Flat Earth

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The apostles didn't write books.
They wrote letters, and it's not likely any of them were as prolific as Paul.
The formation of the Canon appeared to occur organically, but there existed parameters which established both the value and the authority of what was accepted as Scripture.
Now 39 and 27 books with titles, chapters and verses, the finished ...[text shortened]... roject today's Bible unto the early Church's experience is nothing but woeful revisionist folly.

"...to project today's Bible unto the early Church's experience is nothing but woeful revisionist folly."

Would you please clarify that for me? Not sure what you mean.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So in other words, the bible of 367 AD and after is not the same bible as 100 AD. That's all we were saying in the first place.

My stance is the whole thing was strictly man made with no god needed. There are too many other religions with THEIR holy books that YOU would say was false and not deity inspired. The thing is, they say the same thing about you ...[text shortened]... r so conveniently, the upper ranks getting the best housing, food, transport, women, money......

"So in other words, the bible of 367 AD and after is not the same bible as 100 AD."

That is incorrect. Think of it in these terms. The words contained in the book we call the Bible are God's Words irrespective of the outward appearance of the book, or whether or not it has chapters and verses, or even titles.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"So in other words, the bible of 367 AD and after is not the same bible as 100 AD."

That is incorrect. Think of it in these terms. The words contained in the book we call the Bible are God's Words irrespective of the outward appearance of the book, or whether or not it has chapters and verses, or even titles.[/b]

It is only Christian wishful thinking that some god inspired the bible books. A god, who knows everything, why specify don't eat pork when this god would know full well and good it was a parasite making pork unsafe. Yet there was no word about just cooking the hell out of the pork to make it safe to eat. The fact the edict was, don't eat pork, says humans are the ones who thought there was a problem and the only solution, don't eat the pork which can make you sick.

That was because nobody back then had the slightest clue about microbes, viruses, parasites and such that could not be seen with naked eyes so the edict, just don't eat pork.

A god could have easily educated the people about parasites which would have gone a long way to having safe food to eat, vegetables as well as meat, but no, the big deal was Don't Eat Pork.

Originally posted by sonhouse
It is only Christian wishful thinking that some god inspired the bible books. A god, who knows everything, why specify don't eat pork when this god would know full well and good it was a parasite making pork unsafe. Yet there was no word about just cooking the hell out of the pork to make it safe to eat. The fact the edict was, don't eat pork, says humans ...[text shortened]... to having safe food to eat, vegetables as well as meat, but no, the big deal was Don't Eat Pork.

That's just too obvious. Don't think for one second it wasn't known and understood why eating pork wasn't healthy, and that they didn't know "cooking the hell out of it" wouldn't take care of the problem.

Your understanding of God's Word is as shallow as your bias is deep. That's not meant as a slight. But as the old adage says, you're straining at a gnat and swallowing the camel.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this, and I could be wrong, but I don't think you've ever even read the Bible. Bits and pieces maybe, but not the whole thing cover to cover. Either way it appears you have set your mind as closed as you can get it because you have believed the prevailing and humanistic ideological view that God is a myth fabricated by man for the propose of controlling the masses with fear. That is a man made fable. A misunderstanding of truth.

God is our father. Does a father hate his son to fill him with fear? Not a loving father. So, you see, your belief about the God of the Bible is misguided by a mythological misunderstanding generated in the mind of man for the purpose of misdirecting him away from the truth.

It's a hard pill to swallow, especially once the misguided perspective has been set in one's mind.

Hon 1:5
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Originally posted by josephw
The scriptures have been around for thousands of years, without a break. The books of the Bible as we now have them were codified by the apostles and prophets of the first century. You've bought into the lie.

What's the source of your information?

Originally posted by HandyAndy
What's the source of your information?

The same as it is for you. I've said it before. The Bible is its own commentary.

Originally posted by josephw
The same as it is for you. I've said it before. The Bible is its own commentary.

Where in the Bible can I find the passage stating that the 66 books "as we now have them" were codified by the apostles and prophets of the first century?

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"...to project today's Bible unto the early Church's experience is nothing but woeful revisionist folly."

Would you please clarify that for me? Not sure what you mean.[/b]

The Bible wasn't anywhere near as portable and compact as we have today, wasn't decimated or categorized ready for study.
It was loose-leaf while still established, but much more messy than any from these generations would likely recognize.
The uninformed and unlearned will likely jump on this and declare it an 'ah-ha!' moment, but the fact remains that while the letters of the apostles were being codified from a long-distance perspective, their relevance and authority were established before the ink was dry.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The Bible wasn't anywhere near as portable and compact as we have today, wasn't decimated or categorized ready for study.
It was loose-leaf while still established, but much more messy than any from these generations would likely recognize.
The uninformed and unlearned will likely jump on this and declare it an 'ah-ha!' moment, but the fact remains tha ...[text shortened]... ong-distance perspective, their relevance and authority were established before the ink was dry.

Gotcha!

Perhaps we can get back on target...

has anyone seen "flat earth clues"?

Originally posted by DukeOfEuphony
has anyone seen "flat earth clues"?

I have one.

Genesis 1:6,7
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Originally posted by josephw
I have one.

Genesis 1:6,7
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

And it was SO much BS. If you had to 'divide' the waters, there must have been several in the first place so there must have been 'firmament' or dirt between the waters to start with.

Actually, some MAN made up the story and SAID 'god said, let there be, blah blah blah.

How can you as a modern man in the 21st century still believe that as an actual event?

Originally posted by sonhouse
How can you as a modern man in the 21st century still believe that as an actual event?

By faith.

That, and it's the only rational and logical explanation for the earths existence. The current scientific model is merely a speculative theory, and cannot be relied upon as conclusive evidence. It's only a last ditch option for those that deny the existence of a creator.

Originally posted by josephw
By faith.

That, and it's the only rational and logical explanation for the earths existence. The current scientific model is merely a speculative theory, and cannot be relied upon as conclusive evidence. It's only a last ditch option for those that deny the existence of a creator.

Yup.