The bible is not OUTDATED.

nzlockie: I like your jigsaw analogy, where did you read it or did you make it up?

Pinkie: Made it up. I like those jigjaws. I once had this one where there were no edge and every piece was an identical shape. There was a picture on one side and the same picture was rotated 180 degrees on the other side.

I never finished it and I still reckon that was the hardest puzzle I've ever seen! It wasn't even a cool picture!

admin: After viewing the content of every post i began to love this website.

Thanks admin for your reply, i really do understand your opinion. Well, to clarify some things i need to answer your first sentence question. But, before i proceed just a friendly reminder: Id been taught that God,Christ and other servants of God (*) cannot be contradict each other when it comes to revealing what is the TRUTH. Some are just confuse because they don't understand the context of it. And every time i got connected with that person i am very glad to share what i have learned.

You have mention the verse 17 of Mat.5, and yes you are right that is the passage or"Sitas" (tagalog) in the Bible that you are referring to. And you are right also that Jesus Christ once mention that words ""Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill." And you mention also that the word LAW stated by Christ there, is the OLD LAWS. I beg to disagree Admin, that is a wrong notion. I purely say that almost a lot lot people mistakenly understood that Christ said. Let us always be reminded with this basic knowledge: "God and Christ and Servants(*) cannot be contradicted each other.

Because, if that is true,then there will be a lot of passages in the Bible that will contradict with that belief. I am not the one that say, that old Laws or more correct to say the old covenant was change, i just read it in Hebrew 7:12 "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law." and also in verse 18 says "For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitable.." see the Law was change, the Old Covenant annul then came the New Covenant ( that is why its said "NEW"). The Christian is not anymore under the Law of Moises(Old Laws) but under the Law of Christ(New Laws).

But the question is, why did Lord Jesus say that he come not to "destroy" (NKJV) the law or the prophets......yes he said this, but if we continue reading, he also said that he come to fulfill "it". Is this the Law of Moises? If yes, it will contradict to what John the Apostle said in verse 18 of the Book of John "Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God." Obviously he broke the law of the sabbath because he is working in the sabbath, which in the past is forbidden. "Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death"(Exodus 31:15). And beside the bible said that Christ is the Lord of the Sabbath, "above the sabbath", so if he wants to heal on sabbath day he has a right, because he is the LORD. If he wants to Work on sabbath, nobody could hinder him even the SABBATH itself. I Hope that is fair enough..i don't want to dig deeper on that.

Now, moving forward. What then is the LAW that Christ pertaining to? Let us read Luke 24:44 it says "Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.". All things must be fulfilled by Christ all the things that is written "concerning him". I want to emphasis this words "CONCERNING HIM". therefore the Law(**) that he is going to fulfill is the LAW concerning him, the specific commandment intended for him that write down in law of Moises, Prohets and Psalms already before he came into the flesh. the one Proof is in Hebrew 10:7 "Then I said, 'Behold, I have come-- In the volume of the book it is written of Me-- To do Your will, O God.' ". That is the Will of God, that is the Specific Commandment of the Father for him to fulfill.

Examples of the things that fulfill on the Volume of the BOOK concerning him:
Matthew 2:23 NKJV
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, "He shall be called a Nazarene."
John 1:45 NKJV
Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."
Mark 15:28 NKJV
So the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "And He was numbered with the transgressors."

And there are lot more Admin.

To the second issue. Nzlockie was correct when he mention that the Bible is not a kind of texttbook that all the details must be put in it, if so.. then nobody will ever read the BOOK- "And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.(John 21:25). Therefore when it come to our salvation and faith it was all completely recorded, but the details of how atoms work, logically you cannot find it on the BOOK. But the knowledge about ATOM,Cells, computer and etc are already written in the bible. Even in medical terminology you will not find the Word "Surgery", but the knowledge about surgery are written in the bible. If You going to ask me what is the best medicine that cures to all the desease, it is already written in the bible. You are just mistakenly who are the Christian is admin. There are lot of people in the world they say they are christian but the truth is, its not. Just like you said to your last words in the second sentence "Christian science is controversial because a lot of people have died needlessly after substituting medicine for prayer." I beg to disagree they are not christian admin. A true Christian have a high standard in dealing with the sickness and deseases (i will tackle that someday).

To the third issue. Yes the Bible has Overall Message to Mankind.."That we all know that He is the Lord". And "The Salvation has Come" there are lots of things that Content of that messages.

This is for the correction admin. God didn't die he is a Spirit, a Spirit don't have flesh and bone, so he cannot be die physically. the One that die is the Flesh, the Body.
You know i am very interested to tackle a lot of this. All i need is the question that everybody got confused in the bible. The word of God cannot contradict itself, but there are lot of contradiction in the Bible i may say. If we just know how to use it then we will not misled.

olive 2: I have no end to questions about the Bible (how on earth did the apostle Luke think Nazareth was in a depression? Could he not even read a map? What else did he just make up?) but if you don't mind, I'm kind of interested in your theology here, because I'm almost starting to wonder if I'm reading the same bible, so I'm going to press you on that.

Where in the old testament laws (pre-Christ) does it say that the coming of the messiah will change any laws by fulfilling them? Doesn't it seem odd to you that what you recognize as proof of this change comes from the epistles, written some time after the death of Christ? "I came to fulfill a law that will be written after my death" doesn't sound right when you think about it.

Also, please tell me where in the bible I can find any plain reference to computers or atoms or cells. This has got to be the most revisionist thing I've ever heard. Also what do you think the bible says is the best medicine to cure all disease? I can come up with reasonable answers myself to a lot of what you've said before, but stuff like that is weird at best. To say that those with a different interpretation of Christianity are "not Christian" I find kind of intolerant. I mean - can't Christians agree on the fact they all basically believe the same stuff?

admin: You realise that Christendom includes, among others, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics, Penticostals and Exclusive Betheren right?

Just that list alone represents polar opposite views on fundamental principles of christianity!
Within Christendom, it's necessary to differentiate, purely for clarity's sake. "Christian" would refer to those that hold the sola scriptura, sola fide and sola christus.

It's not intolerance, any more than anyone disagreeing with anyone else's opinion is intolerance.

I'm pretty keen to hear about the computers myself...

nzlockie: Catholics not Christians. That's quite an assertion to make there, nzlockie!

So what if they reject sola fide? This is the oldest Christian church still seriously practiced today. For clarity's sake, I'd define Christians as anyone who believes in Jesus Christ being divine in some respect. That's what the word implies after all - a Christian believes in Christ. Isn't that much clearer?

admin: You can define it that way if you want, and I'm not saying Catholics (or anyone else on that list) are or are not christian, I was just pointing out that all of them fall under the umbrella of Christendom. That being said, the Catholic church has walked a LONG way from the bible these days, I don't think it's that much of a stretch!

I'm with olive on this one though, the 5 solas are really the defining standard of what makes a christian aka follower of Christ -as far as I'd define it.

nzlockie: In other words, if you don't accept the reformation (Catholics, Orthodox, Reformists etc), you're not allowed to call yourself Christian according to nzlockie. They may agree in one God, in Jesus, in prayer, in building huge organs, stained glass windows, the Bible, life after death, creation, most ethics and almost every other respect - but only those conforming to the strict rules of Calvin and Luther may call themselves believers in the Bible, let alone Christians. See, the subtext here is that Christianity to you is the truth, and you define the truth as Christianity, so if there are believers who do not conform to your standards of truth you don't call them Christians.

It's a lot easier to be critical of somebody else's religion, so let me put it to you this way. Are Sunni and Shia Islam really all that different? Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism? It's like distinguishing between different races of people - some may be taller or of a different skin tone, but we're all still people. If it all kind of looks the same from the outside, in my experience it typically all kind of is the same. So to the 1.2 billion Catholics out there, I say you're Christians.

On a lighter note, I knew I've heard the claim that there is a best medicine for all diseases before somewhere...

admin: Lol, sorry mate if I've touched a nerve or something. But yes, the way you've worded it is a little harder than I would have but essentially you're correct. I'll also point out that Muslims have all those things in common with us as well.

I also want to be very clear on this point because reading between the lines of what you're writing here, it sounds like maybe you're thinking I'm being some kind of intolerant bigot here.
This differentiation is not being made from a place of superiority or arrogance. I'm only making the distinction because I get very frustrated when people outside of Christendom accuse MY doctrine of being unloving, wishy washy, intolerant arrogant etc etc.

Those traits can't co-exist with the 5 solas. You can't believe that Jesus did not ressurect and believe in the inerrancy of scripture. You can't believe that good things and penance will get you to heaven and believe in faith alone through Christ alone. You can't worship Mary and believe that God alone deserves glory.
You don't have to follow Calvin or Luther exclusively, but to be a "follower of Christ", you have to follow his teachings. All of them.

You have to understand that my beliefs define me, just as yours do you. When you consider how very far removed catholisim is from what I believe, not in the little things, but in the big ticket, will-you-go-to-heaven, items, maybe you can see why I would take offence at being lumped together like that?

Especially in an intellectual forum like this?

nzlockie: I appreciate that. I know I get a little annoyed when religious people lump me together with popular skeptics like Shermer or Dawkins, for instance, when they discover my religious views.

I guess the fine line here is that I have a problem with people who try to control what other people call themselves. Otherwise you get a situation where 1000s of churches all scream "We're the TRUE believers in Christ!" at each other. But I think you're more talking about rational criticism of alternate points of view - something that I fully support. And if by that you want to say that certain doctrines in other churches are non-Christian (as in, contrary to the principle of the belief in Christ) then that's something different, which I totally support. That kind of intelligent thinking can actually be really great for all sides to better understand the truth.

When I said "Christians all basically believe the same stuff" I did not mean any offense, and I'm sorry that I caused it. I just meant it in the sense of, you wouldn't be able to see any big differences if you were not a believer (or haven't studied it in some depth like I have). I said it because, based on various things he's said and the fact he's from the Philippines, I'm pretty sure olive 2 is Catholic. And you're clearly not. And I didn't want a "We're the TRUE believers in Christ!" war erupting any time soon. I just think saying "you're not Christian" is a bit harsh of both of you.

I don't think either of you meant to be intolerant at all. Hey, you're on an intellectual forum! The fact you're both putting up with vile atheists like me is proof enough there's a lot of tolerance here. I don't mean to insult anyone's views either. In retrospect I'm sorry that I got involved.

nzlockie: Wow! That sounds really tricky. :/

admin: This Forum always triggered my excitement. But i am not a Catholic FYI. But that's fine. You know if somebody wants to press me, i told them Press me gently.

I really do understand you admin that you have no end of questions about the bible, in fact, for me that is a good sign. You are different from those Atheist that i have known. I really like that kind of attitude, because you are aware of the scriptures issues. Well, just a friendly reminder, don't stick to one translations only. The Good Reader always have a lot of options. Minding you.. also look for the oldest translations as well. For we be able us to know the Facts therein.

"Lu 4:31 Came down to Capernaum. Nazareth was on the hills; Capernaum in the deep depression of the Sea of Galilee." If i got it right this is one of the translation that you read regarding your first inquiry. FYI, PEOPLES BIBLE translation is the name. Now i need you to compare this translation to other translations, i will give you an examples. "And came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on the sabbath days."(KJV). And here is one of the oldest translation, the codex sinaiticus (And he came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on the sabbaths I will also give you the link- http://www.codexsinaiticus.org .

Now, as we move on. We should not rely one translations only, always look on the deeper. Because there are translations called a "Paraphrase translations". This is not a word for word translations and there are danger with that kind of translation. The Thinking or Belief of the translator influenced the Words of how he understood it. And some translation there are omitted and some there are an additional words. But before this happen in our times, though God knows the heart of men, He already give us an advance information about this kind of people. You can read that in Revelation 22:18-19 " For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

And again, John 8:1-12 is not an inspired scriptures. If we are going to look at oldest scripture nowhere you can find it.

Okay....you ask me where in the old testament can i find that the coming Messiah will change the Law? In your line of question seems that you failed to read the whole Chapter Seven and Eight of the Book of Hebrew. But that would be fine, i will walk you through with it.

6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8 For finding fault with them, he saith , Behold , the days come , saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not , saith the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying , Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest . 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13 In that he saith , A new covenant, he hath made the first old . Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

In there, Paul mention this words - " Behold , the days come , saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not , saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:". Now, where in the old testament (*) Paul get this. The answer is in Jeremiah 31:31-34. I hope i answered you question. But again, just a reminder, don't think that Epistles of some apostles is a too late respond to Christ concerned. No, you are in deeply wrong understanding about the scriptures. The epistle ( in New Testament *) itself contains of a passages that come from the Old Testament. The one that Christ will fulfill is in the Law of Moises,Prophets, and Psalms, etc. and some is listed down in the epistles, why? Because that is the way of an Apostles for the recipient be able to understand it better- the Message.

They Write and one of the basis of their writings is the Old Testament itself. I know you are agree with me that when Luke write this in his Epistle."...As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying , The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight...(Luke 3:3-4). Where Luke get that Words? Therefore if all the epistles is written some time after the death of christ, it doesn't necessarily mean that the epistle itself is the one the christ will going to fulfill, no that's wrong. Christ will fufill what concerning HIM that is written in the Law of Moises..etc.and we can see that "CONCERNING HIM" in the epistles. Epistle then is just a continue Message of God to Humanity from the past. So there is no Contradiction with that, its just so happen that there are some confused.

You always say " OLD TESTAMENT, OLD TESTAMENT..." i emphasis that again...... that is Old and the Old is expired and we have the New, the complete set of Laws....the NEW Covenant.

I have a few minutes time left.

I will show you some slight information about Technology today that the Bible speak was. You know that is one of the goodness of the bible, It speak of the Past ( and beyond the past ), the Present and the Future. No Book as old as the Bible that speak the same. Especially the Future.

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro , and knowledge shall be increased "
That will be for now...... cont...

olive 2: Sorry that I got your denomination wrong. In any event I just want people to be careful - you shouldn't attack people for not being Christians because that can get offensive. It's much better to criticize ideas.

Just to clarify something: all translations are paraphrase to some extent. It's impossible to get an exact translation of something, least of all a large work like the Bible. To give an example, in German there's a common word ("ach") which does not exist at all in English, nor can it even be expressed well with a combination of words. Most of the time translators completely rework any sentence with "ach" in it to give a similar sense (for example - "ach was", usually becomes "yeah right", while "ach so" becomes "oh, I get it"). Or another example, I recently wrote to my friend in French "C'est génial de vous entendre - nous devons rattraper!" I would roughly translate that as "it's great to hear from you, we gotta catch up". Except that French is a very subtle language - "c'est génial" is a little bit more than a mere "it's great", for example. More like "super duper to hear from you", but that just sounds weird in natural English, while the French is quite natural.

The thing about newer translations is that they use the words in the sense that we currently understand them. There is much potential for confusion otherwise. For the record, I use the English Zondervan New International Version (hardly noticeable pro-reformation bias, otherwise very very good), not the People's Bible. Which renders it as "Went down to Capernum". The Hebrew here for down is "down" as in the vertical direction. But I was actually referring to Luke 4:28-29, a few verses earlier, where Jesus is chased up a hill "on which the town was built" by a crowd that wants to throw him "down the cliff". There are no hills or cliffs in Nazareth, or in any depression. Nazareth is certainly not built on a hill. Why Luke thought this is totally beyond me. The Codex Sinaiticus agrees with this translation in principle: "And all in the synagogue, on hearing these things, were filled with anger, and rose up and thrust him out of the city, and brought him to the brow of the mount on which their city was built, so as to cast him down headlong..." (apparently the editors of this translation were not concerned with proper grammar, but never mind).

Now let me explain something to you about law. I totally understood the letter to the Hebrews (there is no BOOK of Hebrew, and the letter was almost certainly NOT written by Paul), written long after Jesus died, in the new testament. This is a letter explaining the law. Paul is communicating that he thinks the law was changed because of Jesus (not all in the early church agreed with this - the apostles Peter and Paul had some epic debates). But Jesus said I come not to change but to fulfill the law. At the time he said that, Paul hadn't written his letter yet. So he can't have been fulfilling the letter, because there was no letter at that point. Law does not work like that. To be tried for a crime, it has to be illegal. Likewise to fulfill a law, you have to say what existing law he was fulfilling.

If this were not the case, then I still maintain this whole line of reasoning you have is nonsense. "I come not to change but to fulfill the law [which says to change]" is a self-refuting statement. It's like if I were to say "Apples are not bananas, but bananas".

Anyway, you say he got this from Jeremiah 31:31-34. You have to see this verse in a much wider context. 31:27 notes that Jeremiah is currently prophesying "the days... when I will plant the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the offspring of men and animals." This resettlement is called the "restoration of Israel" and actually came to pass long before Jesus. It makes perfect sense because both before and after this passage, Jeremiah prophesies more about the restoration of Israel, and almost all of it came to pass before Jesus (and the rest still hasn't come to pass to this day). There's only two reasons anybody thinks this part of the prophecy refers to Jesus at all. Specifically, the law God changed there is nothing like the laws Jesus supposedly changed, but more like "you won't get punished for your parent's sins", which God asserts is really what he meant all along anyway.

One is the quotation in the New Testament, which I don't see as evidence either for or against. Perhaps the author of the letter was right, and perhaps he was wrong. His opinion doesn't matter to me in the slightest.

And second we have Jeremiah's use of the phrases "new covenant" (the Latin for which is the same as "new testament" - see what I mean about necessary paraphrase? It's just mistranslated!) as well as "the days are coming" (a phrase sometimes associated elsewhere with the messiah). Except that Jeremiah used "the days are coming" right before he says "declares the Lord" pretty much every time, including several times when he explicitly is talking about the restoration of Israel (do you really think Jeremiah 19:6 would refer to Jesus? Or is there some secret part of the Bible where Jesus kills everyone in former Babylon?)

Why do you call him Esias and not Isiah, out of curiosity? Anyway, of course sometimes the quotations were accurate. That doesn't mean every quotation is accurate.

Many books as old as the new testament speak of the future. Most are wrong, but a few aren't that wrong. Tons of ancient authors, for example, predicted the discovery of atoms. I'm just convinced the Bible didn't. Cells were an uncommon belief, also something I believe the Bible doesn't say, and nobody at all predicted computers.

I just want to repeat what you said to Nzlockie "Fair point, and I don't intend to attack Christianity at all."

Me too, I don't have intention to attack anybody. To judge or discuss the merits and faults of (criticize means) others ideas seems like you are attacking them. But for me its not my style. My job is to READ and show them what i read, then its up to them to realize what that means.

I Read this one.
"My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me." and again he said "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." therefore being a christian has a signs for be able to know who they are. The basis is the teaching of christ as a whole, just like Nzlockie said. And ""Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven,....." see, if somebody say they are christian and worshiping idols what christ teach says. "You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols." Pagans not Christian. I am not attacking here...and i don't mention any Religion name as well.

With regards to my previous statement, it seems that you got my point there when you say, "Which renders it as "Went down to Capernaum". The Hebrew here for down is "down" as in the vertical direction..."..now you are talking, that's correct. We should not stick to just mere words use but also look for the root word where it came from, to find out what is the real meaning of it. And again you say "The thing about newer translations is that they use the words in the sense that we currently understand them. There is much potential for confusion otherwise. "... Yes that is what i meant, there are lot of confusion about the translation today, that is why every people that i talk to I always urge them to look a lot options, don't stick to one only. Even if Zondervan Bible is already right use for them. Always LOOK for MORE! That is my Campaign. Your example of using french and germans words helps me understand better to look for a lot of TRANSLATION more. Thanks Addmin.

I Really appreciate you understood the Book (i use "book" as other common use today) of Hebrew or The Epistle of Paul ( its Paul that wrote that letter, But i reserve those information basis, on a personal debate). I do believe Paul as i do Luke also and with Peter as well. These Three men of Jesus didn't contradict each other. They both agree with what christ said of getting rid of or change the one that include in Law of Moises-"'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' and "'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But change it, in this kind of Law. "Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Paul teach this Law also "Do not take revenge, my friends...."On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." And Luke Agree this as well, ""But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,(Luke 6:27). Peter also wrote about this Law and agree with it, "Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing."

There is no such thing in the Bible that Paul and Peter had some epic debate, especially when it comes to christ doctrine, but rather Peter said to Paul, "Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear "brother Paul" also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."(2Pter3:15-16).

So then i have few basis that christ did change some of the Law. But that is only Few i wrote but there are lot more. What i mean is that Luke write in Acts 13:39 "Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses."

The Law or Commandment pertaining to Christ are these :

I wiil send you(The Christ) the father said ( John 3:16:Mal.3:1) Christ Fulfill this Commandment
"And He was numbered with the transgressors."The Father also say this to him. Yes Christ fulfill this Law.
"You Will Die"- Christ fulfill this Law as well.(Isaiah 53:12 NIV) That is written by Isaiah, Esias, Isayas, whatever as long its Isaiah like Abaddon or Apolyon,different spelling but the same meaning.



I Want anybody to answer this ff Questions:

* Did Christ follow the overall law of Tithes?
* Did Christ follow Sabbath?
* Is the The Ten Commandment intended to Christ?
* Did he slain his Enemy like Israel did in the past?


The Following verses and chapter of Bible I gave are came from NIV, one of Zondervan published Bible Translations.

olive 2: I just want to ask - did everything post correctly for you? Or did something get left off? I know it's not absolutely related to what you said but I thought I'd check since you wrote a long post and I want to be sure that the forum is running without bugs from time to time.

admin: A continuation to reply.Whether somebody post correctly or not. Or somebody get left off or not.Though maybe somebody will drop by and look.Thanks.


The letter of Paul as a whole are not the things to fulfill by the prophesied messiah but the specific content in the letter which some pick it up from the old books.For Example, Paul sight this thing from of old,Psalm 45:6-7 " Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom...."this one is explain by Paul in his letter in Hebrew 1:8-9 to show how the prophesied messiah will going to fulfill it. Same of Luke, Peter, John, James, etc. Letters.Fair enough.

Yes you are right when you say "Law does not work like that. To be tried for a crime, it has to be illegal.", we will find that in Romans 5:13 in his letter,Paul agree with you with that, he say''but sin is not imputed when there is no law". But the thing is you mistaken the letter of Paul, from a Letter to Law. Letter of Paul as whole is not a Law. But some content, Yes!

Moving forward, i just want to ask,. How come you so sure that there is no Hill or Cliff in Nazareth,have you view already the vast Area of Nazareth? Or i may say that Luke is right and others are not. Surely, Luke know what he's writing because he live at the time with have more knowledge about the Land than us. Not just because he is move by the spirit but also he knows his tribe boundary as well. He is just pointing one of the place of Nazareth, the city that is built in the cliff.Then he went down to Capernaum which located at the base place, lower galilee.

Jeremiah 19:6 is not refer to Jesus, definitely not. He is not yet manifold in the flesh at that time. It refers to the Desolation of Valley of Hinnom which was happened in time of Babylon when they enter the place.

The Wonder of the Bible.

Before Men discovered the earth is round it is already written in the Bible. And even before the discovery of the flow of water in the world, the information already written in the Bible. Before the discovery of the planets outside it is already written in the Bible. Before Aids began it is already written in the Bible.The history fail to recognize King Sargon at first but they agree in due time when they discover about him. No information yet in the past that is written about our Technology today but the Bible does. A proper food combination is already informed by the bible before we discover it.They Just don't know where is that in the Bible.

to be cont.....

Before the Discovery of Atoms and Cells and Computers in present times, the advance information about them are all written in the Bible, like that when science discover that the EARTH is round. If we have just read the bible we will opt to know the shape of it, because that issue had gone debated a long time ago. That is why Galileo Galile expelled in Catholic faith. ( http://scientistshowtell.wikispaces.com/Galileo+Galilei )

Isaiah 40:22
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in

About Atom and Cells...
"In physics, a physical body or physical object (sometimes simply called a body or object) is a collection of "matter" with some common attributes, most important, the spatial location. Examples of models of physical bodies include, but are not limited to a particle, several interacting smaller bodies (particles or other), and continuous media." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_body )

In the Bible....
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen , being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Romans 1:20

Colossians 1:16
"For by him were all things created , that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and "invisible", whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"

I reserve about the knowledge of the Bible about the Computers.I already give some slight information about it. You know that is the Wonder of the Bible. Sadly they just don't know where to find it.

"all is accomplished " Admin said in his # 7> top ten controversial thread


Question Did Christ accomplished this?
Number 18:26
"Thus speak unto the Levites, and say unto them, When ye take of the children of Israel the tithes which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then ye shall offer up an heave offering of it for the LORD, even a tenth part of the tithe"
How about this one....
Exodus 16:29
"See , for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day."

Here is the explanation of the Bible about the Matthew 5:17- 19 controversy

Think not that I am come to destroy the "Law", or the prophets: I am not come to destroy , but to fulfil . 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass , one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the "law", till all be fulfilled . 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these "least commandments", and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

The Law that Christ stated there is not the Over all Law of Moises. Because if you honestly answer above questions about Accomplished of Christ in the Law, you will conclude that the Law he meant in Mat.5:17-18 is not the Law of Moises. Because nowhere you can find in the in the New testament that Christ give Tithes and did not go out in the sabbath day.
So to reconcile everything that is confusing we must ask what is that Law that Christ pertaining to? I tackle that already in my previous topics.
The Law or Commandment he meant to is the "Law Concerning Him" or "The Commandment Intended for him Alone" According to Luke 18:31

"Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold , we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished."

And also in Luke 24:44

"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled , which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, "CONCERNING HIM". "

See, The Law that is intended for Christ shall be accomplished or fulfilled and not the Law of Moises because the Law of Moises intended to Israel, according to Mal.4:4
"Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments."

And according to Paul in his letter to Timothy
1Timothy 1: 8-9
"But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,"

And I am pretty sure Christ Change some Laws that are within the Law of Moises before Paul wrote his Letters. It is Clearly seen to some of His Statement that he really did change the Law of Tooth for Tooth into Love your Enemy. Moving forward in this kind of Topic there are still Deep Things to Learned of. And I am obliged to keep on that for the meantime.