RRR1

Im not seeing it. Edit: Again in no way shape or form am I familiar with Hebrew or Greek that the Bible was originally written in. I have to go by people that translated it. From what Ive read the Greek word that is translated into temptation could also be translated into trials. This is probably more of an English language problem and what I hate about the English language. Ive heard that English is one of the hardest languages to learn because 10 words can mean 1 thing. Its stupid.

Uh this question wasnt asked to start a controversy. I was just curious. I guess technically the book of Mormon isnt a part of the Bible, they are two separate books. I just wanted your opinion and your question is a valid one. Maybe the Book of Mormon and other scripture isnt technically adding since its separate. And what do you mean I havent defended previous claims? I may have skipped something but not on purpose. what have i not defended? Thanks.

The verse in James, the Greek word for trials is also translated into temptation here. God allows trials to occur in someones life and thus be tempted but He has promised not to allow any more than a person can endure and never without a say to escape. 1 Corinthians 10:13 back this up. The Genesis verse God is not testing Abraham but testing him. God was examining Abrahams heart. See James 1:2-4 and James 1:12-18. Verse 12 and 13 also uses the word temptation but is better translated as trials. Every trial becomes a test of faith. if you fail the test, then it becomes temptation.

This question may deserve its own thread but I'll throw it out here. You just said you believe the Bible and the Book or Mormon, etc could have errors. You also said you have an open canon of scripture. You also say new prophets today can add scripture to the scripture we already have. So what do you think about the following verses? Revelation 22:18-19, Proverbs 30:6, Deuteronomy 4:2 and Deuteronomy 12:32. Do you believe these verses are errors in the Bible? because if not, adding books and scripture like the Book of Mormons is against teachings of the Bible right?

An error? Where is this error you speak of? Matthew 3:15 says his baptism was necessary. "For thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all rightousness". Christ in this case was identifying Himself with all sinners. When he died he bore all of our sins on Himself. 2 Corinthians 5:21 says that Jesus knew no sin and He became sin for us when He died on the cross, that me and you are seen righteous in front of God. Im glad you mentioned the analogy of baptism with the flood. I almost wrote this on my last post. See 1 Peter 3:20-21. Peter makes this analogy himself. Like the ark that went through Gods judgement during the flood, our baptism is a symbol of our salvation in Christ. Verse 21 clearly says that baptism through water doesnt save you ("not the removal of the filth of the flesh"). Baptism through the resurrection of Jesus Christ means a figurative immersion into a union with Christ. Romans 6:1-4 also describes the metaphor of baptism. So judgement fell on Christ just as judgement fell on the ark via flood waters. So there is no error here. What was the error you referred to?

Because I believe. There have been thousands of people in the last couple centuries who have analyzed the Bible, people much smarter than me, people who have read the Bible cover to cover numerous times. They havent found an error yet. I became saved after reading part. you dont have to read the whole entire thing. Eventually its something I will do but as of now havent done it. Im not sure why Jesus was baptized. Baptism is only a public profession of faith. Baptism doesnt save anyone.

see my post at top of this page

No Im not making it up. I think we have already established that God is the source of truth. The Bible is essentially written by God because Scripture is God breathed. If one part isnt true, then why does God back something that isnt true? That would totally defeat the purpose of being God. So if one part isnt true, then God is not all powerful, which would mean there could be someone higher than God, and would render the gospel false. Jesus would have died in vain and your salvation is at jeopardy. The truthfulness of 1st Maccabees has absolutely nothing to do with 2nd Timothy. Last time I checked 1st Maccabees isnt in the Bible. Hope that helps.

I have not read it cover to cover but I was saved after reading. An error has yet to be discovered and considering parts of the Bible are about 3,500 years old, that is impressive. An error would have been found. The only thing that technically is not true because its the future is Revelation. So if Jesus never comes back then the Bible would not be true. But by then I'll be dead.

Technically no. But like Ive said before, if ONE part of the Bible is not true, then the whole Bible is not true. But if someone believes in Romans 10:9 but also believes in millions of years, technically he will go to heaven. But its like what I believe and what you guys believe, if you truely believe that Jesus came down and died a subsitutionary death for you and me, then God says follow him and do His commandments. So if you truely believe you should do your best to follow Him and do good works. But if you truely believe and are saved yet reject Genesis 1, that is mind boggling to me. How can you reject one part and accept another. That is the problem I have. But millions of people do this.

Uh, not sure where you got that I know it all. I am far from knowing it all. But one thing I know. Im 100% sure I will go to heaven. Why? Because I believe the Bible to be true. I believe in Romans 10:9 My Bible is New King James. But I like the word translation over version. Again like I said before, Ive seen no discrepancies between King James, New King James, New International, New Amercian Standard, etc. The message is still the same, just worded different for different people. What Traveler is talking about is totally new texts that is "absent" from the Bible. Illogical? Because I can read? I really hope you firmly believe and agree with what Romans 10:9 said because if not, your refusal of the Bible will send you to hell.

well on the languages issue God mixed up the languages in Genesis 11. People started spreading right after the flood. Families used to be massive back then. Having 10-20 kids was common. Not sure why you think its biologically not possible when it happened. If you refuse to accept it then that is your problem.

I live in the United States and I have only seen one "verson" of the Bible. With more and more atheists these days and people not believing in God, you would think with a country as advanced as the United States, people would find more version of the Bible especially if they are different from the Bible. They could use that to say the Bible is false. But Ive never seen it in all my life.

:facepalm I dont like using the word race because there is only one race, the human race. So I'll use ethnicity. How many ethnicities are there currently? You got black, Caucasian, Indian, Chinese, Japenese, Mexican, etc, etc. Noah (obviously as well as Adam) had to have had a lot of different genes in order to spread different blood types, eye color, pigmentation of the skin, etc. Animals were the same way. He probably brought one type of dog that carried all genes. After year and years of mating with each other, you now have poodles, German Shepherds, etc. You only need one type of dog, one type of worm, one type of human. You dont need one black person, one white person, one Asian etc. So yes there was enough room for every type of animal known to man.

Thank you. This verse proves the earth is spherical and not flat.

I will admit I do not know anything about versions of the Bible. I just know the "main" and "most widely accepted" version is the one I use. And to my knowledge it is the only true version. If these other versions were true, why aren't they widely available? I know some Spanish but that is the only other language I have partially read. But the Bible we know of today is translated in other languages so that is the same as the English Bible.

We went from walking and covered wagons to cars and airplanes in just a few hundred years. I think 4,000 years for humans to spread across the Earth very reasonable.

What are you talking about versions? As far as translations I see no differences between King James, New Internation, New American Standard, New King James, etc.

Back to the original topic about age of the earth and if humans existed before Adam and Eve. The Hebrew word for day used in Genesis 1 is the word yom. This word is used 2,301 times in the Old Testament. In the vast majority this word means a literal 24 hour day. In times where it doesnt mean this, the context makes it clear. The context in Genesis 1 clearly means 24 hour day. Its first defined in Genese 1:4-5. It describes the light and darkness of the light/dark cycle of a typical 24 hour day. Second this word is used with evening and morning. Everywhere else in the Old Testament that these words are used together it means a literal evening or a literal morning of a literal 24 hour day. Third, the word yom is used modified by a number. First day, second day, third day, etc. Everywhere else in the Old Testament this means a literal 24 hour day. Fourth, yom is defined literally in Genesis 1:14. Exodus 20:9-11. Yom is used both times the word day is mentioned. In Hebrew there are 3 other words for indefinite amount of time but the only word meaning literal day (yom) is used here. The Jews understand it as literal. The idea of millions of years didnt even exist until the early 19th century. The Flood in Genesis 6-9 doesnt back millions of years. This was a global (not local) flood that covered the entire earth. The flood was meant to kill every living thing (plant, animal,human, etc) except for those that were on the boat. A local flood wouldnt have made sense because humans can escape an area or animals can migrate quickly once they sense a lot of rain is coming. The Hebrew words translated in Genesis 7:11 indicate a tectonic rupturing of the earth's plates, resulting in volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. This type of shake up would easily produce the complex geographical record we see today which would be thousands of feet of sediments clearly deposited by water and later hardened into rock and containing billions of fossils. If a year long flood can do all of this, then the rocks and fossils cant be millions of years old. Mark 10:6 clearly states that Adam and Eve were created at the beginning of creation. This is also quoted by Jesus himself!! If a day means millions of years then by the time man was created on the 6th day millions of years would have passed and that would mean they werent created at the beginning. Genesis 1 says 6 times that the creation was good. When God finished he called it VERY GOOD. Genesis 1:29-30 indicates humans and animals were first vegetarian. That is how man could live with dinosaurs and lions, bears, etc. When Adam and Eve sinned they died spiritually and started to die physically. God cursed all of creation. Now all of creation waits until the final judgement, when Jesus comes back. Only then will there be no carniverous behavior (Isaiah 11:6-9) and all disease, pain, death, and suffering will cease (Revelation 21:3-5). To believe in the idea of millions of years would be animal death before the creation and fall of man. To would contradict and destroy the Bible's teachings on death and would destroy the reason why Christ died in the first place. This would make God a cruel creator who uses death for his creative work, and to still call his work good is insane. To believe in millions of years and death before sin would destroy all teaching of the Bible, especially the character of God and the foundation of the gospel. If Genesis 1 is not literal, then faith in the Bible does not exist, as well as teachings on salvation.

God is the source of truth. God wrote the Bible therefore teh Bible is true. Is that better?

God does not deal in gray areas. See Revelation 3 in the letter to the church at Laodicea. God only deals in hot or cold. He hates Lukewarm. What is the verse about the the 4 corners. Im sure you arent looking at the context to which that verse was written. I'll have to get back to you, but I can guarantee that is not what is meant. Even you saying the world is flat, what if 4 corners meant 3D? Then the Earth would be a box. Even your logic there is flawed.

...

Who wrote the Bible? Physically man wrote it down, man used his pencil and paper and wrote it down. But since the Bible is God breathed, God told man what to write. So essentially God wrote it. I would be willing to guess the text no included were not included because they were either false or not inspired by God. No its not possible that any passages arent accurate because if thats the case then God isnt accurate. If God isnt accurate, then God isnt all powerful and God wouldnt be God.

Both are truth. God is truth, the Bible being written by God is also truth. Here is an analogy. A=B and B=C, so that means A=C

If the Bible isnt the source of truth then the Bible is fiction, just a story book. Jesus said I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life. Scripture is God-breathed and inspired by God. Adam most likely did not have a belly button. Belly button is a scar from the umbilical cord. Since Adam was created and not born, I would be 99.9999999% sure he doesnt have one. Jesus would have had one though. As far as people living before Adam, that is fine if you are not sure and that you want to find the answer. I challenge you to look in the Bible though. Go back through my posts in this thread. The TRUTH lies within the Bible. Again death before sin could not have happened or else that nullifies everything in the Bible. If creation required something else then God created that too because God created everything. Also not to flame or anything, just a general question, why do you not type out God? Why do you put G-d? Are you scared of God and think its taking the name of God in vain? Do you think you are violating the 3rd commandment? Or is it some whacky computer program that converts God to G-d? Just seems stupid and childish to me. :shrug Edit: This is also the reason why i created the "How do you get to heaven" thread. I am curious and want to know more about Mormons. Apparently for the most part you believe that faith alone and not works will get you to heaven but you dont believe the Bible to the true. Kind of weird but Im learning.