Has anyone found secret messages in the bible?

[NTNT58]

I know who and what they are.

No you don't. As I've explained to you there are 2 types of people who deny God and call themselves atheist, and you don't know which one is which.

Our God and savior Jesus came into the world with love, and understanding what it's like to be human. Without love and understanding your preaching is useless.

And without answering people's questions about the Bible and Christian community, your preaching would be of very little effect. The saved will eventually be saved, but their time as lost in the world will cause enormous amount of sin, and it's our job to prevent it by preaching with love, understanding and doing what we can to help people stop sinning.

Spending years testifying to them, is not not loving them.

As opposed to what? Dismissing them as lost? You think that's loving them?

You wouldn't need to spend more time testifying if you actually knew the Bible you were preaching and could answer people's objections.

 

[FRB72]

^ To the point of the thread, it not that Christians “need” the additional corroborations that God has woven into His word to believe. What we see now with be truly through a glass darkly compared to the unsearchable depths of God we will be eternally privileged to search. There are some people who would have their view of the Word of God transformed by seeing that, and for others, such confirmations might be unnecessary, hence the diversity of perspectives on this thread.

 

[Magenta]

... there are 2 types of people who deny God and call themselves atheist, and you don't know which one is which.

Neither do you.

And without answering people's questions about the Bible and Christian community,

Stop it already with your unfounded erroneous assumptions.

As opposed to what? Dismissing them as lost? You think that's loving them?

I have done no such thing. Try being honest for a change.

 

[NTNT58]

Neither do you.

I know one - my former self

Stop it already with your unfounded erroneous assumptions.

What have I said wrong? Is the bible not full of contradictions? Is the Christian community not divided into countless sects that can't agree which commandments we need to follow? Is there a one true church or a bunch of various opinions on which one it is? Stop with your false accusations and clarify what I've said wrong.

I have done no such thing. Try being honest for a change.

That's what your comment implied...

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

Jesus died for sneering atheists too! Just because I find them hard to like, I am commanded to love them too.

One of my old great uncles growing up had met a man who had lost his faith through the evil of WWI and worked a doubt into his heart that remained. Many years later he had lost a wife in middle years and never remarried. When I came on the scene he was already old and when my parents became Christians during the Jesus Revolution of the late 60s and early 70s, he would try to argue and bully them out of faith. His favourite phrase was “it’s all a lot of bunkum”.

Evolution was his favourite stick with which to beat people with and (perhaps because of this) my Dad ended up coming in contact with some early creationist materials to help him work through his own questions. One day Dad had set a video to record onto an audio tape using a rather complicated setup that involved lots of wires and having to be quiet in the lounge. My great uncle had come round that day and was more tired than usual. He went through to the lounge when the recording was taking place and had noticed the “no talking” sign. We braced for an argument as he began to watch the following:

What happened next?

When we came into the room after the recording of finished, this old scoffer and rejector of God had a new look on his face. He looked younger, bewildered and oddly happy. Then he said something I will never forget:

“It’s all true”

If you can imagine Dawkins or Ricky Gervais saying something similar, you can imagine our surprise. Well into his eighties and still able to drive he had carried on with his mind full of the teachings of Marx and Bertrand Russell. He let it all go and we could all see something had changed in him. Joy and peace. A few weeks later, he fell asleep and met his creator, not as a judge and a stranger, but as a friend and saviour.

have you ever READ the VOLUMES of the [[Origins of Species]]?

if you had, in Volume 5, Darwin, claims that God is CREATOR of all and uses the process of Evolving, which is NOT Evolution, but rather Adapting. like we are born naked. and we could remain naked as we get older, but we become subjected to weather conditions. so, we ADAPT, and wear clothing.

Darwin, all he was doing, was watching the SAME TYPE of bird every Spring come to his home and build nests and lay eggs, etc. but as the years past, this SAME BIRD(s) began growing longer feathers or heavier coat, which is Evidence, they were COLD but ADAPTED.

Darwin, only wondered about if ALL Species were connected.

it's the morons later, after Darwin died, who claimed Darwin meant Evolution. [[but]], we know, he only meant Adapting/Evolving.

us humans used to farm by hand.
then we used animals.
now, we use tractors.
^
that is not EVOLUTION...that is...Evolving/Adapting, which is a Process that GOD put into place....called....KNOWLEDGE and LEARNING to do things more efficient, faster, safer, and less harmful to the human body.

 

[FRB72]

have you ever READ the VOLUMES of the [[Origins of Species]]?

if you had, in Volume 5, Darwin, claims that God is CREATOR of all and uses the process of Evolving, which is NOT Evolution, but rather Adapting. like we are born naked. and we could remain naked as we get older, but we become subjected to weather conditions. so, we ADAPT, and wear clothing.

Darwin, all he was doing, was watching the SAME TYPE of bird every Spring come to his home and build nests and lay eggs, etc. but as the years past, this SAME BIRD(s) began growing longer feathers or heavier coat, which is Evidence, they were COLD but ADAPTED.

Darwin, only wondered about if ALL Species were connected.

it's the morons later, after Darwin died, who claimed Darwin meant Evolution. [[but]], we know, he only meant Adapting/Evolving.

us humans used to farm by hand.
then we used animals.
now, we use tractors.
^
that is not EVOLUTION...that is...Evolving/Adapting, which is a Process that GOD put into place....called....KNOWLEDGE and LEARNING to do things more efficient, faster, safer, and less harmful to the human body.

I ended up doing my first degree in Biology & Biochemistry and even trained as a high school science teacher before changing career direction. During my teaching course I was asked to write an essay on a topic of relevance to science education, so you might guess what I hit them with…

Spoiler

“Earlier in the 20th Century, the famous Scopes "Monkey" Trial proved to be a turning point in science education. The State of Tennessee brought John Thomas Scopes to trial for teaching evolution in a public school, in opposition to the Butler Act.

This act declared that no theory in conflict with the biblical story of creation, as laid down in the first chapters of Genesis should be taught. Although Scopes was found guilty, the American Civil Liberties Union, and freedom of scientific enquiry finally triumphed.

This decision opened the way for scientific findings to be presented in educational establishments, regardless of their implications for religious faith or cherished beliefs. Evolution was quickly embraced by the educationalists of the day, and so certain did the theory seem to its exponents that many were led to state that it was a fact.

Two years after the trial, Prof. George Gaylord Simpson wrote that "Darwin finally and definitely established evolution as fact". In England the same year, Sir Arthur Keith wrote in his 'Concerning Man's On'gin, (1927) "Will Darwin's victory endure for all time? So strong has his position become that I am convinced it will never be shaken".

However, half a century later many scientists were not so sure. Dr Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum, addressed over fifty classification specialists at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 with the question "Can you tell me anything you know about evolution any one thing, any one thing that is true?" After a long silence, one listener volunteered: "I know it should not be taught as fact in schools".

The probability that evolution could have produced life in the first place has been questioned by many scientists. Sir Fred Hoyle wrote (Evolution from Space, 1981): "Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero".

Professor H.J.Lipson (A Physicist looks at Evolution, Physics Bulletin, 1980) sums up the thinking of a growing number of scientists when he writes: "I think, however, that we must go further and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it".

Despite a growing number of scientists who are abandoning evolutionary ideas, when it comes to what should be taught in schools, evolution is presented as the accepted theory of origins. It is commonly contended that “Evolution is science”, whereas “Creation is religion”.

The philosopher Karl Popper has argued that for any hypothesis to be within the realm of scientific theory, it must be phenomenon that may be tested by human observers and be repeatable. It is only then subject to the scientific method.

Creation has not been observed by human witnesses and since creation would involve unique, unrepeatable historical events, it is not subject to the scientific method. As a theory it is non-falsifiable as it is impossible to conceive of an experiment that could disprove it. Though creation does not fulfil the criteria of a scientific theory, that in itself does not invalidate it.

Evolution likewise sufferers from this problem. World-famous evolutionist Dr T. Dobzhansky stated the problem lucidly (American Scientist, Dec. 1957) "These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable and irreversible. The applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted". Dr L. Merson Davies (The Bible and Modem Science, 1953) [a founding father of CSM Ed.] wrote: "It is Darwin's habit of confusing the provable with the unprovable which constituted, to my mind, the most unforgivable offence against science".

It follows that the dogmatic claims that “evolution is a fact", made by early evolutionist writers as well as contemporary ones like Prof R.Dawkins, are ill-founded. So is the tired claim that "Evolution is science but Creation is religion".

In his book "Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation", Gillespie points out that in Darwin’s day, creationists frequently pleaded ignorance of the means of creation yet always affirmed the fact of creation. Patterson perceptively noted that the boot was now on the other foot. Evolutionists are now pleading ignorance of the means of evolution while always affirming the fact of evolution. On this point he states that it is hard to distinguish creationist attitudes of the past from evolutionists today!

In this climate of scientific debate, and the lack of clear difference in the scientific nature of these theories, surely no-one interested in academic freedom would seriously oppose the presentation in the classroom of scientific facts from both sides of the debate.

Would it not be better for the cause of scientific enquiry (and teach students more about the areas of experimental and investigative science), to allow the diversity of scientific view on origins to be honestly presented in schools? If both views were presented, allowing the main points of scientific evidence to be aired, surely this would not be detrimental to the cause of true science?

This situation would not be a 'Trojan Horse for religious fundamentalism infiltrating the world of science teaching, but rather, provide some much needed scientific objectivity to the question.

Where does all this leave the cause of science education? Does the teaching of origins in schools reflect open minded scientific questioning, or do we stand again in that hot Tennessee courtroom and and hear religious evolutionists trying a school teacher for inferring that the scientific evidence may not favour evolution?“

 

[Blain]

Ah yes I've heard the phrase "ain't no hate like Christian love". Never really got much of an example of it until i came to this forum. So much hatred and unchristian behavior! People are so close minded and gnash their teeth at you (figuratively speaking) if you ever challenge their worldview. I've seen similar behavior ministering to Muslims. I often forget we must have humility and forgiveness when others insult us. Other times I do remember, but I feel like not matching their energy would just make my point look weak and theirs strong, leading others to believe their lies and insults.

God's word is like a sword that is used to discern evil from good, but people often forget about love - 1 Corinthians 13 1"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind."

I know it's the holy spirit that converts, and there is no converting people who are destined by God to be lost, but we don't know who they are, so we have to try and address everyone's questions, including ones about the scripture. If we shy away from it or dismiss them, that's only going to drive people away from faith. And even if they are saved eventually, that's still sin and havoc in the world that could have been prevented.

This is why many are called but few are chosen. After all I have always had the firm belief that online is a wide and fantastic place to plant the seeds of the kingdom. People tend to show the hearts online who they really are what they really believe you can get to know someone even better in this way than if you were face to face if done correctly.

Face to face there are still those inner barriers closed doors that people don't tell even their closest to them

But online there is security behind a screen. This is why for those who do carry his heart and who are for the kingdom tend to stand out both in a good way and a bad way. To those who are hateful closeminded difficult to just discuss with all that Christian chat has been well known for since I joined in 2012 they will not like what you have to say they will not recieve what you are trying to see

But for the ones whose hearts have his true spirit few as they may be will recieve you and more than that this will connect the holy spirit more because when the spirit speaks to the spirit he is there among them

One thing I will say is that I have warned everyone he isn't playing games here he is dead serious that we have to rededicate to him that we have to be dead serious about him not just as our savior but our LOrd to surrender to him utterly and completely disregard what you thought you knew and be a clean slate to to understand that he is saying that we need to graduate from just reading his word but to go for the living word Jesus himself.

Many are confused what I mean by this they say well that is obvious but it isn't because if it was you wouldn't see all this hate

When I say go for Jesus himself I mean make your resolve to know the truth the real truth the real thing. All this confusion amongst the church all these exhastive debates that only ever divide the body more the doctrines denominations this doesn't seem to be how the devil works? Doesn't he know the best way to win a war is to confuse divide and conquor?

This is what faith is? what a Christian is? what the truth is?

Jesus said he is the truth the way and the life so if the truth is what we have here then go to the one who is. He is an actual person not distant he is with us always so if you are willing to kneel before him as if you are before his very throne and be willing to surrender completely and utterly eith every atom of your being in order to know him and the truth and this kind of surrender frees you inside you feel changed suddenly and he will accept your offering of surrender and take you on a new journey with him believe me everything changes.

But he is calling us to this place with him calling and calling but few are listening and time is running out as well and this isn't a bus you want to miss.

I have been called many things and said many things but I did so in obedience and now with this ring of fire that happened it is starting to make sense why he wanted me to warn everyone.

 

[ResidentAlien]

This is why many are called but few are chosen. After all I have always had the firm belief that online is a wide and fantastic place to plant the seeds of the kingdom. People tend to show the hearts online who they really are what they really believe you can get to know someone even better in this way than if you were face to face if done correctly.

Face to face there are still those inner barriers closed doors that people don't tell even their closest to them

But online there is security behind a screen. This is why for those who do carry his heart and who are for the kingdom tend to stand out both in a good way and a bad way. To those who are hateful closeminded difficult to just discuss with all that Christian chat has been well known for since I joined in 2012 they will not like what you have to say they will not recieve what you are trying to see

But for the ones whose hearts have his true spirit few as they may be will recieve you and more than that this will connect the holy spirit more because when the spirit speaks to the spirit he is there among them

One thing I will say is that I have warned everyone he isn't playing games here he is dead serious that we have to rededicate to him that we have to be dead serious about him not just as our savior but our LOrd to surrender to him utterly and completely disregard what you thought you knew and be a clean slate to to understand that he is saying that we need to graduate from just reading his word but to go for the living word Jesus himself.

Many are confused what I mean by this they say well that is obvious but it isn't because if it was you wouldn't see all this hate

When I say go for Jesus himself I mean make your resolve to know the truth the real truth the real thing. All this confusion amongst the church all these exhastive debates that only ever divide the body more the doctrines denominations this doesn't seem to be how the devil works? Doesn't he know the best way to win a war is to confuse divide and conquor?

This is what faith is? what a Christian is? what the truth is?

Jesus said he is the truth the way and the life so if the truth is what we have here then go to the one who is. He is an actual person not distant he is with us always so if you are willing to kneel before him as if you are before his very throne and be willing to surrender completely and utterly eith every atom of your being in order to know him and the truth and this kind of surrender frees you inside you feel changed suddenly and he will accept your offering of surrender and take you on a new journey with him believe me everything changes.

But he is calling us to this place with him calling and calling but few are listening and time is running out as well and this isn't a bus you want to miss.

I have been called many things and said many things but I did so in obedience and now with this ring of fire that happened it is starting to make sense why he wanted me to warn everyone.

"Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." Jude 1:3

 

[posthuman]

Is the bible not full of contradictions?

nope.

people have come to many false conclusions from ignorance, lack of understanding and plain old deceit.

but the scripture, properly understood, does not contradict itself.

 

[NTNT58]

nope.

people have come to many false conclusions from ignorance, lack of understanding and plain old deceit.

but the scripture, properly understood, does not contradict itself.

I'm not talking about the core message of the Bible, I'm talking about the fact that there are 400,000+ manuscripts and we don't know which ones are the true word of God, because they can't all be - they contradict each other. Most are minor contradictions, not affecting doctrine, others not so much. The only option it seems is to limit the doctrine of inerrancy to the core message of the Bible and just say humans wrote the Bible, and humans are fallible, so we're not sure about the small historical differences between manuscripts, and we don't know which one is 100% true.

If you understand the Bible and you're sure you came to the right conclusion, then please provide evidence for the following:

1. Is Catholic church the true, original church founded by Jesus when he gave Peter the keys to heaven?
2. Do we need to keep the Sabbath on Saturday as per the 4th commandment?

 

[posthuman]

I'm not talking about the core message of the Bible, I'm talking about the fact that there are 400,000+ manuscripts and we don't know which ones are the true word of God, because they can't all be - they contradict each other. Most are minor contradictions, not affecting doctrine, others not so much. The only option it seems is to limit the doctrine of inerrancy to the core message of the Bible and just say humans wrote the Bible, and humans are fallible, so we're not sure about the small historical differences between manuscripts, and we don't know which one is 100% true.

If you understand the Bible and you're sure you came to the right conclusion, then please provide evidence for the following:

1. Is Catholic church the true, original church founded by Jesus when he gave Peter the keys to heaven?
2. Do we need to keep the Sabbath on Saturday as per the 4th commandment?

wow, softballs.

1. nope
2. nope

need detail?


i am. not well educated on manuscript evidence, but as i understand it, the manuscripts agree over 99% and the majority of differences are clear copying errors.

even of the remaining differences there are not true "contradictions" and if there were, when copyists took the liberty of adding or subtracting, then the non-contradictory text with regard to the rest of scripture is clearly the correct one. so, not a big deal to figure out what is a mistake and what accurately reflects the original.

it is in fact an amazing thing that there are so many copies spanning such a big time period, and that they have differences. those differences and bulk of evidence allows forensic analysis to determine what the originals said and where errors arose and were propagated. if there were few copies or few differences, we could not trace them back as well as we can now.

there are far more differences between any 3 translations than there between the thousands of copies of the originals we have found.

 

[Sipsey]

I'm not talking about the core message of the Bible, I'm talking about the fact that there are 400,000+ manuscripts and we don't know which ones are the true word of God, because they can't all be - they contradict each other. Most are minor contradictions, not affecting doctrine, others not so much. The only option it seems is to limit the doctrine of inerrancy to the core message of the Bible and just say humans wrote the Bible, and humans are fallible, so we're not sure about the small historical differences between manuscripts, and we don't know which one is 100% true.

If you understand the Bible and you're sure you came to the right conclusion, then please provide evidence for the following:

1. Is Catholic church the true, original church founded by Jesus when he gave Peter the keys to heaven?
2. Do we need to keep the Sabbath on Saturday as per the 4th commandment?

Did you know that Polycarp and Ignatious of Antioch shared several letters that quoted the NT;? and that several other letters between early Christians also exist that when the extracted verses are assembled form a nearly complete NT, minus only a few verses? Before the Council of Nicea.

 

[posthuman]

@NTNT58 may i suggest you and i both spend at least 10 hours this week finding seminary-level lectures on textual criticism and listening to them?

we should not pretend to have any kind of meaningful discussion over subjects we don't have any breadth of knowledge about.

let's go get a clue what we are talking about and come back to this.

 

[Sipsey]

• Every New Testament book was referred to prior to A.D. 150, with the possible exception of Philemon and 3 John.
Authentication of the New Testament
The apostolic fathers Ignatius (A.D. 30–107 ), Polycarp (A.D. 65–155), and Papias (A.D. 70–155) cite verses from every New Testament book except 2 and 3 John. So just these three early Church Fathers authenticated nearly all of the New Testament.
CLEMENT OF ROME
In his Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians in about A.D. 97 Clement cites verses from Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, 1 and 2 Peter, Hebrews, and James.
The letters of Ignatius (dated A.D. 115) were written to several churches in Asia Minor and cites verses from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus.
These letters indicate that the entire New Testament was written in the first century A.D.
JUSTIN MARTYR
Justin Martyr, (A.D. 110–165), cited verses from the following thirteen books of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, and Revelation.
IRENAEUS
In his book Against Heresies Irenaeus, (A.D. 130–20), quoted from every book of the New Testament except for 3 John.
Irenaeus made over 1,200 quotations from the New Testament in his writings, and about 1,800 quotations and references from the New Testament
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
Clement of Alexandria, writing from A.D. 193 to 220, made about 2,400 quotations and references to every New Testament book except Philemon, James, 2 Peter, and possibly 3 John.
CYPRIAN
Cyprian, A.D. 200–258, made about 1,030 quotations and references from the New Testament. His quotes include every book except Philemon and 2 John, and possibly 3 John, which are the three shortest books in the New Testament.
There are enough quotations from the early Church Fathers that even if we did not have a single copy of the Bible, scholars could still reconstruct all but 11 verses of the entire New Testament from material written within 150 to 200 years from the time of Christ.

“The early church leaders wrote and quoted from the New Testament so that the New Testament could be re-written from their quotations with the exception of 11 verses.” Geisler and Nix

 

[Lifted_by_the_word]

I'll have to think on this for a little while on how to say it.This might actually be one of the biggest things God has revealed to me other than who the Two Witnesses are.
I'll submit a thread late night, or tomorrow.

I guess my thread didn't make the cut.Really should have finished it before submitting.

 

[FRB72]

Recently I came across this video on Youtube where the guy uses software to count number of occurrences of certain words in the bible …

Actually I did watch this one a while back. Intriguing!

 

[NTNT58]

wow, softballs.

1. nope
2. nope

need detail?


i am. not well educated on manuscript evidence, but as i understand it, the manuscripts agree over 99% and the majority of differences are clear copying errors.

even of the remaining differences there are not true "contradictions" and if there were, when copyists took the liberty of adding or subtracting, then the non-contradictory text with regard to the rest of scripture is clearly the correct one. so, not a big deal to figure out what is a mistake and what accurately reflects the original.

it is in fact an amazing thing that there are so many copies spanning such a big time period, and that they have differences. those differences and bulk of evidence allows forensic analysis to determine what the originals said and where errors arose and were propagated. if there were few copies or few differences, we could not trace them back as well as we can now.

there are far more differences between any 3 translations than there between the thousands of copies of the originals we have found.

You haven't provided any evidence for questions 1 and 2.

 

[NTNT58]

Did you know that Polycarp and Ignatious of Antioch shared several letters that quoted the NT;? and that several other letters between early Christians also exist that when the extracted verses are assembled form a nearly complete NT, minus only a few verses? Before the Council of Nicea.

Catholic church traces it's roots to the original apostles. The 3rd century is when they became officially recognized. Polycarp and Ignatious were both part of that church.

 

[Sipsey]

Catholic church traces it's roots to the original apostles. The 3rd century is when they became officially recognized. Polycarp and Ignatious were both part of that church.

So, they are suspect? If that’s the case, so is Peter, cause they say he was one of them also.

 

[NTNT58]

@NTNT58 may i suggest you and i both spend at least 10 hours this week finding seminary-level lectures on textual criticism and listening to them?

we should not pretend to have any kind of meaningful discussion over subjects we don't have any breadth of knowledge about.

let's go get a clue what we are talking about and come back to this.

I'm not as concerned about textual criticism as I am about basic Christian principles, such as which church if any is the one true church, and which commandments we need to follow. So let's get that squared away before we talk about less important details.