Reply With Quote
He makes no point at all. The scriptures are reliable. Purple vs crimson is a gnat. Easily explained but irrelevant to the point being made.
That sums it up. He just tries to get the last word...
He makes no point at all. The scriptures are reliable. Purple vs crimson is a gnat. Easily explained but irrelevant to the point being made.
Last edited by Skull-1; 10-01-2013 at 08:04 PM.
Uh oh, you guys have attracted Mouses' attention.
Be prepared for some funny .
He definitely has wit.Uh oh, you guys have attracted Mouses' attention.
Be prepared for some funny .
Yeah mouse skull did already answer the question of the color differences in great detail but he really shuldnt have to because its a mute point. Thats the point I tried to make in discussing the heart and spirit in which the bible is read. Are u reading it in such a way that a slight differences in hue are going to cause you to miss out on salvation? Or you going to read it in a way that says these guys r msking same point from different perspectives cause theyre different eye witness accounts. If each one said same thing then blake would be waving the collusion flag.
In the extra biblical information I posted note theyre jewish so last thing theyd want is to do ent anything that led to Christ s credibility yet they wrote it anyway so seem like reliable sources to me
You didn't explain it at all. You called it irrelevant and ran away.
Why would you believe in a God that can't decide what color of robe he was wearing?
If they got the color of the robe wrong, whose to say they copied Jesus' words correctly?
why would anyone think that two sources that conflict with each other are 100% reliable?
Go back to post 195 for explanation on colors
I explained in equally excruciating detail about colors. Blake obviously wasn't paying attention.
It is truly not relevant. My eyes see colors differently. It could be that simple. But the reality is, it is a gnat meant to stumble people. That's what God does.
How about the differing accounts of Christ battling the Pharises over divorce? In one Gospel Jesus poses the question. In another they pose the question. The answer is the SAME. Thus it really doesn't matter.
The Gospels are not literal history either. They may differ in minor details but those details are gnats. Not relevant because the spiritual truths remain unaffected.
The inerrant consistency of scripture is seen in Exodus 39:1 ......
Moreover, from the blue and purple and scarlet material, they made finely woven garments for ministering in the holy place as well as the holy garments which were for Aaron, just as the LORD had commanded Moses.
..........
Thus scarlet, red, purple, etc. would all be accurate
THE SCRIPTURE CANNOT BE BROKEN.
Last edited by Skull-1; 10-02-2013 at 12:00 AM.
Blake again its not they got it wrong they wrote from their own perspective. In one persons eyes one color was fominant in anothers they saw a different color or chose to be more detailed. Like skull said if a maroon car drove by some people will be more technical n say a maroon car drove by while others may call it by its base color of red...again u going to be like pharisees who thought they were too right to see that the messiah was right in front of them? Blinded by pride.
The difference wouldn't matter for normal claims of historicity. When extraordinary claims are made, the allowable variation for proof is much much less. You cannot use a sloppy reference for a perfect application.
I noted it. It was just a long winded way of saying details don't matter.
i.e. God is a sloppy editor.
So now you're saying the Old Testament is relevant? And that the two colors are actually two separate colors?
Make up your mind.
from that view, I don't see why anyone would trust the author.
Because some people have soft hearts. Some have child like faith. Some had to put their pride aside. Some were ready to give up selfish living. Lets be honest here. The real reason people don't come to faith isn't because slight variances in color its something deeper that has hardened their hearts and pride prevents them from admitting it. Scared to look weak and vulnerable. But it was when I became weak n vulnerable that He was able to take over n lead me. Again if all books said same yall would scream collusion n just make more excuses for unbelief. Go look collusion up then lets get deeper past your superficial excuses. The differences are there to trip up the prideful.
It's not about pride. It's about logic.
It's illogical to believe in the Bible.
It's not about pride. It's about logic.
It's illogical to believe in the Bible.
The truth is, it is illogical to argue about the Bible.
And even more illogical to use it as a basis for proving arguments in the first place!
Next we will be using Rogets Thesuarus to prove the theory of gravity, when all we have to do is drop a rock!
The fact is no book ever proved anything, and most especially not one as misunderstood and misquoted as the Bible.
As I've said many many times before, you can pick and choose, cafeteria style, any scripture you want, to prove any point you want.
It is that nebulous!
I've been reading all the points each of you have posted. No offense meant, but none of you, without exception, have made a single valid sustainable point, sorry.
This exercise has failed and gravitates quickly toward being an exercise in futility. Every one of you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Either that, or you are possessed with too much pride for your own good. And pride comes before a fall. Or are you so vain, or insecure, that you need to show how superior you are?
You might all try a little humility, and drop the superior at udes, it would gain you more credibility.
The fact is, none of you are experts! Face it. Be humble.
End of story!
Last edited by xmas1997; 10-02-2013 at 09:50 AM.
If you want to put it on the shelf next to the Iliad, ok, but if it becomes a basis for public policy, then it's open for argument and scrutiny.
No one of any rational intelligence would ever use it for that basis, especially in this Age of Enlightenment.
To do so would do nothing but expose their ignorance.
Like some said, might as well argue The Lord of the Rings, or your example, the Illiad, or my example, Rogets Thesaurus.
How about War and Peace? Or The Oaspe? Or Betty Crockers Cookbook? Or Seuss' Green Eggs And Ham?
It is pointless, and nothing more than an exercise in futility, simply because it is one opinion against another's.
For as many humans that are on this planet, there will be that same amount of opinions on interpretation.
I, for one, won't accept someone else's opinion for fact. That is why it is better to be the doubting Thomas.
If there is indeed a God, Universal Consciousness, All Mighty Savior, Jesus, Mohamid, Great White Tree, whomever you want to call it or him or her, then It will be made known to each of us deep inside of us in a very personal and subjective way, have no fear about that.
No one human is superior, that is why to be humble is a virtue.
Hopefully I have offended no one because that was not my intent.
I Am That I Am
Last edited by xmas1997; 10-02-2013 at 10:19 AM.
You'd think so, but it's happening in this age.
Gays still can't get married in many states and creationists are still trying to push God into science books.
That is the exception, not the rule. And many of those are the "old guard" and are dying off, not to be morbid about it, just life moving ever forward.
They're still alive, still pressuring politicians and they are right when they say "Bible God hates sexuality"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions