Hawkingfan

A LOT!!! Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I don't like to believe in things blindly. It's very dangerous to do that.

Hawkingfan

You did not read all the scriptures I quoted. If you notice, I mentioned Acts 7:4--
"So he left the land of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran. AFTER THE DEATH OF HIS FATHER, God sent him to this land where you are now living."

Hawkingfan

I think that is speculation.

Hawkingfan

And this was exactly my point. Except that I do think it is a "biggy". We have been told that the bible is "Absolute Truth". And a discussion arose in another thread that the bible's scribes made NO ERRORS AT ALL. I had to get him to admit that they did. You can still believe in the bible, but please do not call anyone a liar for saying there are scribal errors. The bible is also supposed to be inspired by god, a perfect being. But yet there are these imperfections no matter how minor they may be. Inspired by a perfect being, there should be none at all. Therefore, many people are going to doubt the validity of all of the bible's statements instead of taking them at face value.

Hawkingfan

Thanks, but please give me the reference scripture so that I may add it to my notes. Otherwise, I can't buy it.

Vinnie

Don't you mean the truth of modern science prevents you from taking Genesis 1 and 2 and the Flood and a few other sporadic passages literally as factual descriptions/accounts? Yes there are a quite few passages in the Bible that can be argued to be at odds with modern science. How does that translate into "the whole Bible" is erroneous though? What could the scientific accuracy (or lack thereof) of Genesis 1 and 2 have to do with the veracity of much of the content of the Gospel of Mark? As Raymond Brown said, " [O]ne should be cautious of statements claiming "The Bible says . . ." even as one would not state, "The Public Library says . . ." when one means to quote from Jane Austen or Shakespeare. The better phrasing names a specific book or author: "Isaiah says" or "Mark says," thereby recognizing that individuals from different periods of time with different ideas rote the individual books of the Bible."

Vinnie

Vinnie

The "could be" part of it kind of gave that one away

Vinnie

Thomas Cassidy

2 Chronicles 2:14 seems to indicate the Danites intermarried with the Phoenicians (a violation of the Law). The tribe of Dan is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 12 and 27, but it played no part of import in the subsequent history of Israel. The name Dan disappears from the geneological lists in the Chronicles, and is absent from the tribes listed in Revelation 7:5 and following.

Samson was a Danite, and he seems to embody the characteristics of the tribe. He was unsteady, unscrupulous, violent, sneaky in his tactics. This may further explain why Dan is dropped from the geneological tables.

Also, it must be pointed out that the Anti-Christ is believed by many to come from the tribe of Dan (Deut 33:22 cf Gen 49:17), thus also explaining his deletion from the tables.

Thomas Cassidy

I thought so too!

Hawkingfan

After re-reading the scriptures, I cannot see how such a conclusion could be made.

I do not see this description anywhere in the scriptures.


I care. Because the bible is supposed to be god, who is supposed to be perfect. It is supposed to be written by (or "inspired" by--whatever your slant dictates) god who is supposed to be flawless. Therefore, there should be no discrepencies. Also, he should be absolutely clear with each and every statement.