Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote:

Lets take into account the Periscope de Adultera, if you look at the passages does it look like something OUT of context with what Jesus preached? would have said?, No, it is very much in character with Jesus's preaching, even more so within the context of the GOJ.
We do NOT know why it was not present in the oldest manuscript, it MAY have been in the original and removed by some scribe that taught it to "forgiving" on an adulteress, or it may have come from a different copy of the GOJ that was "made into one" master copy, we simply do NOT know, but we.they DO KNOW that it does NOT go against the orthodox teachings of Christ.

I would well agree that the Periscope de Adultera passage absolutely sounds exactly what one would expect Jesus might say. In fact, I was rather shocked when I learned that it was considered suspect by many qualified to render such an opinion. The passage at the end of Mark seems contradictory and even dangerous if applied. Plus its assertions are not what we have observed to be true.

If you think about it, God could have preserved His Word in some perfect pristine way that even all COPIES were IDENTICAL, no misspellings, word order mistakes, etc. - with all being precisely the same. But He didn't do that, as apparently He did not think that necessary. In fact, it might make it more suspect, that someone had systematically harmonized them. Even if someone added a MEANINGLESS passage, it has not changed the truth they tried to attach it to (nothing will do that!). Also, I would imagine that, historically, most who might have attempted to add to or change Scripture would have had evil motives to DISTORT what was already there - in an attempt to mislead or contradict what true Scripture says. This is why the other so called "lost" books are rather easy to identify.

Truly, I didn't mean to stir up anything, but to stimulate an important discussion about some passages most Christians are unaware of the debate over them - as a discussion amongst brothers. And I'm sure these teams that put these Bible's together prayed long and diligently over what cautionary comments they might make about them. These are no simple, knee-jerk reactions. And I don't think for a minute that IF they are not Scriptural, that they in any way reflect upon the integrity of the rest of Scripture. I take a very high view of God's Word.

I think that we tend to put a far HIGHER view on scripture than God has and I don't mean that in a bad way.

God's WORD is Jesus and the bible comes second.

I think that all here would agree that if there was no bible, that God would find another way.

While the bible is of the upmost importance in terms of the historical writings that have been handed down to us, it is NOT more important than Christ or any other way God chooses to reveal Himself to Us.

jlay wrote:

I think that we tend to put a far HIGHER view on scripture than God has and I don't mean that in a bad way.

What? The last thing I would say in this day and age is that we hold a higher view of scripture than God.

God's WORD is Jesus and the bible comes second.

I think this is an argument in semantics. The Bible is the god inspired text we have regarding the revelation of the living Word.

I think that all here would agree that if there was no bible, that God would find another way.

Yet, this is obviously the method He chose for today.

While the bible is of the upmost importance in terms of the historical writings that have been handed down to us, it is NOT more important than Christ or any other way God chooses to reveal Himself to Us.

Such as?

I don't place the bible above any other method God chooses to reveal Himself

The written word of God is the bible, lets never confuse the two.

God reveals Hmself via the HS as well and in the universe we live

The written word of God is the bible, lets never confuse the two.

So, by what do you measure claims of someone who says they have revelation directly from the HS?

Got it. The Bible is the written word of GOD.
The written word says that the The Word was God. Therefore, Christ is God, and thus the Bible is what?

So, you don't place specific revelation that you call, "the written word of God" above general revelation?

I would assume the same way we would if we didn't have the bible

PaulSacramento wrote:The written word of God.
Not the LIVING Word of God.
Unless you are suggesting that the Bible is Christ, are you?

That depends on which part of the written word of God we are talking about,right?
I don't believe that pillars hold up the heavens, do you?
I don't think rabbits chew their cud, do you?

I've always wondered about the legitimacy of how the Bible was put together. I'm very interested in knowing what resources exist regarding the authenticity of the Bible process.

jlay wrote:

I would assume the same way we would if we didn't have the bible

You expect me to believe that you would handle it the same way if you did or didn't have a Bible? Please think about this for a minute.

PaulSacramento wrote:The written word of God.
Not the LIVING Word of God.
Unless you are suggesting that the Bible is Christ, are you?

Not to be snarky, but can you not read? I said, i'm not confused. I know the differnce between Logos (1 John 1:1) and Rhema (1 Peter 1:25)

That depends on which part of the written word of God we are talking about,right?
I don't believe that pillars hold up the heavens, do you?
I don't think rabbits chew their cud, do you?

what's your point? To dengrate the written word as I've heard you do for about two years on this forum. I mean come on, what's your point with this statement?
You said the bible is the written word of God. You also said, you would give it no more heed than general revelation. And it seems you said that if you heard someone's claims about HS revelation, that you wouldn't anymore consult the Word of God as a litmus test, than if you didn't even have the bible to begin with.

Lux Aeterna wrote:I've always wondered about the legitimacy of how the Bible was put together. I'm very interested in knowing what resources exist regarding the authenticity of the Bible process.

If the bible says it's ok to keep slaves, then says that there are no slaves and all are one under christ and someone says that in reading the bible it was revealed to them that slaves keeping is correct, then I would question that revelation.

Paul, I don't see how your comments specifically address the context of this thread. I have little if any disagreement with your last post.

Paul, my point is that, today, the Bible is a finished canon. It is closed, and by rightly dividing the word of truth the church is edified, God glorified and the Gospel spread. Unless you have some other evidence, the Bible is God's method of specific revelation, today. I agree, that doesn't mean we shouldn't accomodate for context or the authors God selected. In fact, I'm a huge advocate. But, God will supply those who approach the text with humility, submission, and reverence the guidance through the HS to do such things. I would not say that most believers are giving the Bible this high of a view. Far from it.

I'd love to hear some detailed examples of how God is specifically revealing Himself (today) in the universe apart from the scriptures.

Oddly, the biblical structure of servitude would be a better and more benevolent method for dealing with unemployement, homelessness and hunger than anything we have in the world today. But, I would never say the Bible MANDATES slavery. It accomodates servitude, and the realities of this world.

Not sure what you mean...The order of the universe, our understanding or how nature is working, how the universe is working, all that ( and more) shows Us the God created a universe of purpose and order, that God's nature is one of purpose and order.

Indeed, "indentured' servitude could be viewed as such, I just don;'t think that WE can accommodate that view anymore.
We complain when people get paid less in other countries for work we get OVER payed to do here, simply because our cost of living is greater.
How would we react to servitude?

That is general revelation, and it is not new. You will not get any argument from me. But does it reveal, specifically, the guilt of man, the promise of redemption, the cross, the resurrection, salvation, and the consumation?
No. Only scripture is our source of this today.

Poorly, I'm afraid. Since the world is sinful, outside of the theocracy (Israel) of God, servitude would likely be abused, much like chatell slavery and the Hindu caste system. I'm afraid our sense of entitlement (something for nothing) is so engrained, that actually requiring something of someone is seen as taboo.