Dan56

Truthful testimony is subjective, no matter how you frame it.. The person hearing or reading it decides whether the testimony is credible or not. If I tell you my house is green, you can either believe it or chalk it off as a lie. If I sent you a picture of my green house, you would either accept that as sufficient proof, or still have doubt and require evidence that the house pictured was actually mine. I could then show you a copy of the property deed with my name on it, but you might question whether the document was doctored.. If I sent a DVD of myself walking into my green house, you could question whether it was actually me in the video or whether the house I was walking into actually belonged to someone else..If I got 5 people to testify that my house is green, you could write that off as just friends of mine who were willing to lie for me. If I performed some kind of miraculous miracle to prove my house was green, even that evidence would not likely suffice as it would be written-off as some unexplained trick. My point is that no testimony, witness, or evidence will persuade a person who has chosen not to believe. Christians hold the bible to be self-evident, so we perceive it to be the truth. I'd agree that there is no such thing as absolute evidence, but just as a juror is persuaded by the testimony of witnesses in a trial, Christians are likewise convinced by the record of biblical witnesses, and I wouldn't define either as liars.

Only the original autographs (original manuscripts written by the apostles, prophets, etc.) are under the divine promise of inspiration and inerrancy. The books of the bible, as they were originally written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21), were 100% inerrant, accurate, authoritative, and true. There's no biblical promise that copies of the original manuscripts would equally be inerrant or free from copyist errors. As the Bible has been copied thousands of times over thousands of years, some copyist errors have likely occurred, but Hebrew and Greek definitions can always be crossed checked word for word with the 469 different languages that the complete bible has been translated. It is important to remember that the biblical manuscripts we have today are in 99% agreement with one another. Yes, there are some minor differences, but the vast majority of the biblical text is identical from one manuscript to another. Most of the differences are in punctuation, word endings, minor grammatical issues, word order, etc. – issues easily explainable as scribal mistakes. No important theological or biblical issue is thrown into doubt by any supposed error or contradiction. Biblical manuscripts from the 15th century agree completely with manuscripts from the 3rd century. We can have absolute confidence that the Bible we have today is almost exactly identical to what the apostles and prophets wrote 2000+ years ago.

No, I never used the word "persecute", so your accusation that I'm reverting to a straw man argument is based on a false premise. I wrote that the Satanic symbol was used to irk & interfere with a Christian holiday. So I've tried to directly address everything point by point and have not attempted to divert the subject. As Jonathan just wrote; "The first symbol is an attack. The second symbol is a response to that attack". That has always been my point, the 2nd symbol (satanic statue) was not a religious attempt to celebrate a holiday, nor was it a demand for equal access, it was nothing more than a deliberate attack against the Nativity display and an attempt to interfere with a Christian holiday. I don't interpret that as 'persecution', but just an annoyance by a small group of ne'er-do-wells...You may see it differently, but that's how I see it.

The separation of church & state does not actually appear anywhere in the constitution; " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." So imo, it assures freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. And I do tolerate government laws even though I don't agree with all of them. All my responses are honest.. And yes, when you live in a society dominated by a similar belief, you generally need to make some adjustments and tolerate it, e.g; When in Rome. You don't have to be in the majority to discriminate.... And I never said I was persecuted by you? All I'm saying is that you can't demand that the Christmas tree be removed from the white house because your not a Christian. Public places are for the public, and if the country is predominately Christian, minorities need to put up with some Christmas lights, as painful as that may be for you. I only defend and explain my belief... My God is more than capable of defending Himself, but that is not necessary because He is beyond attack, so I'm relatively certain He see's you as no threat. I don't see how you differentiate the two? Your essentially saying that one religious symbol is bullying and the other is not.

I also wrote in the same post; "not that we have an original manuscript from 1000 BC" .. I simply meant that the Septuagint was translated from the original Hebrew language into Greek.. E.g; It wasn't translated from Latin text, but from Hebrew manuscripts. I don't believe its self-defense, but of course, that's how they're selling it. If they put a statue up at another time or in a different public space, I'd say they just want equality. But deliberately putting their stuff next to Christian symbology isn't self-defense, its an attack against something they despise and abhor. In regards to the scripture reliability, there are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. We have so many copies of the New Testament that there is no doubt about what they say on any Christian doctrine. While many copies have textual copyist errors, all of the manuscripts have basically the same words, with a difference of only 2.6%. Many text variations are due to Alexandrian vs.Byzantine issues. Copies of the Bible dating to the 14th century A.D. are nearly identical in content to copies from the 3rd century A.D.. The sheer volume of biblical manuscripts makes it simple to recognize any attempts to distort God’s Word. There is no major doctrine of the bible that is put in doubt as a result of the minor differences that exist between manuscripts.

Its not forced, 71% of Americans are Christian and enjoy it.. Less than 1% of Americans identify as Satanist, so 99% of us have no interest or desire to partake in anything they have to offer.. Making 99% of us endure what 1% insist on, is bullying.. But when the majority prefers to engage in what is being represented & celebrated, its called a consensus, not bullying. Those outside of the 71% need to learn to go along with the crowd, or just ignore what doesn't appeal to them and stay on the sidelines. My opinion is that the minority should tolerate what the majority believes, but no one is forcing them to accept it. What you guys are spewing is tantamount to saying that since less than 1% of people don't like sunshine, no one should be allowed to go outside on sunny days. Your definition of bigoted also makes my case, when the minority insist on force-feeding what they believe, and put statues or signs up to disrupt what most people believe, that demonstrates intolerance.. The pendulum swings both ways, its just a matter of which side your on that determines which side you think are bigoted. Imo, neither side is bigoted, they just want what they want.

And you assume "access" was their only motive because it fits your bigoted narrative. Exactly... Forcing a Satanic statue into a public place was an act of religious bullying.

The original doesn't need translating, but no originals exist.. Manuscript transmission is a human process, as copies are made of copies. So oddly , there are older Greek manuscripts than there are Hebrew. The Dead Sea Scrolls (dating between 250 B.C.E. and 68 C.E) contain the oldest Hebrew text, while the Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex are the oldest complete versions, written by the Masoretes in the 10th and 11th centuries. But the oldest translation of the Hebrew Old Testament is the Septuagint (LXX).. It translated the Hebrew into Greek in the third century BC in Alexandria, Egypt

Of course I agree with the historical Jesus, but I disagree with the article in regards to his birth date. He was likely born around Sept 28th, 4 BC... I think the course of Abijah that Zacharias served in the temple occurred in the June 13-19 time frame, and not the period of the end of Sept as the article notes. (The Companion Bible, 1974, Appendix 179, p. 200).

No, as I previously wrote; "Except for cases of prisoners of war, the term slave was generally used to describe indentured servitude, which was essentially equivalent to paid labor." The passage in Exodus is describing purchased slaves, not Hebrew bondmen who were placed nearly on a par with hired servants. Foreign slaves, whether prisoners taken in war (Canaanites), or persons bought in the market, were protected to a very great extent, but the regulation in verse 20 was not citing indentured servitude. "They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee." Leviticus 25:40 " “If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment." (Exodus 21:2)

Because of the socioeconomic situation of old testament Israel, God did allow slavery, but He allowed it for a simple purpose: to help the poor survive. A person could sell himself into slavery (akin to indentured servitude) in order to pay off debt or provide a basic subsistence. That is a far cry from the slavery endorsed by the south in the civil war, where people were captured and removed from their own country and forced to work at the end of a whip. Slavery in colonial America in the 18th century was fraught with racism and abuse, but in old testament Israel, entrance into slavery simply became a necessity for some. No one forced anyone else into slavery. The slave signed a contract agreeing to serve the master’s family for a period of 7 years. At the end of this time, the law required the cancellation of the contract. During the indenture period, the slave was entitled to all the rights of any other family member, except the right of inheritance. A good example is Jacob, in order to earn Rachel’s hand in marriage, he met with her father Laban and arranged to become a slave in the household for seven years. The main point was that the Nativity scene was in celebrating a specific date, while the Satanic statue was in protest. I didn't know that Atheist held the "laws of the land" as their morals? The law simply allows religious beliefs to be celebrated, whether its a Christmas tree or a Menorah for Hanukkah. The Satanic symbol was allowed the same access, but my point was that it was in celebration of nothing, but only a means of attempting to ridicule and interfere with what others hold sacred. By your own words, it was only a means to protest religious symbolism on public property.

No, I only wrote that the prophecy was written a thousand years before Christ, not that we have an original manuscript from 1000 BC The Septuagint (also known as the LXX - the Greek Old Testament) was translated from the original Hebrew Text, 285 years before Christ, into the language that was then predominant in the world. The Leningrad Codex is the oldest complete Hebrew manuscript of the Tanakh/Torah, 1009 AD.

Yes it does... "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16) "If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them." (Deuteronomy 23:15-16) "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28) The idea that God or Christianity encourages or approves of slavery is shown to be false. But since voluntary slavery was widely practiced during biblical times, the bible proscribes laws to protect the lives and health of slaves. Paul virtually ordered the Christian Philemon to release his Christian slave from his service to "do what is proper".

More baseless criticism. Many of the older manuscripts that predate Christianity read; “pierced my hands and feet”. This was later changed in the Masoretic manuscripts which predominantly date to the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. It was changed to read; “like a lion, they are at my hands and feet”. So if the original translation was changed in the post Christian era in order to conceal a prophecy about Christ, that's not anti-Semitism, its anti-Christian. Even the dead sea scrolls which predate Christianity have it saying; “pierced my hands and feet”. And by the way, can you explain; “like a lion, they are at my hands and feet”? Tell me how that even makes sense? Or be honest with yourself and acknowledge that the likely reason it makes no sense is because its a fabricated translation. The two Hebrew words for “pierced” and “lion” are remarkably similar. All that separates the two Hebrew words is the length of an upright vowel stroke, so its not so unfathomable to understand why "lion" was the chosen substitute, even though it formulates a ridiculous nonsensical phrase.

No, I just understand the bible and know that except for cases of prisoners of war, the term slave was generally used to described Indentured servitude, which was essentially equivalent to paid labor.

I'm a fundamentalist and can attest to the fact that we don't approve of slavery, so your comment just ain't true. In the other thread, what do you suppose the purpose of putting a satanic statue right next to a nativity scene was? It sure wasn't to celebrate a satanic holiday, it was a blatant and deliberate attempt to disrupt and interfere with a big Christian holiday. That to me is a form of oppression, they can't stop it, so they attempt to ruin it. My point was that they don't have an official definitive set of moral values that they abide by, and not that Atheist don't have independent morals. The difference is that Christian morals are based on something.

I don't get your point, your confirming that I was correct? Yes, the prophecy was written around 1000BC... And as the link I posted mentioned, the older Hebrew manuscripts support the KJV translation. "It is more likely that the “lion” reading in the Masoretic Hebrew text is the corruption, as the Masoretic manuscripts predominantly date to the 3rd and 4th centuries AD, after Christianity was established, giving the Jews a reason to conceal what the Hebrew Scriptures predict regarding Jesus Christ."

I don't think Christians in the USA are persecuted, but there is an effort to interfere with what they choose to believe. Remove "God' from coins, the pledge... Remove God from schools, along with prayers... Putting Satanic symbols along Christian ones for the sole purpose of ruining Christian holidays... That's oppression. The minority often insist that since they don't believe what the majority believes, the majority must be silent. The difference between Atheist and Christians is not only belief, but also moral values.. Christians have a set of morals given to govern them, while Atheist are bound by no set of moral authority.

I didn't say there was an original 1000 bc manuscript, I wrote that David wrote the 22 Psalm a thousand years before Christ.. King David was the second king of Israel and and reigned approximately 1000BC.. I didn't mention or suggest that the Dead Sea scrolls were that old. As for the alternate translation, I've heard it before, but I believe the KJV is correct. Think about it; "'they surrounded my hands and my feet like a lion", does that make any sense at all? How and when have lions ever surrounded hands & feet? https://www.gotquestions.org/Psalm-22-16-lion-pierced.html

You seem to be under the impression that I care about your opinion of me...... I don't. Your angry retorts just demonstrate that you have nothing of substance to add to the conversation. I've noticed that every time you lose a debate/argument, you resort to name calling and insults. I understand your frustration, but your remark "I have an even lower opinion of you' is getting redundant. I haven't responded likewise because I don't need to stoop to childish comments or temper tantrums. Perhaps that's a notable difference between Christians & Agnostics?

Your spirit is the intellect and character of your soul, it exist within yourself.

That's probably for the best, your really not discussing anything anyway. Your a very crabby man and your hatred of anything Christian is evident.

So you don't find the bible offensive, its just me quoting the bible that offends you.. Sounds like your talking out of both sides of your mouth.. Not much of a rebuttal.. Scripture says what it says, its not a weapon to me. Perhaps you should ask yourself why it scares you so much? Yes, I do mean my God, I wasn't discussing any of the other beliefs you listed. You sound angry again, I suspect your inability to discern anything of a spiritual nature is what's really upsetting you? I'm convince that anyone can receive a spiritual revelation from scripture if they try reading with belief and pray for understanding .. Narrow mindedness is really relying on your own wits to denigrate what others have discerned is true, just because you have no answers yourself.

Well, I guess I just don't understand how a person can be insulted by a book that they don't even believe is true? Seems ridiculous... What your saying is that you don't believe a word of it, but your highly offended by it.. How can you be insulted by something you deem fictional? I suspect that you just don't like the message, whether its true or not? My point was simply that the verse explains that spiritual things are discerned spiritually, whereby those who require natural evidence to prove the existence of God will only be disillusioned by the notion and find it to be a foolish endeavor. You can't discern spiritual truths via natural investigation, so God cannot be proved or disproved by looking around and trying rationalize how He could exist. Man is both natural (flesh & blood) and spiritual beings, so no, I don't believe the verse defeats any argument that God cannot be spiritually perceived. Being called by faith demands sight beyond what's visible to the natural man. It only seems like a circular argument because you've blocked yourself from considering anything beyond what you can materialistically comprehend. 'He that hath eyes to see, let him see', is not necessarily referencing a mountain view.

True, I believe the scriptures are true, so of course my thoughts are formulated and based on what they teach.. Its something I proclaim, and not something I hide behind or a game I play. Please elaborate, where is my definition of Atheism or Agnosticism lacking? One doesn't believe in any God/gods and the other thinks God's existence is unknowable. Nothing complicated or perplexing about either. If you read that verse carefully, its not calling you a fool, but states that the reason a man can't accept the things of the Spirit of God is because they are foolish to him.. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14). What's not true about that? And I don't think its a straw man's argument to suggest to those who demand that God existence can't be proven, to point out to them that God's existence can't be disproven either.. It not a diversion, just a point and counterpoint discussion. Point of fact, the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. I don't see any attacks in my Christian views, aside from the belief that there's no eternal life for nonbelievers. But Atheist don't believe in an afterlife anyhow, so I don't see how that can be construed as any attack or threat?