To be honest, I do not doubt his study and knowledge,but it is human study and knowledge and human conclusions and theology…
Once yu take a source as absolute, you cannot dispute it, even if the percieved result is something that others might percieve as immoral, or ungodly or anything else I might claim.
It aall bils down to what Scripture is, and, unfortunately you seem to fall into the same trap but with different bias and conclusions.
My problem is thatg I canot just refute and claim something wrong and in the same bereath claim that person to be arogant and sure of themselves. It is an impossible couundrum. How do I caim librralism and still reject any specific viewpoint?
And for completeness, the oldest fairly complete one dates from around 900 AD. From Wikipedia:
The Aleppo Codex (c. 920 CE) and Leningrad Codex(c. 1008 CE) were once the oldest known manuscripts of the Tanakh in Hebrew. In 1947, the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran pushed the manuscript history of the Tanakh back a millennium from such codices.
So what are we trying to prove here? The fallibility of Scripture? The lack of a definitive text? Is there a consnesus between them or is each one different?
The problem of translation is not news, neither is the lack of a definitive text.
This would all point to a devaluation rather than encourage assertions.of accuracy or even perfection.
Basically, truth. Adam’s post implies we have thousands of copies of ancient Hebrew Bibles, when the reality is that most of the manuscripts he alludes to are fairly modern (AD dates) and most are also just fragments of a sentence or two, or at most 1 book (as in the case of Isaiah found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, from about 70 BC). The casual reader might come away with a false impression, when the reality is much more complicated. It is best to be forthright about some of the ambiguity and struggles rather than present a false front that erodes the faith of many when they learn the truth, and find that they have been intentionally misled about scripture by people they trusted. That applies to many issues, not just the evolution of our current Bible.
As a person of faith, I am sure you accept God’s providence in preserving his revelation for humanity in the process, despite the messy process. A lot that can be seen as analogous to biological evolution, as you imply in your sarcasm.
I find “humour” to be a great release as well as a great teacher. I wonder how many realise the irony in the Heavenly Host singing to a bunch of shepherds?
Wow – this is the first relevant thing in your post.
And it’s wrong: I don’t agree with your definition of sin because it is not the only one that scripture gives.
BTW, I do understand the OT sanctuary service, and I know that it was all fulfilled by Christ. You make Christ subsidiary to the sanctuary service, which is idolatry.
Challenge yourself – you have yet to show that the scriptures anywhere claim to be scientifically accurate as you demand.
And I think it was last year they finally got it all online in readable form (despite a cadre of scholars who objected to making it publicly available – something I cannot understand at all).
And there is mounting evidence that the Masoretes tampered with the text in places.
Why are we still here living in sin and, the book of revelation, written 60 year AFTER Christs death, foretells a new heavens and a new earth and a New Jerusalem where God can dwell with His people?
Revelation 21:3-4 English Standard Version 2016 (ESV)
And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.
The above text, written by the apostle John on the isle of Patmos 60 years after Christs death is predicting a future event…not past…its clear that your understanding there is way off.
So, given you are a man who absolutely loves the apostle Pauls writings…i will help your next response there…
Romans 14:17 ESV / 7 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful
For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Now i could just say nothing and wait for you to take on this verse as a defense and fall down a theological rabbit warren, but ill be upfront and honest and just point out the problem withat that text…
If we read the entire context of Romans 14…note it explains itself in that Paul is not talking about eating unclean foods (as some Christians think it infers)…
the text is about the law of love and righteousness. It is using the statement that if what we do is a stumbling block to others, then we should not do anything that causes another to stumble (such as teach false doctrine and lead them astray for starters!). Certainly our eating habits could definitely do that as well…its more than just food though (this text is part of the reason why i don’t drink alcohol btw)
Anyway, Romans 14, is not about God establishing a spiritual earthly kingdom 2000 years ago!
You’re right, Adam - if I understood you correctly - the kingdom of God (and Romans 14) is about love.
If God’s kingdom was not already established (inaugurated) by Jesus himself - what he taught, how he lived, how he died - then somebody probably should have told Jesus! (as Luke reports it (Luke 17:21).
20 Once Jesus was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, and he answered, “The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed, 21 nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you.
Or Matthew (4:12-17).
Or John (in his chapter 3 discourse with Nicodemus) - one doesn’t get the impression that there will be no kingdom until thousands of years in the future by means of political intrigue or war, but that the kingdom Jesus brings (present tense) is of an entirely different sort - only available (in the present tense) to those who have been born again.
Or Paul - in your very own reference (Romans 14) Paul speaks of Kingdom matters (what it is and what it is not) in the present tense!
So … what about Revelation then! You’re right that it does also use future tense for some events. How can we understand Revelation in the light of Christ? It does speak of both present and future events - many events which came to pass in that generation already as John is warning his readers about what empires will do and how they behave (that was Rome in his day - but empires are no different now). And John contrasts what worldly kingdoms are like (they are idolatrous whores) as opposed to God’s kingdom. And all those principalities and powers have been conquered (past tense!) - not by a roaring lion (which would just be another empire doing all the same things empires have always done) - no - but instead by a slaughtered lamb! The “Lion of Judah” that John expects to see when he turns and looks, turns out to be … wait for it … a lamb bearing the marks of slaughter on itself!. This is what brought empires down - the joke is on them. And the conquering lamb (not the Lion) is mentioned 28 times in Revelation! It is the way of the cross, and not the way of empires with their swords and guns and nuclear bombs that finally prevails and reveals Rome (and all empires to follow) for what they really are. And yet Christians today still want to turn God’s kingdom back into the worldly one again - they try desperately to re-insert the roaring Lion back into their theology and scorn the cross - chasing after empire all over again even though Jesus revealed the futility of those ways. Armageddon is not the “end of war” or the “beginning of God’s kingdom”. No - armageddon is endless war, and the way of Satan fighting hard against the lamb and his Kingdom. But Christ and his followers are not conquered by that. They refuse Satan’s temptation to bow down to Satan in an attempt to “win” the world by using the violent and coercive ways of empire. Jesus emphatically put down that temptation in the desert when Satan offered. He emphatically put it down again, calling out Peter’s spirit for what it was when Peter suggested that the way of the cross should never happen to any messiah. And nor will Jesus be changing his mind at some final judgment day and saying … “well, all my sermon on the mount stuff didn’t work out after all - I guess I was wrong, and Satan was right; let’s come back and do it his way now with guns and force, and this time I’ll have no mercy on my enemies!” Nope. That only happens in the satanically deluded imaginations of Christians today who want to twist and distort books like Revelation to pit them against everything else Christ taught and lived. Hint … any time we intepret a book (in either testament) in such a way as to undo what Jesus taught or lived, then we are no longer on team Jesus despite how much we may want to try to spin it as if we are. The day will come when Christians (even here in the U.S.) will come to realize that he who taught that those who live by the gun will die by the gun … that teacher actually knew what he was talking about! Violence is never the end of violence except in the satanically deluded American imagination. It is always just the prelude to yet more violence in an endless infernal cycle. But it isn’t endless. Love is the only eternal thing that actually conquers with finality. The eternally forgiving and merciful Lamb who never changes is the one who showed us this. His “sword” is the convicting message from his mouth (not a weapon in his hand where the world’s conquerors always have it). His blood on his robe is his own that he willingly sacrificed - not the blood of his victims that he is slaughtering. Slaughter is what Satan does, and what we do when we worship satan instead of God.
And yes - it is an “already but not yet” kind of paradox. You are right that the Kingdom of God is not yet fully realized (obviously). Still much work to be done. But that kingdom is here! Been here for over two thousand years now, for those who have eyes to see.
Lord, help me live into and up to my own words above! May the outpost of your kingdom in my mind and heart grow and prevail over the many larger idolatries where I find it so tempting and reasonable to join in with the ways of the world. May those principalities and powers decrease and be relegated to their proper places, and may you increase … for me and for all of us.
Perhaps what is missing here is the definition of “the Kingdom of God” Like many titles it is ambiguous and therefore could be (and is) interpreted in many ways.
There seems an assumption theat the “kingdom” will be worldwide. WHy should itt/ Even Revelation points to a holy mountain, not the whole earth.
Perhaps Jesus is instigating a view of how beleivers should be looked on, or as? An individual can dwell in the kingom with God while the person next to them lives alone outside of it?
IOW what Christ established was the foundations of the Kingdom on earth rather than the completion of it.
