LIGHTBEING, First off let me say I enjoy your posts. You are respectful and you back up your comments with research and reason. You don't just spout off "well that can't be because it doesn't make any blankity-blank sense!" So while we may disagree on several issues, I respect your maturity. Now on to your post.
The problem I find with most prophecies in the Bible is that they are ambiguous. If some prophecies fail to meet the literal meaning, Christians tend to ignore it and substitute the meaning with a figurative interpretation even when the literal meaning is warranted.
Interesting. Can you give me an example?
OT prophecy was written to a Jewish audience, much of it within Hebrew poetry that was designed by Jesus own admittance not to be obvious but "veiled." This makes a great deal of it sound symbolic or figurative in english and in todays culture. However it holds no mysteries to the Jews who were accustomed to such things being written that way. It is in the context it was meant to be read that we must interpret it. Having said that, anyone can study the Bible and see that it helps interpret itself. Symbols are rampid in the Bible but are used with some what standardized meanings. For example oil is used as a symbol of holiness and for the Holy Spirit from Genesis to Revelation.
Also, It's hard for someone like me who knows that the Bible has been added to and taken away from, to accept the words written in it.
What has been added and/or taken away to your knowledge? Just so I know what to address (I'm long-winded enough, LOL!)
I think I've addressed this before. The canonized Bible includes the Old Testament, the currect state of which existed in Jesus' day and was validated by Him as God's word during His time here. A comment He made in Luke 11:51 about how the Scribes had killed every Prophet from Genesis to Zechariah (Prophets He mentioned were from the first to last book of the OT) excludes the "Apocrypha" as does it's contradictions to some of Christ's teachings. It also includes the "Gentile Writtings" or New Testament. These writtings make up first hand accounts of Christ's life and teachings and the letters of His Disciples and Apostles. As I've stated before the evidence for the authenticity of these writtings is staggering. The only incidents of "adding and taking away from" that I know of were the "heresies" that caused the accounts and letters to be canonized in the first place (aprox 47 A.D.) and the books the Roman Catholic / Catholic Church have added. While I'm not going to start discrediting that decision, I'll simply say when I refer to God's word, I'm not refering to those books. Apart from all of that no major doctrines or facts have been added, subtracted or altered through out all the various translations. Things have been stated differently from translation to translation, but not so as to add or subtract. The most credible aspect of it for me is that all of it's writtings can be compared to the most credible eye witness accounts of Christ's teachings (Gospels).
For some reason, Christians hold their Holy Book to a higher standard and somehow turn the other cheek.
I hold the word to a higher standard due to who spoke it (and/or validated it). Jesus Christ. His character, life, death and resurection... and the evidence for them speak for themselves. If there is some discrepency that Christians have "turned the other cheek" to then let's address it. I'm curious to know what it is. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif
You are made to Trust "The Word" before you even know the word, according to the Bible. Blind Faith has no evidence. Essentially Faith doesn't need evidence, because after all, that's why it's called Faith.
One of the statements made in the Bible is "He has written the truth on our hearts." It's another way of saying He gave us a conscience. Nobody made me believe or accept "The Word," I have agreed and disagreed with parts of it through out my life and have learned the hard way too many times that it is in fact one of the (if not the main) ways God speaks to mankind. I can't see the wind, but I can see and feel it's affects. Still, to some degree I must accept it by faith. Following Christ is quite similar. I cannot see God, but I can see and feel the affects of His involvement in my life. Dramatic change in my character, a multitude of specific answered prayer, other's lives changed both against all odds and supernaturally. My faith isn't so blind... and while the Bible does encourage faith (Jesus told Thomas "blessed is he who believes without seeing."), it never suggests, demands or otherwise encourages "blind" faith. It couldn't and say "test (or taste) and see that the Lord is good."
Evidence to back that statement up? And from what I read Jesus has more unfulfilled then fullfilled.
What are you reading? I can suggest a few good books (volumes) of evidence as well. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif
The OT prophecies have been around to read for thousands of years. The eye witness accounts of Jesus' fulfillment of those prophecies have as much evidence as Lincoln's assasination or any other historical event that depends on eye witness accounts. The colaborating evidence for the Gospel's validity is in Jewish and Roman records as well. Jesus crucifiers were around in the days those records were penned to make sure nothing was exagerated or embellished.
Well, we differ in views of Salvation. I don't believe in the Christian concept in Salvation ultimately because there was no sacrifice.
Explain "no sacrifice" please. I'm not quite sure what you are getting at.
Keep it coming, this is good stuff.
//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/veryexcited.gif.c26a15f316d23068607f36ddacd7a7ab.gif