Skip to comments.‘But the New Testament does not make a big deal out of the Age of the Earth …’
Posted on 03/26/2009 7:20:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
I mean potentially on the same ground as the originator of that technique.
The self righteous know - they KNOW - that any interpretation not fully consistent with their own or any question of that interpretation is proof of sordid or evil intent. It is just not possible for there to be any other interpretation. The truth of their belief is so undeniable that even the slightest variance ties them in knots.
They are as certain of this as people in the Middle Ages were certain the plague was caused by the Jews. Even questioning the orthodox view, then and now, is heresy.
No proof is ever necessary, just an unrelenting burning anger that someone, somewhere, thinks they might not be completely correct.
Matthew 7:1 comes to mind.
>Matthew 7:1 comes to mind.
This is true.
>The self righteous know - they KNOW - that any interpretation not fully consistent with their own or any question of that interpretation is proof of sordid or evil intent.
Indeed, reading motive into something said or some question asked which was never there to begin with.
>It is just not possible for there to be any other interpretation.
That is also called arrogance and pride, whichever it is it is most certainly nor humility.
>The truth of their belief is so undeniable that even the slightest variance ties them in knots.
It seems that way. I am very glad that my salvation is NOT dependent on complete or correct understanding, but on Jesus Christ... because my understanding and comprehension are so limited and insufficient, but my Savior is not so limited.
OK, I keep getting pinged here, and have read through the recent discussion and offer this observation, related to the content:
When we see statements like: “God said himself” or “the perfection of Gods word” or statements that God himself wrote the Bible, we’re veering into a non-Christian view and toward the view that God literally dictated or directly wrote the entire Scriptures.
This is true in the Moslem view, but in the Christian view the whole of Scriptures are inspired by not literally written by God. We then have many different translations and interpretations.
An illustration of the difference is the Islamic prohibition against translation of Qu’ran.
It’s an important distinction. Perfection is an attribute of the infinite, of God only, not any book or translation. To mistake the finite for the infinite is the big step toward idolatry.
We may refer to Scripture as “God’s word;” however God’s Word is much larger and not reducible to words.
The meanings and facts we take from Scripture must take this into account if we wish to seek truth.
If you really don’t that the Bible really is God’s word in every respect, then there is no point in attempting to discuss anything with you.
God really has proven that it is his perfect word by interlacing it with humanly impossible, numerically based patterns that could only have been done by the creator of all things. This is his seal to all that are his own. It could not be by accident, and if you had any understanding of the laws of probability, you probably would not have even written this post.
I recognize the Bible Code. It’s been debunked including by statistical science. The first problem is which text you choose and where you choose to put the spaces. Then, statistically, the same or better “predictions” have been gleaned from “Moby Dick” with the same methodology.
The inclusion of Moby Dick as Scripture aside, you have the theological problems approaching a Qu’ran-istic view of the Bible.
If so, you’re correct, perhaps we do not share theology enough to discuss further, except on the rightness of this view. I also would say that a Bible Code view of the New Testament would be foreign for most Christian doctrine.
I’m assuming that by “the Bible really is Gods word in every respect” your excluding Jesus, Creation, God speaking to our hearts, etc. If God’s Word does not include all these, then I think the error veers further away from what I would call, lower-case o, orthodox Christianity.
thanks for your reply...
I wasn’t speaking of the silliness of Drosnin’s predictions, but the Bible codes per-se were certainly not debunked in any way. In fact, the debunkers were completely debunked when the texts that they supposedly used were proven to have been changed in numerous places from their originals.
There was a second book, “The Bible Code Bombshell,” that took it to the next level, and proved mathematically that the original estimates were conservative, and the level of improbability was actually several orders of magnitude higher.
But, even better, in the Greek Koine New Testiment, even more complex and convincing relationships were found in the most controversial portions, such as 1John 5:7-8.
No serious mathematician has any doubts on the authorship of the Bible.
>>No serious mathematician has any doubts on the authorship of the Bible.
All serious mathematicians believe God wrote the Bible? I don’t think there’s that test for mathematicians.
Statistical in a long enough text you will have nearby letters that make words and sentences. Comparison tests using of Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” were just as successful as those with the Bible.
You may of course believe which author you wish on this; however, the larger point is the view that the Scriptures are God handwriting. The only religion I’m aware of that holds this view is Islam.
thanks for your reply..
In this context, a more accurate way to put the phrase: “God handwriting” is God dictating every character/word by word.