as it were. I also have a huge problem with some seemingly rejecting sound science and saying that science is in conflict faith.

I hope we are not derailing the conversation here. I hope this can continue as it is hard to get respectful theological conversations going, and even harder to get them going on the internet.

Great! One of my constant concerns is my writing will be miss-heard because of no voice inflection.

You raise some good questions, and I will answer. It can't be today as I am busy with church, getting the house ready for out of state guests and dinner guests today (in fact I am typing this on my phone as I wait for church to start ). I would like to respond tomorrow when I have time to give a response.

I just didn't want you to think I walked away, so I guess tagged for response later?

Thanks for your understanding.

Laozi: in thinking keep to the simple.

I just never knew how to stop, if found that the more you learn the more you will learn about yourself.

Yet.

If you read too much you will lose your self, fly to close to the sun, or read a elder scroll, it is madness, i just know now that i will never know more than what i do now, to pursue it further is pointless, I just know enough to not be blind

I'd like to clarify a little by what I meant by the black egg in the desert

The egg contains god and understanding.
But you have no tool which to try to break her container.
Even if you find a wood branch "math and science" in a sea of sand.
The egg is metal, the branch will brake.
All you can do is hold her in your hands.
She is inside and you can never get to her.
She might as well be as far away as a unknown galaxy.
But she sees beyond the eggs shell and sees me, sees all.
It is just my duty to carry her around and show her everything.
Siddhartha found the egg and found it great but unpleasant so he dragged it with dead vines.
Cunfusis found it pretty and interesting but kept it hidden in a wood box.
Laozi found it beautiful and wonderous, so he placed it in his wicker basket for all to see.
But I will hold it with at least one hand at all times untill the end of my days.
I will have that burden willingly.

Straight up I think I know how you feel LittlePony. Also I think the metaphor of the egg you used is perfect and like I said its a beautiful image.

thanks

@dillonivik

I haven't read it yet. I have read a little about it. Partially because I havent found a complete translated copy. Asked my pastor, he knows of them but hasn't read them either and didn't seem to interested outside of perhaps to help with answering my question.

Initially upon reading your claim honestly my first thought was it sounds like one of Satan's classic tools. Deception by planting the seeds of doubt. That's not an attack on you btw. I firmly believe God will not leave us without what we need. That's an immovable anchor as a Christian. So currently I don't really have an opinion on it.

Two thoughts:

First, what you are going through VALIDATES what the Scriptures have said for hundreds of years (Ecclesiastes 1:12-18)

Second, if knowledge as a goal is the final object to which we obtain, we miss the purpose of wisdom in the first place. What is the goal of wisdom? I can answer and only wish to answer where wisdom begins (Proverbs 1:7).

@oldArmy

A great book to do some precursor reading is, "Which Bible" by David Otis Fuller (a copy can be picked up here).

In it he introduces Dean Burgon on a very little level. I did get the other names. I have not read any of their works so I cannot attest to what I think about it.

J. Gresham Machen
Basil Gildersleeve
Some even argue for F.F. Bruce (as a classicist) is also spoken highly of.

Again, these three I know nothing about as far as their writings go so I cannot argue for or against them. However, David Fuller and Dean Burgon I find very accurate and precise.

Many times the topic of Textual Criticism is not studied or spoken about because

1) It is a very vast topic and it does take A LOT of delving into. In college, we were exposed to some and I have done some reading and studying as I have gone on.

2) Probably the other argument I have when dealing with Textual Criticism is the point of expediency. I would rather have an unbeliever or a skeptic actually pick of a copy of the Bible (One that is either a dynamic or formal translation and NOT a paraphrase) and read it and start to grow than not read it at all. So I am very cautious about where and how I present these arguments (I am not a professional BTW, just a student).

I know in my life I started with an NIV (Dynamic equivalency) and now use the NKJV or KJV as the need presses (both of which are Formal equivalency translation). We all start somewhere and as we learn and grow, our knowledge will increase and we will start to see things that does not fit right in our spirit.

Now that I have muddied the waters a little !

ETA: You mention a question or questions. Again, if I can help, I want to. What question(s) do you have if I can answer? If not, that is ok.

@dillonivik

Thank you for your patience and understanding. I will try to do this in an organized way so as to not have 18 posts going in 20 different directions. I also, because of the depth of these topics, would like permission to answer any questions when I am at my office. I have a computer (I use my cell phone at home only and typing long answers is a bear) and many of my resources that deal with these topics at my finger tips. With this, I do appreciate your understanding as to why I may or may answer for a day or two. I am not in my office on the weekend and one day during the week. But I will respond ASAP.

Also, please feel free to tell me when you are done with this discussion. The last thing I am going to do is drive on in ignorance as you are wanting to stop. I want to respect you as an individual and your time. I know you are busy as well.

To begin, you had made several conceptual thoughts that I wish to make sure I am on the right path.

First, you speak of a willingness to accept an alternate path as a form of tolerant.

Second, you (as stated) have an issue with the exclusiveness of Christianity in its characterization of itself.

Third, touching on Textual Criticism, there is a question about the truth, depth and scope of our Bible we hold today.

Fourth, I am wanting to know I am right in reading the last line, you are having a question about the union of science and faith and the seeming contradiction of both.

Just to help me know, am I on the right track or did I miss-interpret anything? I really don't want to send us off in a rabbit hole and or derail our discussion. I believe there is much good that can come out of it.

Lastly, @littlepony, I want to just know we are ok in using this thread or do you wish for us to make our own? As the OP, I do not want to derail or troll. Thank you.

Fine by me, I'm always curious of such things as well.

@Jarem08

The Hindus and Buddhists have something similar to what you have said as well, though they are more convoluted in their answer than that particular proverb

I've always liked the lyrics of this song

The only question I have is to the validity of earlier claims.

Essentially yes, just let me clarify two points.

First I hold some criticism of ALL texts as they are all written by human hands and therefore subject to the authors opinions. I dont believe any text to be fully pure or divine.

And second my ideas on science and religion. I believe them to be two separate yet related fields. While they both seek truth they do so in different modes, and modes that do not necessarily inform one another. Science takes the physical path. Through experimentation and verification science seeks to find where things came from and how things develop and the function of the natural world. Religion takes the metaphysical path. Religion seeks to explain origins though introspection and faith. Here read faith simply as the unseen. So while they both have the same end goal, they do so in different ways that do not cross over. Therefore to say one is correct and the other wrong, or that one is superior and the other inferior is in my mind silly at best.

I belive much the same, though for me, in some ways they do cross over, and at the end I think you need both to find the real truth.

@LittlePony

You seem to be very versed in Hinduism, Buddism and other Eastern Religions. Do you know when these religions in any form (writing, teaching, organization, etc.) appeared?

How about the writings that you reference in the above quote?

@OldArmy

You are referencing the earlier claims of the older manuscripts being the best?

If that is not the right question, could you just refresh my mind on topic exactly? Thanks.

@dillonivik
@LittlePony

Between the two of you, I wish to commend you both on the part of truths that you have spoken.

@dillonivik, you said that science is indeed important and required but it deals with the physical and testable things! Absolutely! You are 100% correct. You also mentioned that Faith deals strictly with that which is unseen. Absolutely! What I am many times saddened for those who are Christian that try to force science to do what Faith does. Science must be testable, repeatable, observable. Faith does not. Faith is something else.

@LittlePony, I also commend you because you said that both are required and there is some meeting (not overlap). I agree with this whole heartedly. Science, while it may not be able to PROVE God, does in fact give us observable, testable, measurable EVIDENCES for God.

It is very rare to have three different belief of faith and Science meet at a juncture like this. I will now comment below with Dillonivik's last post. Just wanted to put this out there.

Since you hit on the Science and Religion the way that you do, I am going to try and tackle this one early because it can help us to come to an agreement at least.

I will agree with you as far as your knowledge of separate and related fields. Indeed, truth is found in both and I would agree with that as well as the knowledge that they help support each other. Your recognition though of their limitations is vital as many convoluted the aspects of what they are intended to do.

The one part that I would agree that as a Christian, I take Science for what Science is and does. I take Faith for what it is and does. I can bring the evidences that are observable from Science to help validate my Faith and I can take my faith to give explanations to my Science.

Here is my question that will help me to know. Since we know Science and Faith are not one in the same, are we on the same page that Science cannot prove or disprove Creation or evolution? Both of these are taken by faith and I have talked with many that try to use Evolution to PROVE the existance of things such as the big bang and the first atom but then mock when a Christian tries to use science to PROVE God exists?

I take this position that proof is observable, testable, repeatable. However, I do believe that the EVIDENCES (which give us inferences) can lend one way or the other to give validity. One ministry that I find that does this very well is Institute for Creation Research

Are we in agreement here? If not, that is ok and I will cover this in the order of my observations in the post above.

Let me now start of with my first observation about the tolerance that should be had for other ways of salvation or to God depending on which religion is adhered to.

Tolerance and Acceptance are in fact two different things.

Christians do tolerate other beliefs. In fact we tolerate it so much that we (or we shouldn't) do not blow up buildings, slaughter worshipers in their places of worship, attack them in the street, declare Jihad or "holy war" on anyone whom we disagree with. Now, are there some Christians that give others bad names? Absolutely! The same can be said about ANY GROUP.

By and large, Christians are called to live peacefully with all men (this includes those we may fundamentally disagree with) - Romans 12:18; Hebrews 12:14; Psalm 34:14; Matthew 5:9; Psalm 37:27 and others.

This also brings out a question that goes beyond the scope of our topic at this point and that is how this fits in with many Christian's view of the peace position, war, firearms, etc. I do have where I believe is a balance but again, that is my reading. My goal, however, is to live as peacefully as I can.

Tolerance is not acceptance. What I am perceiving is that you have a hard time with any belief that does not accept other ways. As Christians, we cannot (I will delve deeper into this as we get into the expressed exclusivity of Christianity). The reason we cannot is because of the clear and pure teaching found in Scripture - John 14:6; John 10:9; Romans 5:2; Ephesians 2:18; Hebrews 10:19-20; John 1:14-17; John 11:25, and many, many others. I can in fact add at least a dozen or more that show the exclusive claims that Jesus makes and that are supported by others. It is because of this, Christians cannot accept any other way. Tolerate others and how they say, yes. Buddhist, Muslims, Catholics, Christians, any other all believe to hold the answer. There are many that do accept all ways. However, the claims found in the Scripture (we will deal with the authority and perfection of the Scripture and how Biblical Criticism either helps or not at a later time).

Let us use a hypothetical situation. Let's say your neighbors house is on fire. For the sake of our discussion, you are the only one that sees this fire. You run up to the door and say, "YOUR HOUSE IS ON FIRE...CALL THE FIRE DEPARTMENT". His house is fully engulfed in flames. Instead of doing so, he says, "Fire department? Why? If my house is on fire, I can just use my fire extinguisher. It seems pretty harsh to say that I HAVE to call the fire department to save my house and family. Any way to put out the fire is ok."

What would your thoughts be? I know, I know. It is a goofy illustration. But as a Christian, the parallels are still there. As a Christian, we hold to a singular way to enter heaven. Everything else is a house that is burning down. We, as Christians, run up to the individual and we say, "MAN! LOOK OUT, YOUR HEADING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. THERE IS NOTHING THERE AND IT IS LEADING TO DESTRUCTION! CALL ON JESUS TO SAVE YOU!" As a Christian we know the end of all who do not trust. We see the final judgment and the result of choices. As a Christian, there are many times we are told, "I don't need Jesus. I don't need HIS way. I got this on my own. I can do it just fine."

Now, drawing the comparison, if it is a fire in the house, any neighbor can call the fire department. If your neighbors house or field were on fire, I hope you would call the fire department. But as a Christian, we cannot just "call salvation" for the individual. This is why we cannot ACCEPT many ways to heaven. Yes, I can tolerate and I do. I cannot accept their Soteriology.

The question I have then is where is the tolerance for Christians? As a Christian, I am (not me personally that I have known yet) discriminated against. My faith is called old fashion. I am told to keep it in the church or home. I am not allowed to run my life and business by my belief. I am told that a lawsuit is waiting just around the corner. In some parts of our nation there have been Christians murdered because they believe in God (the church shooting in TX). Even around the world, Christians are hunted down, they are persecuted, martyred and disposed of in very horrific ways because they do not hold to the same religious view as others.

Courts regularly (there are some exceptions) go against the belief of the Christian for the sake of cultural relevancy. So again, when the thought is made of tolerance, where is the tolerance for Christians? Yet, this has been what has been foretold to those who chose to be Christian - 2 Corinthians 4:8-12, 2 Timothy 3:12; Psalm 34:19 and others. Even with this, we still chose to accept Jesus. Why? Because we know and recognize our need for Him to save us. We honestly understand the depth that Jesus went through to bring us back into a relationship with Him. He came to earth, lived perfectly, the entire law (which the law tells us how far we have fallen and how much we cannot make it up) and then died on the cross. He, who was perfect, took MY PLACE. I was to be the one on the cross. I was to be the one who was to face God without a propitiation. I was to be the one who was to stand before an almighty judge who, in His holiness and perfection, would be fully right and true to declare me guilty because I have violated His laws and commands. I deserved that. But Jesus, wanting to restore my relationship with God, took my place. Carried my sins to the cross and was nailed. His blood was poured out on my behalf.

He cleared the way for me. It is in His righteousness I stand. It is in His life I stand. My old man (although he still pops his head up every now and then) is dead and that dying is a constant fight. But that is a whole other topic and one that I would be more than happy to delve into if you wish!

So, back to topic. Yes, I do, as well as other Christians, tolerate other beliefs. Acceptance though? It is either through Jesus or it is not. We cannot deny what has been revealed to us through the Scriptures (Again, I will delve into that in another post). If this is what is holding you back from honestly looking at Christianity and more specifically Jesus for salvation, first, I ask your forgiveness on behalf of the Christians who truly do desire to live godly and peacefully. Please do not let one group of "Christians" be the sole focus on your decision. As Christians, we are given a free will. Some just use that free will in wrong ways.

As a side note, this is why I prefer the term "Christ Follower" vs "Christian". There seems to be a lot of "Christian" name being thrown around without living the "Christian" faith. A "Christ Follower" now allows the separation between those who actually practice their faith and live it and those who just claim a title.

Ok, last statement and I leave it with you to ether continue this discussion or move to the next point.

do you have any questions about anything I have said? Any disagreements? Any thoughts? Again, nothing here is an attack and I am desperately trying to word and phrase my sentences so as to keep from that perspective. I say all I did with the upmost respect and prayer that it is not taken as me being vile. I do not wish to move on until I know we have exhausted this topic and as you can see...it is quite a bit.

I hope you have a good day and if you do answer (which please do not feel obligated to do so right away because the depth of concept here is a huge magnitude) I will try to respond ASAP. I do have some guests coming from out of state and they will be arriving here tonight. If I don't answer immediately, I am doing some running around and visiting. Thank you for your discussion as I am enjoying it immensely.

I believe it was dillonivik that claimed the letters Paul sent to the churches across Israel had portions fabricated.

Hinduism is too ancient to know, much like some of the now-dead Mesopotamian religions, Stone Age Era stuff, some of the earliest surviving articles of literature are texts from Hinduism, Siddhartha, or Buddha as he is most commonly known is more recent and documented, It's actually an Indian religion that had more success going Eastward to the more virgin lands of China.

As far as the writings of hindu hang on it may take a little bit, have a busy day today.

Prajna in Buddhism has tones that brush against it in some parts, and everything relates back to the Four Noble Truths.

@Jarem08

When I think about it, you are right, amusing that this meeting turned out to be on a gun form of all places, perhaps maybe that has a reason involved in it as well, philosophically speaking I mean.

Virtues of freedom and all that I mean

@Jarem08

@OldArmy

Ok. I know there is a work that deals specifically with Paul's writings. I have dove into my library and I thought I had it but I don't. I will do some research to find it.

On a general scale, I will try to answer quickly here.

1) There were some false letters that had been sent out in Paul's name. In fact, many Scholars agree this is the reason for Paul's writing of 2 Thessalonians (more specifically 2 Thessalonians 2:2). Could some of these false letters exist? I assume so because when we are dealing with something of this age, anything is possible (It was only two years ago or so they found the oldest existing manuscript of Mark!). It would not be uncommon for an individual, trying to build a name for his writing, to actually pin a very popular name to their own work. During the time of the writing, this form of plagiarism was actually a sign of honor to the one who's name was used. I don't know if that makes sense.

2) When we deal with Textual Criticism, of which this is part and parcel of the discussion, we will look at the accuracy of the Texts that we have in our Scripture. One concept that continually comes up is the idea of message. By removing any of the Pauline books, we do incomprehensible damage to the whole of the text in general.

I will try to find that book. It actually does a great job giving an answer to the seeming additions found in Paul's writing. I will get back on this ASAP.

To use a modern American expression, Everyone likes to have their hand in the cookie jar

Ops double post

@LittlePony

I am studying so I can answer fully, but based on a precursor study, you are right. The Hindu religion is old. One of the key components of it is the first writings, according to Hindu scholars, show up about 1500 B.C. Add a few more years due to it being a oral tradition culture and you are looking at 15-1800 years which is actually authoritatively and historically conclusive.

Buddhism also has, as you pointed out, some equivalence into this as well. Just my short study has revealed several areas that it does, as you state, brush up against one another.

I do have some thoughts, but until I can really process it, I ask for your patience because I do wish to also address your discussion of God which started this thread as well. I just want to make sure I know a general basis of what I speak for you are far more versed in it than I.

I do agree with you. It is interesting how meetings like this can come to pass. As a Christian, we would call it a divine appointment that God had ordained. I have to be honest...I am humbled that God has allowed this to meeting and discussion to occur.

Now...guess I had better get back to work .

Talk to you all later then and I will respond to any questions, thoughts and comments or move to the next thought, ASAP. Have a great day!

@LittlePony
@Dillonivik
@OldArmy

@LittlePony

That is a perfect statement. But to them in the Jewish culture, it was of the highest order and honor to be counted worthy of having their name on your work .

How things have changed. Now, we get into trouble by not footnoting and end noting everything.

No real need. That suggest highly what I was already thinking.  Thank you for taking the time to respond.

For me I know God set things in motion, but I also fully believe in evolution, there is evidence of this around us. Just last month there was a study done about an indigenous tribe of people in Papua New Guinea. They are deep water divers and their bodies have actually changed by enlarging the spleen to store more oxygen to allow for deeper longer dives. I think too many people get wrapped up in the idea that evolution means one species is changing into another. While this happens it takes millions of generations. This concept is impossible to hold if you subscribe to the young earth theory.
ETA: The real big problem when debating evolution and creationism is both take vast amounts of faith, because as creationism is not verifiable but evolution still has holes in the idea. Also this is made more difficult for evolutionists I believe because it is changing over time. Modern evolutionary theory is not the same put forth by Darwin. Evolution is evolving. A few books with amazing insight on this are "Anarchy Evolution" and "Is Belief in God Good Bad or Irrelevant". Both are by Greg Graffin (yes the lead singer and song writer of Bad Religion, hes also a doctor of zoology and lecturer on evolution at UCLA) while the second is a compilation of emails sent between him and Christian professor, Preston Jones.

Second yes by tolerance I do mean acceptance. To me its all about the ego. If one says they have the one path that is an ego driven statement, ego gets in the way of the spiritual development. Ultimately we are not God, so we dont know the one true path. I try to listen to my soul, its the only part of me that has ever known God, so if I listen well enough it will guide me.
This quote perfectly illustrates one of my biggest dogmatic misgivings with Christianity. People put too much weight on the writings of Paul. Modern Christianity is no longer the faith of Christ, but the faith of Paul. Apologetics has taken over the modern Christian church and is one of the biggest reasons I left.

Thank you, it is rare to have divergent beliefs meet in such a civil way.

I can wait

@Jarem08

You are right in the fact that God started everything (Genesis 1-2). However, this position here is called Theistic Evolution. Even most secular, full blown evolutionists mock Theistic Evolution as not being genuine.

Maybe I should qualify the term Evolution. There are two forms of "Evolution", Micro and Macro. Micro, is what you reference here in regards to the diver. I will agree with this. We do find variations and adaptations in our world around us. The human body is an amazing marvel of design. There is no machinery or mechanism that can do what the human body can do. For these Papua New Guinea Tribe, it is not hard to see how this is possible. In fact, if you were to practice your breathing exercises and copy some of the things that they do, you also will have the same capabilities. But that is not evolution. You are going from a man to a man. Same design. The genes are already there. The DNA has not changed, nothing really is different except the ability to hold breath. There is not an evolutionary change on a Macro scale.

Macro scale is what I do have a disagreement with. Macro says a frog will eventually turn into a snake, which then will grow legs and so on so forth (Dinosaur to birds belief). Usually evolutionists and even Theistic Evolutionists MUST hold that adaptations and mutations will give the desired results. The problem on that level is that mutations are very rarely neutral at best and commonly destructive at worst. So that negates any form of advancement.

Charles Darwin also said (and I am paraphrasing) that if transitional fossils were not found, his theory was to be discarded. That hasn't happened. Instead, as you even correctly pointed out, the theory that is upheld now is NOT the same one that Charles Darwin held. I can explain some of that away by saying we know more now than he could have then because of our technology. However, that still does not negate the fact that evolution MUST change just to try and answer what is discovered. This constant moving of the "goal posts" as it were brings about several issues.

1) There is no set foundation. Therefore what is believed now can be completely trashed tomorrow. How can anyone trust that?

2) Even with all the moving of ideals, they still have yet to answer the greater questions that must be answered, "Who are we?", "Where did we come from?", "why are we here?", "What is our purpose?" and lastly, "Where do we go when we die?" They attempt to answer but the fact that they are not firm in their belief but are willing to be blown around tells me they don't even have a clue.

3) They require more faith for their "evidence" than simply believing that God created. The assumptions they must jump through to make things work is unreal.

4) They deny the very order, beauty, structure, intelligence that is seen in nature yet try to maintain that these are for a purpose. In Evolution, there is no purpose.

5) They cannot answer why the apparent double talk they present. They tell us that the laws of Thermodynamics are steadfast, and firm (hence they are called laws). Yet they throw those very laws out, when expedient, to uphold their view.

6) They have now tried to say that life did not start on this planet but came here. Not only is that a reversal of their belief all these years, not only is that still not an answer to how life began out there (they still have to answer it), they are telling all who have believed and trusted them evidence that they are untrustworthy. They basically pulled the rug out from under their own feet in consistency.

Theistic Evolution is also a relatively new thing. It does desire to combine what seems to be seen in nature with the Bible. A big proponent of said belief is Hugh Ross. I have read a couple of his books and I got absolutely nothing out of it. I just am not able to wrap my mind around his writing and that is probably to my own detriment. He tries to force belief into Science. But what was it that has already been said, you cannot combine them in that method (which you had also agreed with me). But even Theistic Evolution has major issues. Now, when it comes to Theistic Evolution, there is an acceptance that God started the process (which you agree to). Which means you must believe the first part of Genesis (how else do we know God started it). So, here we go with their set backs.

1) Evolution of the Macro sort, still requires transitional fossils. They don't exists, and the ones that are claimed to be in existence is even negated because scientists cannot agree on it themselves.

2) It makes God out to be a liar.

3) It destroys the very notion again of what is lacking in evolution (beauty, order, structure).

4) The laws of Thermodynamics (which is testable, verifiable, observable) deny the very structure and operation of Evolution.

5) It doesn't make sense in the very character of God as to why He did it this way.

6) Theistic Evolutionists still moves the goal post to fit what secular science claims to have found.

7) It does not give a solid foundation for the adherents to believe.

8) It subjects our knowledge of God to that which man deems reliable. (If God is the one who started the process, we are the result of said process, who are we to tell God when he does and does not do something right?)

For both Evolution and Theistic Evolution, there are MAJOR holes (as you correctly pointed out) in they train of thought. This is why Occam's Razor is so pertinent. There are many ways he is quoted but it all has the same meaning. It says, "The theory that has the least amount of assumptions is the correct one".

We practice this in our courts today, in our daily lives, in our steps we take, everything. His statement rings true to every part of our life. The decisions we make are done so with the facts that we have. The choice that has the most facts and the least assumptions is the decision we go with. Why not the same for creation?

This leaves us with the young earth creation. I have one assumption. God created everything as it is and it was designed perfectly. That is it. Henry Morris, who is considered to be the Father of the Young Earth Theory, only re-iterates that which was already stated in Genesis. Young Earth is as old as the earth is. We hold that to be anywhere between 6-10K years.

The evidence that you speak of, I do wish to hit on that just briefly before I move to your next point. Evolution cannot and does not explain the order that is in the universe. It does not explain how math works. It does not explain the structures we see. Since evolution is based upon chance, violence and chaos, it has no rhyme or reason. How do we explain the order? Also, how do we explain our sun? How do we explain us as humans? It all fits when you add a creator.

When we add a Creator, things now make sense. With a Creator as wise as God, of course everything will have order. Of course the variety in nature will be seen. Of course we have the ability to work with math and science and have observations that are true. The other aspect, as a Creationist, I also have not changed or had to change my core belief to fit. I have a firm foundation, a bedrock. God created.

To speak of the time, first, it is told to us it was six days. I don't want to go as deep into the Hebrew as we could. The word day in Genesis can mean, a day or a period of time. However, there are two notions that limit our understanding and definition. First in Genesis the term Evening and Morning. That cannot be interpreted any other way. Second, in Exodus, Moses also points out that it was six days. How can Moses say six days when something else is in sight? Also, when we talk about age, many evolutionists look at things and say, "That looks old". Age cannot be seen. Something can be almost new and look old. It is a matter of how hard it is used. Sin is very hard on creation. In fact, the Bible says that creation groans because of the evil done in it. Could that affect what we see? Why not?

I do wish to deal with the concept now of acceptance. The terms of acceptance and tolerance cannot be interchanged. That is a new form of speech that says words don't have meaning. The idea of it being an ego is, sadly, not foreign to some (Case in point). For that, if this is what you ran into, I apologize on behalf of true Christians. One thing I ask, and please be honest, have I been egotistical in anything I have said? Have I flaunted my belief and mocked others?

A true Christian is not going to be egotistical about salvation. It is not ours to be so. It was given to us by God's love. For me to then try and use it as an attack or to lord over anyone...I am not being faithful with my belief as I am taught. Also, by spiritual development, we are told to TEST the spirits. Not all spirituality is good. If I have to walk away from something that looks good because it is not helpful, I am developing. Also, the statement of inclusion that you are speaking of, I find that those who want inclusion, exclude those who disagree. By inclusion, my belief that Jesus is the only way, must be accepted by the very notion of inclusion. It also runs into the problem of truth and moral absolutes. There is truth. There is right. By trying to say that everything is true, it negates everything so everything is false. The very nature of truth means that something is wrong.

As I have been typing this, some things have come up at work. I will hit on your point about the writings of Paul and the Scriptures in greater detail when we come to our topic of Textual Criticism. I do wish to state though that the statement I made actually supports my view of the integrity of Scripture to a full degree. I wish I could delve into that right now. I will try to get back on ASAP. I am so sorry I do have to finish and I ask forgiveness for the interruption. I hope you have a great day!