Lord Emsworth

My equation? You mean 'Satan' = 'God' != 'God'?

"Verses 9-12 are also talking about Satan who is portraying himself as God, but "sends them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." "

This establishes that the noun phrase 'God' in 2:11 ("... for this cause God shall send ...") equals the noun phrase 'Satan.' Short: 'God' = 'Satan'

"THEN, Verses 13-17 go back to talking about the actual, true God (not the one impersonating Him)."

This establishes that the noun phrase 'God' in 2:11 does not equal the noun phrase 'God' in 2:13 ("... because God hath from the beginning ..."). Short: 'God' != 'God'

Putting the two together: 'Satan' = 'God' != 'God.'

Killjoy

I agree that many people claim to have found contradictions that are really just paradoxes, mistranslations, etc. There are also many minor contradictions that in any other work of literature would be entirely forgivable. The problem is that the Bible, at least to (mainstream) Christians, is not just any work of literature. It is the perfect Word of a perfect God. It is the very model of Truth, the foundation of all knowledge. Minor inaccuracies and other sources of confusion are much less forgivable if this is the line you wish to take.

inquisitive01

If anyone thinks that the Bible was written by God, especially with phrases at the beginning of Chapters such as "The Gospel According to Luke," etc., then I'm not sure where in the world they are getting this idea. As examples, "The Gospel According to Luke" was written by Luke, one of the twelve disciples; I and II Corinthians, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, I and II Timothy, I and II Thessalonians, Philemon, and Hebrews were written by Paul; etc. There are also the general epistles of James, Peter, and John, and the Book of Revelations also by John.

For more about the accuracy of the Bible (based on preservation of the original texts), you can visit http://www.ou.edu/faculty/organizati...rfas/reed6.htm.

inquisitive01

What??? You don't believe that Satan (should he exist and be as the Bible describes him, for the atheists) could try to deceive (or delude) people into believing he is God when he is actually just fooling them into believing this?

How can Satan = God if Satan is not God, but is only portraying himself (to anyone who would be fooled or deluded) deceitfully as God? Are you actually saying that a person portraying oneself as God makes that person God??? :huh:

Killjoy

Then you are in agreement with the vast majority of atheists, agnostics and assorted non-Christians. The Bible is the work of people, many of them not very nice people (Paul, for example, seems to have had a strong dislike for gays and a moderate dislike for women). It deserves no particular respect as a source of truth or moral guidance, certainly not a-priori. This is exactly the point this whole disussion has been trying to get across.

inquisitive01

I guess you're asking for some kind of credentials? Go figure.

Anyway, regarding the word cause, I would say it is likely refering to "reason and/or motive" (motive = that which provides motivation for doing something, such as Satan being motivated to fool people into believing he is truly God, so that they would follow Satan's instruction instead... the motivation for this being the damnation of those that are fooled into following Satan's unrighteous ways, rather than following the true God).

inquisitive01

NOTE: You said that, not me. Also, I don't know exactly what you're referring to regarding Paul's views of women (i.e., which women, and why?), but the Bible refers to homosexuality as an abomination (a disgusting or unlawful thing or act) in Leviticus 18:22, which is in the Old Testament (before Paul).

Joshua Adams

Are you saying that Paul (Or whoever wrote 2 Thessalonians) was deceived by Satan when he wrote the verse? It clearly states that God did the deceiving.
All of these other Bibles use "God" as the deceiving agent: MSG, AMP, NLT, ESV, CEV, NKJV, KJ21, ASV, WE, YLT, DARBY, WYC, NIRV, NIV-UK, HCSB, TMB, NRSV, RSV, GNT, RHE, NCV, GWD, HBV, BBE.
You say this verse was not about God but Satan. Therefore, Paul must have been duped by Satan. Is this your argument? If so, why are you even bothering to defend the passage if it's wrong? Technically, the text contradicts the "God is truth", but if the text is wrong, isn't it the same problem as a contradiction?

Also, Paul's view of women was more or less as inferiors to men. See 1 Corinthians 11, 14, and Titus 2 for a few passages on women. Also, it is quite unlikely that Paul was merely paraphrasing Leviticus in his homophobia, since he repeatedly claimed that the Law is obsolete and that he is not bound by it.

Roland

Huh?

They are contradicting EACH OTHER. That's how Bible contradictions work, one author contradicting another author, not an author contradicting himself or his own story. Why would ANY writer - inspired or not - say there were twelve apostles present when he had already eliminated one of them earlier in the story? So, I'm not sure what we're supposed to "consider." Either there were eleven apostles present including Thomas or there were ten present without him. Both cannot be true.

Madkins007

To a fundy, the phrase 'Mainstream Christian' is an insult. It means (to them) a more liberal outlook on the Bible, one that 'waters down' the miracles, uses 'weak' translations, and so forth. In other words, exactly the kind of people who do not view the Bible as infallible.

I doubt MOST Christians would care about most of the debate here. Most of us do NOT take the Bible as literally perfect and infallible, and most denominations have a written doctrine of some form of 'limited infallability' ('infallable in original inspiration, but erroneous in other ways' for example.)

Sure, the fundies do look at it as you described, but they are BY NO MEANS either the majority NOR mainstream.