(03-13-2022 01:27 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(03-13-2022 12:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I would strongly suggest you use texts which are 1948 or older as all after 1960 have political agendas baked into the translations, or worse paraphrases.

The original KJV used Latin translations used by the RCC and had a Royalist bias. The Leningrad Codex, the Vulgate and the Dead Sea Scrolls (at least most of them) and a working knowledge of Latin, Greek, and Aramaic will help you. Study of the customs of ancient Israelite and the custom of the surrounding Canaanite tribes as this will help with interpretation as well. Things which seem obscure can often easily be recognized if you know the customs of those cultures. If you use Lexicons you need to go back prior to 1948 for the same reasons. At seminaries you need to go to the archives section of the libraries to search for these books. Lexicons, alleged studies on ancient cultures, and interpretations of words and meanings have all been altered for political and sometimes denominational reasons since 1948, and the modern commentaries based on them as well. The truest materials are now in the archives and in some seminaries locked unless a professor clears you.

A mild example would be the Hebrew for "to kill". Three words exist. One means murder and manslaughter and it is the one used in the 10 commandments. Another is used for life taken in combat for your nation (tribe) or self defense. The third for executions. The last two are not the words used in the 10 commandments. I've known many a Veteran who labored under a sense of condemnation because this is not taught, my father was among them.

The more severe I won't discuss here and I think you can figure some of them out.

And we aren't even dealing with how it was pieced together and why.

Just some things to consider for those seeking truth.

As someone who had studied the Greek and Hebrew texts along side multiple English translations, none of that is really an issue for me.

God did not write His Word in a vacuum, the plan before the world was made was for it to be translated into multiple languages across the entire earth, particularly in the latter days. He never expected people to HAVE be theological experts on Canaanite culture to understand the key doctrines of the NT.

While there is no doubt clear examples where a deeper understanding of those cultures can bring deeper understanding to light (as well as a serious study of Hebrew and Greek), there is not one single key Christian doctrine that is dependent solely upon knowing any of those things.

The NT text is clearly designed to break past the language barriers by repeating and expounding an all key NT doctrinaires throughout the NT to pierce though any such losses in translation on vital doctrines. One of the most basic examples of this is that most of the NT books are written by Paul specifically to the Gentile Churches across Asian Minor who had a very limited understanding of the OT law and those other cultures. They were conversed pagans from completely different cultures.

Its purposely written and designed to simplify and explain those key doctrines a level that anyone from anywhere in the world can comprehend though careful study. Even for people on the other side of the planet living thousands of years later. That was God's intention from before He made the world.

And the entire Gospel is contained within, "Love God with your whole heart, with all of your soul, and mind." "And love your neighbor as yourself."

The first is from the Gospels and the latter from Paul and the Gospels. It's simple and to the point. How well are we doing?

When you have interpretations which call the sin at Sodom a violation of hospitality customs you have a major departure. When you have translations which downplay eschatology you have problems.

I wasn't addressing your study Eric. I was illustrating the extent of the effort that academia has undertaken to alter the interpretation of scripture and to manipulate the meaning of passages of the Bible to accomplish humanist ends and political ends. It affects hundreds of millions and when past interpretations are archived, removed from the stacks, and sometimes locked away it is an effort to erase "that old time religion" it is most definitely a problem. When Satan can't reach those who study Sola Scriptura, he alters what they read and study.

The message of Christ is even clearer than Paul's. "Go ye therefore and teach all nations to observe these things which I have commanded you, and lo I am with you always even unto the end of the Earth" Of course even this is now translated until the end of the age. How nebulous. Faith therefore is best witnessed in action. And to that end I agree that study is less of a commission. But for those seeking scripture for truth and inspiration, accurate interpretations presented in an unbiased manner remain essential. And in the illustration of Veterans who feel judged seeing the differences in word study are essential. Some people will not believe you until they study it for themselves so you better know the best tools to recommend and the best place for them to start looking.

It's not one or the other. It's all of it that matters. After all it is life or death. My favorite Pauline scripture is, "If there are any among you who will not work, let them not eat." It's practical, but Christ never covered that one. You will find Paul to practice situational interpretations with nuance to fit the issues within particular churches. The fact that he does makes those letters all the more authentic.

(03-13-2022 02:01 AM)JRsec Wrote:  And the entire Gospel is contained within, "Love God with your whole heart, with all of your soul, and mind." "And love your neighbor as yourself."

The first is from the Gospels and the latter from Paul and the Gospels. It's simple and to the point. How well are we doing?

When you have interpretations which call the sin at Sodom a violation of hospitality customs you have a major departure. When you have translations which downplay eschatology you have problems.

I wasn't addressing your study Eric. I was illustrating the extent of the effort that academia has undertaken to alter the interpretation of scripture and to manipulate the meaning of passages of the Bible to accomplish humanist ends and political ends. It affects hundreds of millions and when past interpretations are archived, removed from the stacks, and sometimes locked away it is an effort to erase "that old time religion." When Satan can't reach those who study Sole Scriptura, he alters what they read and study.

The message of Christ is even clearer than Paul's. "Go ye therefore and teach all nations to observe these things which I have commanded you, and lo I am with you always even unto the end of the Earth" Of course even this is now translated until the end of the age. How nebulous. Faith therefore is best witnessed in action. And to that end I agree that study is less of a commission. But for those seeking scripture for truth and inspiration, accurate interpretations presented in an unbiased manner remain essential. And in the illustration of Veterans who feel judged seeing the differences in word study are essential. Some people will not believe you until they study it for themselves so you better know the best tools to recommend and the best place for them to start looking.

It's not one or the other. It's all of it that matters. After all it is life or death. My favorite Pauline scripture is, "If there are any among you who will not work, let them not eat." It's practical, but Christ never covered that one. You will find Paul to practice situational interpretations with nuance to fit the issues within particular churches. The fact that he does makes those letters all the more authentic.

Good stuff and I agree,

One of the first things I realized by studying the Hebrew was that the first verse of the Bible shows the plurality of God.

"Elohim" is the plural form of El.

So it essentially reads, "in the beginning ELOHIM made the heavens and earth..."

Pretty much every English version will just read "God", so the understading of the plurality is lost. Of course its later taught in multiple passages, but in the Hebrew you see it in the very first verse of the Bible.

Now that is elementary stuff if you study Hebrew at all, but its really eye opening for most Christians when you first see it. But again God wrote that into other parts of the Bible so its not lost in translation if you carefully study the text.

But as you pointed out JR, there are modern versions of the Bible that work overtime to cover up and change the verses that speak of the trinity. The watchtower Bible of the Jehovah Witnesses is a prime example. We were just talking about that in the other forum with talltrain. He rejects the trinity because his watchtower Bible changed it in the 1870's. And because he is so chained down by his denomination he refuses to acknowledged those verses were altered to remove the trinity. Even thought that is a very simple thing to fact check and verify. But he is not having it under any circumstance.

(03-13-2022 02:26 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  One of the first things I realized by studying the Hebrew was that the first verse of the Bible shows the plurality of God.

"Elohim" is the plural form of El.

So it essentially reads, "in the beginning ELOHIM made the heavens and earth..."

Pretty much every English version will just read "God", so the understading of the plurality is lost. Of course its later taught in multiple passages, but in the Hebrew you see it in the very first verse of the Bible.

Now that is elementary stuff if you study Hebrew at all, but its really eye opening for most Christians when you first see it. But again God wrote that into other parts of the Bible so its not lost in translation if you carefully study the text.

But as you pointed out JR, there are modern versions of the Bible that work overtime to cover up and change the verses that speak of the trinity. The watchtower Bible of the Jehovah Witnesses is a prime example. We were just talking about that in the other forum with talltrain. He rejects the trinity because his watchtower Bible changed it in the 1870's. And because he is so chained down by his denomination he refuses to acknowledged those verses were altered to remove the trinity. Even thought that is a very simple thing to fact check and verify. But he is not having it under any circumstance.

Julius Wellhausen developed the Source Theory of Hebrew studies in the OT. Elohim & Jehovah, Yahweh usages come from different eras of the use of Hebrew which also adopted some Canaanite words which influence it in addition to other ancient semitic languages. There are clear text breaks in Genisis between oral ancient Hebrew story telling and insertions from much later used to explain origins (etiologies) of customs, items in worship, etc. My favorite is the break to explain where Eden is located. The oldest text in the Bible begins in Genisis Chapter 2, the latter part of verse 3 which is from the stories passed down before scribes and told to each generation. It's smooth to read and clear in the telling. It makes the breaks stand out.

Gensis Chapter 1 has language used at the time of the Babylonian exile. It is a lesson to Hebrew Children as to why their Babylonian captors are idiots. Babylonians originally believed there were 10 days in a week and 3 weeks in a month. This evolved to an 8 day week. Because of this Babylonians suffered many cycles of famine. The Hebrews followed a lunar calendar which every 4th year added a leap month. Their calendar more in keeping with the seasons told them when to plant and harvest, which was a blessing from God. So you learn about the creation set to seven days with the greater and lesser lights in the heavens and of fruit and plants yielding seed of their kind so you know what to plant, when to plant it, and when to harvest it.

The Psalms are set in three year worship cycles. Read Siegmund Mowinckel about this and it will make Temple worship in Israel make sense.

If you understand Israelite customs and idioms you understand why Jesus stopped to curse the fig tree while on his way to Jerusalem and his Passion.

Turn the other cheek doesn't mean passivity either.

Knowing textual, cultural, and linguistic distinctions alter what people think they are reading and can make some of the modern political redactions stand out for the hooey they are and that was the only point I intended to make.

(03-13-2022 03:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Julius Wellhausen developed the Source Theory of Hebrew studies in the OT. Elohim & Jehovah, Yahweh usages come from different eras of the use of Hebrew which also adopted some Canaanite words which influence it in addition to other ancient semitic languages. There are clear text breaks in Genisis between oral ancient Hebrew story telling and insertions from much later used to explain origins (etiologies) of customs, items in worship, etc. My favorite is the break to explain where Eden is located. The oldest text in the Bible begins in Genisis Chapter 2, the latter part of verse 3 which is from the stories passed down before scribes and told to each generation. It's smooth to read and clear in the telling. It makes the breaks stand out.

Gensis Chapter 1 has language used at the time of the Babylonian exile. It is a lesson to Hebrew Children as to why their Babylonian captors are idiots. Babylonians originally believed there were 10 days in a week and 3 weeks in a month. This evolved to an 8 day week. Because of this Babylonians suffered many cycles of famine. The Hebrews followed a lunar calendar which every 4th year added a leap month. Their calendar more in keeping with the seasons told them when to plant and harvest, which was a blessing from God. So you learn about the creation set to seven days with the greater and lesser lights in the heavens and of fruit and plants yielding seed of their kind so you know what to plant, when to plant it, and when to harvest it.

The Psalms are set in three year worship cycles. Read Siegmund Mowinckel about this and it will make Temple worship in Israel make sense.

If you understand Israelite customs and idioms you understand why Jesus stopped to curse the fig tree while on his way to Jerusalem and his Passion.

Turn the other cheek doesn't mean passivity either.

Knowing textual, cultural, and linguistic distinctions alter what people think they are reading and can make some of the modern political redactions stand out for the hooey they are and that was the only point I intended to make.

I personally dislike deep study of source theories on the torah. I don't mean that as a knock on you or anyone who is interested in them, I just think they are potentially a very unhealthy avenue for most Christians to go down. Its just so highly speculative and shaky.

I'm sure you are well aware these theories have become a favored manner of some theologians to reject the OT and torah altogether as God's Word and argue its just a man made religion.

We have the written Torah God intended us to have from the beginning. IMO to suggest otherwise is to suggest He is not really in control. I do not accept that its by chance or accident or some other means than the will of God. Obviously I'm not accusing you of that, I have just seen that speculated and implied so many times when going down this road. Most importantly what we have predates Christ and the cross by multiple centuries and that clearly was the intended dividing line for evidence and proof in its design, and to validate the Gospel and NT. IMO that is clearly implied in the overall design of the text as a whole. What is vital is to be able to date it from around or right after the Persian era to the time of Jesus. Once that is established there is such a mountain of supernatural impossible evidence displayed there that its a pretty save assumption the hand of God is at work here. If we don't have enough evidence at that point, there simply is none that can be given that will satisfy.

I just don't think that its a healthy pursuit for most Christians. Obviously that is not the case for all, and not to suggest there is nothing positive to glean from it. But I suspect its a rather large net negative for most Christians.

I have just seen too many people use that to attack, doubt or reject the Bible altogether. And they get so wrapped up in that aspect of it that they miss the evidence proof the torah and the Bible actually gives us that its God's eternal Word.

(03-13-2022 03:52 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(03-13-2022 03:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Julius Wellhausen developed the Source Theory of Hebrew studies in the OT. Elohim & Jehovah, Yahweh usages come from different eras of the use of Hebrew which also adopted some Canaanite words which influence it in addition to other ancient semitic languages. There are clear text breaks in Genisis between oral ancient Hebrew story telling and insertions from much later used to explain origins (etiologies) of customs, items in worship, etc. My favorite is the break to explain where Eden is located. The oldest text in the Bible begins in Genisis Chapter 2, the latter part of verse 3 which is from the stories passed down before scribes and told to each generation. It's smooth to read and clear in the telling. It makes the breaks stand out.

Gensis Chapter 1 has language used at the time of the Babylonian exile. It is a lesson to Hebrew Children as to why their Babylonian captors are idiots. Babylonians originally believed there were 10 days in a week and 3 weeks in a month. This evolved to an 8 day week. Because of this Babylonians suffered many cycles of famine. The Hebrews followed a lunar calendar which every 4th year added a leap month. Their calendar more in keeping with the seasons told them when to plant and harvest, which was a blessing from God. So you learn about the creation set to seven days with the greater and lesser lights in the heavens and of fruit and plants yielding seed of their kind so you know what to plant, when to plant it, and when to harvest it.

The Psalms are set in three year worship cycles. Read Siegmund Mowinckel about this and it will make Temple worship in Israel make sense.

If you understand Israelite customs and idioms you understand why Jesus stopped to curse the fig tree while on his way to Jerusalem and his Passion.

Turn the other cheek doesn't mean passivity either.

Knowing textual, cultural, and linguistic distinctions alter what people think they are reading and can make some of the modern political redactions stand out for the hooey they are and that was the only point I intended to make.

I personally dislike deep study of source theories on the torah. I don't mean that as a knock on you or anyone who is interested in them, I just think they are potentially a very unhealthy avenue for most Christians to go down. Its just so highly speculative and shaky.

I'm sure you are well aware these theories have become a favored manner of some theologians to reject the OT and torah altogether as God's Word and argue its just a man made religion.

We have the written Torah God intended us to have from the beginning. IMO to suggest otherwise is to suggest He is not really in control. I do not accept that its by chance or accident or some other means than the will of God. Obviously I'm not accusing you of that, I have just seen that speculated and implied so many times when going down this road. Most importantly what we have predates Christ and the cross by multiple centuries and that clearly was the intended dividing line for evidence and proof in its design, and to validate the Gospel and NT. IMO that is clearly implied in the overall design of the text as a whole. What is vital is to be able to date it from around or right after the Persian era to the time of Jesus. Once that is established there is such a mountain of supernatural impossible evidence displayed there that its a pretty save assumption the hand of God is at work here. If we don't have enough evidence at that point, there simply is none that can be given that will satisfy.

I just don't think that its a healthy pursuit for most Christians. Obviously that is not the case for all, and not to suggest there is nothing positive to glean from it. But I suspect its a rather large net negative for most Christians.

I have just seen too many people use that to attack, doubt or reject the Bible altogether. And they get so wrapped up in that aspect of it that they miss the evidence proof the torah and the Bible actually gives us that its God's eternal Word.

I find that odd personally, as the more I actually understand how the Bible was organically put together the more deeply it speaks to me of a God that (a) never has abandoned his people and (b) has to date fulfilled all of his promises except Christ's return. And, I might add made crystal clear the conditions in which it would happen.

And, I've always found that those who keep studying all aspects of it tend to strengthen their ability to reject the arguments of unbelievers. We are saved by grace and faith, but were we not commanded to put on the full armor of God? Righteousness is our breastplate and that comes in obedience which is rooted in knowing whose we are, what we have been told, and in upholding it. We live by every word which has proceeded from the mouth of God. Does a God who loves his people not reach out to them in exile and teach them how to be productive whether in Egypt, or Babylon? Does he not smite their oppressors as in Germany? Does he not ultimately smite death with a second life if God is faithful and eternal? Does he not chasten those who fall into wickedness?

Mortimer Adler, an Aristotelean philosopher and agnostic set out to prove, late in his life to his wife and daughter, that faith in the God of the Bible was false, as were all religions After analyzing all of the worlds religions, including that of his parents, Judaism, he accepted Christianity late in life as being the only logical religion known to humanity in that humanity is by choice sinful and therefore imperfect and only a perfect God which created it would accept it as flawed, forgive it, and love it, and promise it life when all other gods would condemn it and destroy it, and in the midst of its sin sacrifice part of its own divinity to understand its condition and grant it forgiveness by the grace of its own choice, rather than by its constant obedience. He found the relationship between a perfect God and an imperfect creation only logical in grace and no other religion had this. Some had works, some had martyrdom, some had wisdom, and some saw merit in love, but none had this tangible physical relationship between the deity and the people. Judaism came the next closest but ultimately did not believe that God had come physically to experience creation woes. Adler said if there indeed was a perfect creator and it could not be proven because faith was the requirement that only the God of the Christians demonstrated an active, loving and just God.

So that brings us full circle to the conundrum of faith and knowledge. For those who believe proof can't be necessary because ours is a God of Faith. And for those who don't believe no amount of proof will ever be sufficient because they have no faith in things larger than their own understanding. But we can't find fault with science, other than in its error for it, like religion, is a pursuit of truth, and just as with religion you need discernment to sort out the erroneous and the false, and study will always help in the sorting. Therefore Eric, my faith is sufficient but my study of all things related to it informs my discernment which is part of my armor and I fear no man's theories and will engage them without fear, with curiosity, and with informed skepticism and what truth I can find in them does me good, and what falsehood I find in them I can take to task. It's the scientific method bolstered by faith which enables me to be strengthened by the process. To be afraid of another's ideas is to be bound by a lack in confidence of you own faith. I'm never afraid of an idea, but I am very wary of those who condemn thinking. Faith in God liberates thought when tempered with obedience to his commandments and commission. Our minds are not sufficient to destroy God because they aren't sufficient to comprehend God's mind. But, our hearts are sufficient to witness his love, and to be afraid of another's idea is to be prevented from showing them our own, which is where testimony resides in any encounter. Let not your hearts be troubled also means have no fear. I have always found that those who seek to learn enough to trip up most, never pursue the topic sufficiently to dissuade those who learn all aspects of it out of a sincere desire to understand it. The greeting of all Angels begins with "Fear not!" Why? The faithful have nothing to fear from a loving God.

(03-13-2022 02:01 AM)JRsec Wrote:  And the entire Gospel is contained within, "Love God with your whole heart, with all of your soul, and mind." "And love your neighbor as yourself."

The first is from the Gospels and the latter from Paul and the Gospels. It's simple and to the point. How well are we doing?

When you have interpretations which call the sin at Sodom a violation of hospitality customs you have a major departure. When you have translations which downplay eschatology you have problems.

I wasn't addressing your study Eric. I was illustrating the extent of the effort that academia has undertaken to alter the interpretation of scripture and to manipulate the meaning of passages of the Bible to accomplish humanist ends and political ends. It affects hundreds of millions and when past interpretations are archived, removed from the stacks, and sometimes locked away it is an effort to erase "that old time religion" it is most definitely a problem. When Satan can't reach those who study Sola Scriptura, he alters what they read and study.

The message of Christ is even clearer than Paul's. "Go ye therefore and teach all nations to observe these things which I have commanded you, and lo I am with you always even unto the end of the Earth" Of course even this is now translated until the end of the age. How nebulous. Faith therefore is best witnessed in action. And to that end I agree that study is less of a commission. But for those seeking scripture for truth and inspiration, accurate interpretations presented in an unbiased manner remain essential. And in the illustration of Veterans who feel judged seeing the differences in word study are essential. Some people will not believe you until they study it for themselves so you better know the best tools to recommend and the best place for them to start looking.

It's not one or the other. It's all of it that matters. After all it is life or death. My favorite Pauline scripture is, "If there are any among you who will not work, let them not eat." It's practical, but Christ never covered that one. You will find Paul to practice situational interpretations with nuance to fit the issues within particular churches. The fact that he does makes those letters all the more authentic.

I agree with what you said. Jesus goes to great lengths to emphasize that he determines our love for Him based on whether we do or do not do the things He commands us to do. And almost all of these have to do with how we meet (or fail to meet) needs of others.

But, also, when you stated how we are to love God (and loving Him also involves loving others--so that this is why they're so clearly linked) I think you left out "strength". We are also to love God with all our strength, too.

Here's my own understanding about these things, FWIW, and anyone else can agree or disagree with my perspective about them (but it's based on what I've read and researched about it, so not only just my own understanding, again FWIW). But if someone thinks I'm wrong about it, then no problem:

I believe our strength, is/are the things we possess. It could be intellectual and/or physical abilities, influence, etc. And it is also our money, perhaps our home (for example if we offer to house others in it) and all the rest of our material things we have control over. We aren't supposed to hold back in any way from loving God and our neighbor, and always be willing to share and/or give from what we have, to help others. (The Bible does clarify it doesn't profit us anything, however, if we don't also do it with love--in other words, if we wish we didn't have to do it, and do it only because we do it thinking we have to do it in order to earn approval).

And regarding loving our neighbor as ourselves, I think this doesn't mean to love another person by basing it on how we love our self; which could focus at least some of our time on trying to make sure we do things to love ourselves. (I'm not saying we should do things to on purpose be unkind to ourselves, but instead not to give it any thought). The point is that I believe loving our neighbor as our self, really does mean to love our neighbors--i.e., by viewing our neighbor AS our self. If our love is totally directed to God and our neighbor instead of loving our self, it's the only way we are able to allow us to be filled with God's love.

Again, no one has to see it the way I do, but I believe the way I do see it is correct.

(03-13-2022 07:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Faith in God liberates thought when tempered with obedience to his commandments and commission. Our minds are not sufficient to destroy God because they aren't sufficient to comprehend God's mind. But, our hearts are sufficient to witness his love, and to be afraid of another's idea is to be prevented from showing them our own, which is where testimony resides in any encounter. Let not your hearts be troubled also means have no fear. I have always found that those who seek to learn enough to trip up most, never pursue the topic sufficiently to dissuade those who learn all aspects of it out of a sincere desire to understand it. The greeting of all Angels begins with "Fear not!" Why? The faithful have nothing to fear from a loving God.

I very much appreciate and agree with all you said. I just quoted the last paragraph because I wanted to make an observation that is of little importance (perhaps none) compared to the other things you stated.

I think the salutation of Angels also has to do with the fact that when someone found themselves in an Angel's presence (and the same thing occurred with persons in the Old Testament when encountering God's presence), that this was an extremely fearful circumstance to have had happen. They were going about whatever it was they were doing, and out of nowhere, their humanity and mortality was put into immediate perspective (and a rightly perceived understanding) via an unexpected encounter with a heavenly power, that could end their existence in a split second. And, so a reaction of fear is appropriate.

Even those who were faithful, initially consistently reacted with a lot of trepidation and angst, when they found themselves in God's presence or an Angel's. They also found themselves (without thinking what to do) falling prostrate and looking away, often with their head on and looking toward the earth. And you're right, that if they are humble and faithful, they are told not to fear.

And again, I say all of this, not trying to be nit-picky, or claim it is even of some big importance (it's just my own observation, not an attempt to correct anything you already said); and especially not intending by saying it, to take away from all else you wrote, which again, I appreciate very much: about not needing to fear what other might say, and to be willing listen to and understand whatever it is they claim instead of immediately rejecting it.

I am in complete agreement that if Who and what we believe in is the only legitimate source of life and truth, then we have nothing to be afraid of, to face something in contrast, through whatever means and whenever we encounter what may be a source of darkness. Whereas we especially need to first fear, then be given permission not to, a much more powerful messenger of light. And if we remain in the presence of the light, our fear becomes transformed into love.

(03-13-2022 07:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I find that odd personally, as the more I actually understand how the Bible was organically put together the more deeply it speaks to me of a God that (a) never has abandoned his people and (b) has to date fulfilled all of his promises except Christ's return. And, I might add made crystal clear the conditions in which it would happen.

And, I've always found that those who keep studying all aspects of it tend to strengthen their ability to reject the arguments of unbelievers. We are saved by grace and faith, but were we not commanded to put on the full armor of God? Righteousness is our breastplate and that comes in obedience which is rooted in knowing whose we are, what we have been told, and in upholding it. We live by every word which has proceeded from the mouth of God. Does a God who loves his people not reach out to them in exile and teach them how to be productive whether in Egypt, or Babylon? Does he not smite their oppressors as in Germany? Does he not ultimately smite death with a second life if God is faithful and eternal? Does he not chasten those who fall into wickedness?

Mortimer Adler, an Aristotelean philosopher and agnostic set out to prove, late in his life to his wife and daughter, that faith in the God of the Bible was false, as were all religions After analyzing all of the worlds religions, including that of his parents, Judaism, he accepted Christianity late in life as being the only logical religion known to humanity in that humanity is by choice sinful and therefore imperfect and only a perfect God which created it would accept it as flawed, forgive it, and love it, and promise it life when all other gods would condemn it and destroy it, and in the midst of its sin sacrifice part of its own divinity to understand its condition and grant it forgiveness by the grace of its own choice, rather than by its constant obedience. He found the relationship between a perfect God and an imperfect creation only logical in grace and no other religion had this. Some had works, some had martyrdom, some had wisdom, and some saw merit in love, but none had this tangible physical relationship between the deity and the people. Judaism came the next closest but ultimately did not believe that God had come physically to experience creation woes. Adler said if there indeed was a perfect creator and it could not be proven because faith was the requirement that only the God of the Christians demonstrated an active, loving and just God.

So that brings us full circle to the conundrum of faith and knowledge. For those who believe proof can't be necessary because ours is a God of Faith. And for those who don't believe no amount of proof will ever be sufficient because they have no faith in things larger than their own understanding. But we can't find fault with science, other than in its error for it, like religion, is a pursuit of truth, and just as with religion you need discernment to sort out the erroneous and the false, and study will always help in the sorting. Therefore Eric, my faith is sufficient but my study of all things related to it informs my discernment which is part of my armor and I fear no man's theories and will engage them without fear, with curiosity, and with informed skepticism and what truth I can find in them does me good, and what falsehood I find in them I can take to task. It's the scientific method bolstered by faith which enables me to be strengthened by the process. To be afraid of another's ideas is to be bound by a lack in confidence of you own faith. I'm never afraid of an idea, but I am very wary of those who condemn thinking. Faith in God liberates thought when tempered with obedience to his commandments and commission. Our minds are not sufficient to destroy God because they aren't sufficient to comprehend God's mind. But, our hearts are sufficient to witness his love, and to be afraid of another's idea is to be prevented from showing them our own, which is where testimony resides in any encounter. Let not your hearts be troubled also means have no fear. I have always found that those who seek to learn enough to trip up most, never pursue the topic sufficiently to dissuade those who learn all aspects of it out of a sincere desire to understand it. The greeting of all Angels begins with "Fear not!" Why? The faithful have nothing to fear from a loving God.

I never suggested its bad to study how the Bible came about, its very well documented here how much emphasis I personally put on illustrating how the Bible came into being. You are preaching to the choir on this point, there are a whole bunch of threads where I have pushed the point that its vital we understand how the Bible and NT came about for the purposes of apologetics and being able to give a strong answer. Not only for the unbeliever but for the believer themself to understand that our faith is not based on blind faith nor should be be double minded or doubting in our faith.

Its well documented here how much I push and emphasis this issue.

But because the Bible goes back 3+ thousand years and because of the history of Israel and its destruction by Babylon, there is a cut off point to where there are simply no surviving manuscripts that go back to Moses because #1 manuscripts do not survive 3500 years and #2 Israel was completely destroyed around 600 BC by Babylon. So we don't have manuscripts that date back that far, but we do have copies of the OT that we can date back as far as the post Babylon/Persian era. That places them at minimum a few centuries before Christ which is the real key dividing line for Christianity and Biblical apologetics. That illustrates and proves (along with the documented formation of the NT) that these things were not made up after the fact.

But when we reach as far back as 3000 or more years and get into source theories on torah, we are well past the point of manuscript and textual documentation and into purely speculative realm. And the very basis of those speculations (which I think are destructively inaccurate) typically are that the Torah and earliest parts of the OT are not true in their origins and authors as written in the text. Which again is a wildly speculative point that can't be proven or disproven that really does us no tangible good in Biblical apologetics as far as illustrating the basis of Christ, the Bible and the NT. Granted they do not all say the torah is just a man made document centuries after Moses, but many do and I think that is very destructive and dangerous.

For me its akin to debates over the flood and the Garden of Eden. We can't prove or disprove any of those things because they happened so long ago. And the Bible does not seem designed with the intent of proving those things as historical or using them as evidence and proof, the intent seems to be a historical record that we accept based on our faith in God's Word. When it comes to evidence that the text is God's word, that flows from the later period of Israel and the prophets, and how they led to the time of Christ, the crucifixion and the church age. That is the aspect that gives us a mountain of supernatural evidence for the text because its so impossible for all these things to be known and designed ahead of time if its man made.

Again, that seems to be the overall intent of the text from the beginning, because it is clearly designed around that aspect.