One quick thing about the issue of 'temptation in heaven'. There are two things that will not be in heaven that are here now. One is the 'sin nature'. In heaven, the sin nature will be abolished. The other is Satan. Satan tempted Adam and Eve to sin and has been tempting us ever since. Every evil thought, every malicious act comes from his complete evil mind. We are still responsible for our actions, but without a devil to tempt us in heaven, will there actually be temptations?

I apologize for taking so long to reply, but I got six responses since my last post. Since I'm determined not to get burned out in this discussion, and equally determined not to pass over anyone's points, those who are debating with me when I get swamped shall have to practice the art of patience, I'm afraid.­

Again, shoot me a pm if I've missed something.

The problem is, everything you know about God and Jesus Christ comes from the Bible. Even if you heard it from someone else like a family member or friend, they got it from the Bible, or else got it from someone else who got it from the Bible. Everything we know about God and Christ is from the Bible.

The ideas of the Bible are not exclusive to the Bible. Even in the case of Christ. Though millions of people never heard his name or were told his story, the concept of unconditional love is echoed throughout creation.

So if you don't believe parts of the Bible are true, how do you know what you already believe is true? If you believe some parts and not others, how do you know you've picked the right parts to believe in? Maybe all the good sounding parts are true, and the bad sounding parts are false. But what if it's in reverse? What if the good parts are all false and only the bad parts are true?

In my eyes, it's better for me to take responsibility for my own morality and the parameters of my faith than letting (what seems to me) a diametric hodgepodge of ancient brutality and beautiful truths dictate me into believing absolutely nothing other than that God does whatever he wants, whenever he wants.

In my opinion, that is no morality. The only message I can glean from the Bible as a whole (at this point) is blind obedience. If you are among the lucky few who are even given the chance and ability to be obedient.

What if none of it is true, and the god you've gotten to know is actually some other god?

There is only one God. Billions of people feel this presence, but that doesn't mean they always use it for good, or come away with the same religion. Everybody puts their own spin on it, including Christians. Who's right? It's up to the individual to decide, and realize that it was their decision.

If we base our beliefs on what does and does not line up with how we think God is, our beliefs are going to be wrong sometime whether we believe in the Bible or not. Us being small, imperfect humans who don't know the whole picture; and God being bigger than we can imagine, perfect, and all knowing; the chances of us knowing what he would or wouldn't do, and agreeing with him on all matters moral (even us good-intentioned folk) is very slim.

Even if you believe that the Bible is infallible, just look at this thread! Look at the number of denominations, the never-ending spiritual debates that have gone around and around in circles for centuries. They are all basing their theologies off of the same source. Regardless of whether you believe the Bible is infallible or not, I would be genuinely shocked if a human has ever walked the earth that fully understood it and "didn't get something wrong."

(Christ, of course, notwithstanding. )

The only thing I can see that's different between myself and the thousands of denominations is I'm admitting outright that I'm picking and choosing and interpreting for myself. Acknowledging that I am, in fact, defining my faith. Not the Bible.

There's going to be times when He does something that shocks us. Eventually you're going to find examples not only in the Bible, but also in real life.

I don't believe that all of the sin, disease, tragedy, horror and hate in creation comes from God. I believe it is the absence of God, a part of the cruel ebb and flow of this messed up, temporary-for-a-good-reason world. God can, however, use these situations to teach us, strengthen us, and draw us closer to immortal truths that rise above all of the death and destruction on this earth.

Ok first off what do you mean about manipulated? We have numerous versions of the Bible and they all say essentially the same thing. Some of the words may be different but the meaning is the same.

I'm talking about taking verses and using them as justification for acts of evil. I'm not going to get into the semantics debate yet, because I still have some research to do on that subject.

Furthermore all of this Man getting in between is just more evidence supporting the Bible's inerrancy, because it is prophesied about in the Bible.

I don't think it's unusual to suspect that holy texts are always going to be twisted by corrupt people. So such a prophecy doesn't really impress me for that reason.

For example if someone told you it was good to kill someone as long as it's for God or that God didn't want us to help the poor, how would you know they are not right unless you believe in what all the Bible says.

The Bible essentially does say that in the Old Testament. And when I try to pair the brutality of the Old Testament with the love of the New Testament, all I can come away with is that there are no moral laws, no right or wrong; only what God wants, when he wants it. It feels a lot like tyranny to me, and worshiping so capricious a god is not something that I'm particularly comfortable with. I like consistency. I like being able to depend on something. I would wager that all humans do, because we all like to feel grounded.

People's morals are subject to influence if they didn't have the brain and the backbone provided in the inerrancy of the Bible then how would they stand without letting their morals fall? How would they know if something was right and wrong? How do you know that the parts of the Bible you believe are errant actually are and it's not the stuff you were told that you replaced it with?

The thing is, the Bible is nobody's brain. Your brain is. . . your brain. That's why we have different versions of the Bible. That's why we have so many different denominations. That's why we have so many debates about religion. Because everyone has their own take, their own idea, their own interpretation. What's the point of having an infallible Bible if no one's going to agree on what it means? At the end of the day, it is always the human who is dictating their precise belief system, not the Bible.

And ^ that ^ is what my entire post was talking about. That cannot be true. If the Bible is infallible, how can you know that God isn't infallible? The Bible is all we have to tell us about God.

I just don't come from that kind of background. My faith doesn't hinge on believing in the Bible as the inerrant word of God. God has always been working in my life, and always will be, whether I accept the Bible as infallible or not.

God says that He will protect His scriptures.

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Define "all scripture"?

John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

What does that even mean?

Don't laugh, but when I look at John 1:1, I think, "Hmm, God must have something to do with sound waves or frequencies."

When I read the verse in context, I am inclined to believe it's referring to the beginning when God spoke creation into existence.

Again, referring to 1 Timothy 3:16-17. God specifically says that all scriptures are breathed out by God. If you can't believe that, then God doesn't keep His promises. If God doesn't keep his promises, then how can you believe that Christ was raised from the dead?

What promise was he making? Again, what does "all scripture" mean? Only the ones Martin Luther liked? Only the ones the Catholic Church sees fit to include? There's nothing in the Bible that says who is right, no prophecy (that I am aware of!) that states that a man who will live in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries shall have the authority to finally decide exactly what "all scripture" entails and set the record straight.

How are we supposed to know? How are we supposed to get it right? I don't think we can.

I don't understand it all and don't suppose my widdle human brain ever can. But He has said that not everyone will understand. If we understood the whole thing, then why would we need God anymore? If we knew it all, He would no longer be God.
But God says that if we seek, we will find. He will reveal what He wants us to know and He commands us to seek Him.

Not all of us. That's pretty clear in scripture.

Coura, I have to try to understand, because until I do, I cannot believe. Because you cannot believe something when your heart isn't in it. God always knows.

As for translations, God says that the scripture is Holy and the Word of God. So, what is He talking about? The originals.

The originals still exist?

I'm aware that the best way to study scripture is by working back from the the earliest copies you have, but that was simply not feasible for the majority of mankind for centuries. Most of them couldn't even read at all, and were not granted access to scriptures even if they could. Again, what is the exact function of the Bible in a Christian's life? The ability to meticulously study and know the purported word of God was impossible for most Christians throughout history.

Please please please please watch the videos!!! That man is so much smarter than me he can make me cry with humble gratitude. He can explain it all so much better than me.

I'll get my thoughts on it to you as soon as possible.

I'm not saying that the Spirit doesn't speak to people outside of Scripture: I am saying that when the Spirit speaks, He will inevitably point people to Scripture and to His Church. If that isn't happening, then it's not the Spirit at all.

Why do you think I am on this thread?

I'm not posting here just because I like the mental exercise. Nor because I am trying to point out flaws in anyone's faith for the kick of it, or the thrill of debate; that's not the kind of person I am.

All I'm trying to do is explain my viewpoint, ask my questions and see if I get any answers that I can genuinely believe are right. I would not be here were it not for my relationship with God.

If having the audacity to have doubts and question religious ideas automatically makes me a godless heathen. . . good grief.

And I'm saying that you can't take revelation in Scripture seriously unless you hold to infallibility, else you will inevitably end up picking and choosing which of it to believe. The words of Scripture are the words elected by God: we cannot change them or pretend they say something different. We may accept or reject them---but in so doing we accept or reject God Himself.

Please explain to me how "rejecting God" was not exactly what Martin Luther was doing when he decided to define what was and wasn't the word of God.

On the subject of picking and choosing. . . all Christians pick and choose.

They pick and choose which version of the Bible to believe, they pick and choose which books are the word of God and which aren't. They pick and choose what the scriptures mean, what is metaphor and what is literal, and what God is really trying to expound with each and every passage. They pick and choose what to focus on and what to underplay. They pick and choose everything about their faith.

Look at how many different denominations there are; it is staggering. The reason why these thousands upon thousands of denominations exist is because humanity is constantly picking and choosing.

Just because I make no bones about picking and choosing doesn't mean I'm the only one doing it.

So there, Paul is talking about people who believe in God and are "zealous" for him. My internet dictionary gives the definition of "zeal" as: "Great energy or enthusiasm in pursuit of a cause or an objective". So in other words, these people believed in God and were very enthusiastic about Him. Yet, Paul still prays for their salvation. Why? He says it's because their zeal is not based on knowledge. It doesn't have a basis. And so, it says they follow their own righteousness, what they believe is right and wrong, instead of what God says is right and wrong.

Cultures all around the world, since the beginning of mankind, have had "zeal" for God. Many times this zeal drove them to do some absolutely horrific things, though I would argue that most of the time they only used it as an excuse to commit terrible acts. What was happening in the Old Testament is a good example of this, if you ask me.

Paul says they need knowledge for salvation. What is knowledge? Enlightenment. Enlightened about what?

I don't believe it can possibly be enlightenment through scripture (other than the basic teachings of Christ, and even that can get tricky), because as I've said about three times so far in this post, it seems to be virtually impossible.

One other thing. . . Paul is talking about the Israelites, who were the Chosen People and who had all these wonderful laws that we've been debating at length recently. Paul comes right out and says they did not know God's righteousness and sought to establish their own. Does that mean that the "righteousness" in the Old Testament is a faction of humanity's idea of righteousness?

The Gospels: First off, I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God (The reasons as to why I believe that is a whole other discussion, and we can get into that another time. Besides, I think you Rose already agree with that? If so, it doesn't need explaining for the present. If you don't agree with that, just let me know and we can discuss that more in full).

It is my belief, yes.

The things Jesus did and said were witnessed by many people; and were written down by four people. And the four accounts, each given by a different person, were remarkably similar. That much similarity between stories is rare (I mean, if you even just asked a few students to document the events of a field trip, there would be many differences in details, since most people view and remember things differently).

Even the smallest deviation, though, shows that it was written by humans, who are subject to human failings, than completely inspired by God, as if God was writing it for them. I have to take that into account.

The OT: The reason I believe the OT is the perfect Word of God is that Jesus Christ Himself believed it. That's documented in The Gospels. He believed in it so much that he didn't want one jot of it removed until it was fulfilled. If some of it was incorrect, he wouldn't mind those parts being removed. But no, he said not one little part of it should vanish. This is why I believe in The Old Testament.

Well, first of all, I have no idea what the Old Testament was like in the time of Christ. Personally, if I had been him, I would have kept it around as an example of how messed up the world was without him.

At this point I don't have much else to say on the topic of the New Testament; I'm still studying it. Thank you for taking the time to outline why you believe in the Bible, though; I appreciate it.

I really loathe submitting this huge post (scrolling up and down it scares me ) and I feel like I'm reiterating myself a lot, but I can't really condense this stuff. If things continue at this pace and depth, definitely expect some delay before I post again. Have to guard against my brain overheating.

All I'm trying to do is explain my viewpoint, ask my questions and see if I get any answers that I can genuinely believe are right. I would not be here were it not for my relationship with God.

If having the audacity to have doubts and question religious ideas automatically makes me a godless heathen. . . good grief.

And I'm saying that taking Scripture---all of Scripture---seriously as being authoritative and profitable for ordering your life is essential to that relationship. You cannot hope to know God apart from Scripture. It's like trying to nourish yourself by not eating food.

Doubts are good and healthy when they are had from the perspective of faith---that is, if you want your doubts about inerrancy satisfied, you have to approach them as one who believes. St. Anselm of Canterbury says "for unless I believed, I would never understand."

Please explain to me how "rejecting God" was not exactly what Martin Luther was doing when he decided to define what was and wasn't the word of God.

I didn't say it wasn't---he later repented of this.

They pick and choose which version of the Bible to believe, they pick and choose which books are the word of God and which aren't. They pick and choose what the scriptures mean, what is metaphor and what is literal, and what God is really trying to expound with each and every passage. They pick and choose what to focus on and what to underplay. They pick and choose everything about their faith.

You're right, we're all guilty in this regard---doesn't make the principle any less true. We're all hypocrites in this regard---but understand that what we are called to do is to let Scripture guide us. We want to become more like God and so we mold our lives to His word. Is there risk? Yes---but that's no reason to avoid the call.

One other thing. . . Paul is talking about the Israelites, who were the Chosen People and who had all these wonderful laws that we've been debating at length recently. Paul comes right out and says they did not know God's righteousness and sought to establish their own. Does that mean that the "righteousness" in the Old Testament is a faction of humanity's idea of righteousness?

No, it meant that they were adding to Scripture---making it say what they wanted it to say, rather than letting it shape them. Paul himself makes it clear that "All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for training in righteousness . . ." (1 Timothy 4:12).

I don't believe it can possibly be enlightenment through scripture (other than the basic teachings of Christ, and even that can get tricky), because as I've said about three times so far in this post, it seems to be virtually impossible.

What you are wrestling with here is the fact that it's hard to get two Christians to agree on certain points of doctrine. Fair enough---how does this demonstrate anything about Scripture, though? It seems to me that it says more about the fact that all Christians are sinners saved by grace alone.

As for the basic teachings of Christ, I think you'll find that strict adherance to Scripture is one of them. Countless times He berates the Pharisees for neglecting the Scriptural teaching in favor of their own traditions.

TBG

TO ROSE:

Even if you believe that the Bible is infallible, just look at this thread! Look at the number of denominations, the never-ending spiritual debates that have gone around and around in circles for centuries. They are all basing their theologies off of the same source. Regardless of whether you believe the Bible is infallible or not, I would be genuinely shocked if a human has ever walked the earth that fully understood it and "didn't get something wrong."

... They pick and choose which version of the Bible to believe, they pick and choose which books are the word of God and which aren't. They pick and choose what the scriptures mean, what is metaphor and what is literal, and what God is really trying to expound with each and every passage. They pick and choose what to focus on and what to underplay. They pick and choose everything about their faith.

Look at how many different denominations there are; it is staggering. The reason why these thousands upon thousands of denominations exist is because humanity is constantly picking and choosing.

The thing is, I think the Bible is pretty clear as to what it means. When something is a metaphor, from what I've seen, it usually states so in the scripture itself. We know what stories are just parables, because it says it's just a parable Christ was telling. We know what parts are symbolic because the scriptures tell us the person was having a vision. In other words, take scriptures literally, unless otherwise specified.

As for different interpretations and denominations, from what I've seen, that usually comes from disregarding scriptures or taking it out of context. I've seen so many people whose beliefs outright contradicted scripture (even thought they claimed to believe in the Bible 100%), and when I or someone else showed them the scripture that contradicted their beliefs, either they didn't respond and pretended not to hear, or said, "Well... I don't know what that means." And then went on believing as they did before, continuing to claim that the Bible supported all of their beliefs.

If someone wants their beliefs to be Biblical, the only way it's going to be truly Biblical is if the person takes the Bible as a whole, not ignoring any parts, and keeping everything in context. This is true if you want to learn the message of any book, divine or not. And the Bible certainly isn't the only book taken out of context to mean something it doesn't. If one is to understand scripture, one must read it in context, keeping in mind the other parts of the Bible as well, and not letting one's own preconceived ideas influence your reading of it. If this is done, their beliefs should be truly in line with the Bible. But if the person is irresponsible, doesn't "do their homework" by reading the whole thing before making up their minds about the meaning, ignores certain parts, or snatches parts out of context in a way that changes the scriptures meaning, there's going to be a new, incorrect interpretation. As you probably know, almost every human is terribly irresponsible, and so this happens quite frequently. Hence the many denominations. But just because people have mixed themselves up and made a mess of things, that doesn't mean the Bible is at fault; nor does it mean the Bible is unclear. People will always try to twist things to mean what they hope it means. That doesn't mean the source they are trying to twist is imperfect in any way. And if you try to read it in the correct way, and try not to be irresponsible, you'll most likely correctly understand most of the Bible. A few things might be misunderstood or misinterpreted because we are fallible. But really, understanding scripture isn't as difficult as one would think when seeing how many denominations are out there. It just takes some responsibility and good sense.

One example I thought of was Ebert and Roeper and LWW. Back then, there was so much controversy as to whether or not Aslan was Jesus. There were so many people claiming he was, and so many people claiming he wasn't. Ebert and Roeper hadn't seen the LWW movie yet, but were about to. One of the two men stated that he looked forward to forming his opinion on the Aslan/Jesus issue. He said that there was probably no way anyone would know for sure, but he looked forward to finding his own belief on it. After the movie he said, "OK... Aslan is obviously Jesus. That's pretty apparent. Why is there so much controversy about it? " Because there was so much controversy, he thought it would be impossible to know for sure. But it wasn't. It was obvious. In fact, the only reason why there was so much controversy was mostly because there was a group of people who didn't want Aslan to be Jesus, and invented a controversy despite the fact that both movie and book were quite clear on the point.

I think the Bible is the same way. Because there's so many beliefs concerning it, it makes it seem like it's impossible to know who's right. But really, when you look at it, it's more obvious than one would think. And most of the controversies are due to either misreads, or people not wanting it to say what it really says.

There's going to be times when He does something that shocks us. Eventually you're going to find examples not only in the Bible, but also in real life.

I don't believe that all of the sin, disease, tragedy, horror and hate in creation comes from God. I believe it is the absence of God, a part of the cruel ebb and flow of this messed up, temporary-for-a-good-reason world. God can, however, use these situations to teach us, strengthen us, and draw us closer to immortal truths that rise above all of the death and destruction on this earth.

I actually wasn't talking about sin, disease, tragedy, horror or hate. I was talking about a situation where the "bad thing" in question couldn't possibly be blamed on any human.

Even the smallest deviation, though, shows that it was written by humans, who are subject to human failings, than completely inspired by God, as if God was writing it for them. I have to take that into account.

And what are the small deviations you've seen in their accounts?

TO EVERYONE

I see a lot of debate in regards to books that were taken out of the Bible, such as the Apocrypha. Perhaps it would help if someone knowledgeable in that area gave us some History on that?

I read a long time ago in school the reasons why some books were taken out of the Bible, and they sounded pretty good at the time. But that being so long ago, I don't remember what the reasons are anymore. I'd love to be reminded, as that's a very important aspect. It comes up a lot in theological debates.

So can anyone tell me: Why were the apocryphal books (or any other book removed) taken out of scripture, and how did the people taking them out know they were fallible instead of Holy? How do we know our current Bibles aren't incomplete due to lacking scripture which is actually divine? What led us to believe those removed books were not divine?

~Riella

I admit i know nothing much about the bible. Only what you learn in primary school. I guess the parts taken out could be fallible or they could be holy or vice versa. There is no way to truly know at this point in time. No one living will ever know.

One of the key reasons why many books were not included in the Biblical Cannon that are included in the Catholic Bible and some others. The ones not in the 66 Books, were written centuries after the facts. The Gospel of Judas, Maccabees, and several others were written around the time of Constantine. The New Testament books were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. This is important. As far as originals documents, especially Paul's letters as such are no longer around because they were so well worn and used. But when Hebrew scholars in particular made a copy of the OT or NT documents, it was by hand and if a single missed dotted i or non-crossed t was found the entire thing was burned. So they were very careful to make exact copies. I imagine Wagga or someone with in depth Bible history research could explain this better than I, but that's part of it.

If you're referring to Constantine the Great (the only Constantine who comes to mind) then you are incorrect, Fencer. 1 Maccabees, for example, was most likely written in the second century BC. Why this would be an impediment in itself to regarding the book as canonical, I do not know. Do we know when Moses wrote (or for you critics, 'edited together') Genesis? Did he witness the events himself? Does it matter insofar as accuracy is concerned? I do not think so.

These books were in use by Hellenistic Jews far before the time-frame you indicate. Perhaps you think Constantine decreed some sort of canon of Scripture, or the First Council Council of Nicaea did. That is not the case. The Council's purpose was to define orthodoxy against the heresy of Arianism - the belief that Christ is a created being. Constantine himself issued no canon, and in fact the Old Testament canon was not 'closed' even by the time of Martin Luther.

That said, certain books have been looked on dubiously in the history of the church, even books we now consider unquestionably canonical, like the Revelation of John. The reasons have been many, and I will elucidate them to the best of my knowledge if there is any interest (this is a hasty post written between chores).

Also, hi guys. It seems things don't change much. I remember these same questions came up ages ago, and the iteration I witnessed was probably in continuation of a cycle preceding me. Nevertheless they are important questions, so let's not be discouraged but earnestly contend for the faith once given!

For the purposes of this discussion, what I mean by the Scriptures are the Hebrew Scriptures (Tanakh, as Jews still accept it, and which is accepted by all Orthodox Christians) and the Christian New Testament.

TBG

One of the key reasons why many books were not included in the Biblical Cannon that are included in the Catholic Bible and some others. The ones not in the 66 Books, were written centuries after the facts..... I imagine Wagga or someone with in depth Bible history research could explain this better than I, but that's part of it.

Thank you for your regard. The Gospel of Judas was never recognised as part of the Bible. The Old Maid wrote a post on this thread months ago about the Apocrypha, also known as the Deuterocanonical books. They are part of the Septuagint, based on the Greek translation of Jewish Scriptures and writings made for those non-Aramaic-speaking Jews of the Diaspora. The Septuagint is in turn the Old Testament of the Catholic Bible.

Whereas the Protestant Old Testament is based on the books included in the Jewish Tanakh, which excludes the books of the Apocrypha as being secondary to those in the Bible although still valuable.

If a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. (Leviticus 20:14)

Is this the famous verse quoted by Henry VIII when he wanted to divorce Catherine of Aragon? Yes, these things went on in the old days as well as later.

And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the w***e, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire. (Leviticus 21:9)

When the daughters of priests are particularly mentioned, it suggests that the Hebrews were to divorce themselves utterly from the temple prostitution practiced by Baal and Astarte worshippers in those parts at that time. Judging by the amount of idols found by archaeologists this draconian law doesn't seem to have had much effect.

Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. (Genesis 38:24)

I think this particular verse does have to be read in context with the rest of the story. Yes, this was and possibly is still Middle Eastern custom, but it allegedly took place before Moses was even born. And the real injustice was that Judah was blaming Tamar for the deaths of his two elder sons who hadn't been fair dinkum husbands to the hapless Tamar.

As for the rest of the goings on you mentioned it is what the Medes, the Assyrians, the Babylonians did to the Hebrews. They weren't nice people, they didn't know about God or his laws and they treated the Israelites with the same disrespect they treated everyone else they conquered. More so, because the Israelites of Samaria had stupid leaders who stupidly didn't pay up on the tribute they were liable to, among other things.

These aren't God's laws: they are plain custom of those times, as was pointed out by Hosea, himself. God had turned his back on Israelites who had become indistinguishable from the Phoenicians to the North.

Are such customs as stoning women as a punishment for adultery, mentioned in the Qur'an? And is the Hadith and the Qur'an the same thing or are they different works?

Whereas the Protestant Old Testament is based on the books included in the Jewish Tanakh, which excludes the books of the Apocrypha as being secondary to those in the Bible although still valuable.

And it should be noted that this was the Bible that Jesus and Paul would have used.

Sorry, TBG, but the answer is....yes and no. Earlier in this thread and sometime within recent memory, I have mentioned an archaeology magazine article called 'Why Paul went West'. This article explained why he had to go on those journeys, and furthermore, why the Disciples definitely needed Pentecost and the gift of tongues. The article explained there was some sort of schism in Rabbinical teaching, connected with the use of Oral history, which was eventually resolved when the Jews adopted the Tanakh as it is now.

According to this Wikipedia article, it was the Septuagint that was the earlier version of the Old Testament, and it is the foundation of the Old Testament in most Orthodox and Catholic circles. The Greek Orthodox Church uses the unchanged Greek koine version to this day, apparently. Although the Septuagint, written progressively between the 3rd century BC and 132BC, does not include the Book of Enoch or the Book of Jubilees, it includes the Apocrypha, since it had not yet been fully determined which books of the Bible were to be considered canonical.

This version was fully translated into Greek koine by 132 BC, and was very respected. It was associated with both Philo of Alexandria and Josephus, the Jewish historian who was present at the siege of Jerusalem, and who later became part of the entourage of the Emperor Titus, the son of the Emperor Vespasian. The Tanakh is basically the Protestant Old Testament which we see now, and which also forms part of the Septuagint.

According to this Wikipedia article, referring to the Talmud,[1] much of the contents of the Tanakh were compiled by the "Men of the Great Assembly" by 450 BCE, and have since remained unchanged. Modern scholars believe that the process of canonization of the Tanakh became finalized between 200 BCE and 200 CE, see Development of the Jewish canon for details

At some point by 200 AD in the development of the Jewish canon, there may have been a council of Jamnia. Whether or not it was an actual council, or a gradual decision, the rabbis decided on a number of matters, in particular, a rejection of the Septuagint or Koine Greek Old Testament widely then in use among the Hellenized diaspora along with its additional books not part of the Hebrew language Masoretic Text.

Jesus may have used the Masoretic text or Tanakh. But Paul, who travelled around the Hellenistic world of those days, definitely would have known about the Septuagint.

And do you notice a pattern? The Jews wanted to preserve Hebrew for Jewish worship and so rejected the Greek translations used by the Hellenised Diaspora. At least children of Jewish faith, regardless of their sex, get instructed in Hebrew and tenets of their faith at Sunday School. As a rule, the Jews do not try to make converts to Judaism, unlike either Christians or followers of Islam.

Later, although Alfred the Great actually authorised an Anglo Saxon translation of the Bible, the pre-Reformation Catholic Church also resisted translating the Bible from Latin so that non-Latin speakers could understand what was in it. And so the likes of John Tyndale, Jan Huss, or William Wycliffe were persecuted.

Since 1988 the likes of Taj El-Din Hilaly, preaching in Arabic, could evade saying in English what was in the Qu'ran, and could complain he was mistranslated whenever his views were challenged or when he was caught saying something outrageous. He would say that the Qu'ran had to be read in Arabic to understand its beauty. No wonder then that he wasn't trusted very much.

And so we are back to answering a question asked a page or two earlier: Why exactly did the Pre-Reformation Catholic Church oppose translating the Bible from the Latin?

Wagga,

I'm not doubting the septuagint's widespread use, just pointing out that for Paul and Jesus, the Septuagint was a translation---the Scriptures that they would have used would have been Hebrew. While Paul certainly would have been familiar with the Septuagint, greater authority would have been placed on Tanakh.

The other thing worth mentioning is that no two copies of the Septuagint that we have have the exact same list of books. Most of the deuterocanonical books were tacked on to scrolls for a very simple reason: you didn't want to waste space in a good scroll---scrolls are expensive.

TBG

The following Biblical quotes will be from the Anglicized English Standard Version.

TBG, respectfully, that is only your assertion. I do not think it can be proved that St Paul or Christ regarded the Hebrew as having greater authority than the Septuagint. If it can be proved, you haven't proved it yet. It does seem the sort of assertion that would come naturally out of sola scriptura - something that has never occured to me before. Nevertheless, this is speculation, while it is fact that the Apostles quoted the Septuagint where it differed with the Masoretic Text (which is really what we mean here). Observe Hebrews 10:

But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said,

“Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
but a body have you prepared for me;
in burnt offerings and sin offerings
you have taken no pleasure.
Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God,
as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’”

St Paul is here quoting Psalm 40. The MT reads: "In sacrifice and offering you have not desired, but you have given me an open ear." The LXX is consonant with St Paul's quote.

Another example, the 13th chapter of Matthew's Gospel:

Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:

“‘You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.
For this people's heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.’

What the prophecy of Isaiah actually says in the Masoretic Text is: "Make the heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes." Again, the LXX is consonant with Matthew.

It is sometimes difficult to notice what's being quoted, both because in many parts the MT and the LXX agree, and because some translations (e.g., the ESV quoted above) try to minimize the differences by replacing the words quoted in the New Testament with the Masoretic 'source'.

Why does this matter? Only because you assert that the Hebrew must needs have had primacy in the eyes of Christ and the Apostles. There is no reason to think so, and every reason to think otherwise. I am not even sure the Masoretic Text, in the form we know it today, existed at the time of Christ. There seem to have been many competing versions, most of which were lost in 70 AD, and some of the remainder of which were used to assemble the modern MT.

There is much more to be said: for instance, the Isaiah 7:14 controversy. "Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel." In the MT, the word translated 'young woman' is 'almah'. As Christians, we naturally prefer to translate it as 'virgin', rightly seeing this prophecy as referring foremost to Christ. 'Almah' can mean 'virgin', but it usually does not; and Jewish apologists have frequently argued, with some success, that if 'virgin' had been the intended meaning, the word used would have unequivocally meant 'virgin'; like, say, 'betulah'. Thus, we open ourselves to the charge of anachronistically interpreting prophecy for our own agenda. And for what reason? I believe, because the MT was created in opposition to Christianity and Christ. It is a Jewish text and avails itself of Jewish interpretations. This whole difficulty disappears in the LXX, where instead of 'almah' we find 'parthenos', a word which means 'virgin' unequivocally. Problem solved forever.

Of course it is no good to favour a translation, inaccurate as it may be, simply because it supports our doctrine. But in this case I think the opposite is true. We have latched onto a text specifically designed to deny Christ and the Gospel. This is the MT. It was produced by and belongs to the Jews according to the flesh; it might contain insight, but it is not wholly reliable, and it certainly does not bear the stamp of Christ's approval.

In Christ,
P.

Muslims can use this exact same argument if you tried to point moral problems in the Koran to them.

Which is why that would not be the objection I would bring to the table in debate with a Muslim.

Good that you recognize that. I brought it up because other people in here were using moral problems in the Koran as an objection to Islam at the time.

I'm not questioning your ability to judge, I'm questioning your right to judge. Who gave you the right to judge God?

Ok, let's start off with something that cannot be disputed...in the Old Testament, God ordered the Israelites to completely destroy many cities in Israel's area. All men, women and children were killed, and all livestock were slaughtered. (Saul even gets in big trouble with God when he fails to comply completely with the latter requirement.)

If God gave those commands himself and then programmed us to look at his commands and realize that if anyone else had committed those actions, it would be obviously atrocious and they would be considered a mass-murderer, then he has failed to get his message across. Why not program us to be able to at least somewhat understand why it is okay to design whole civilizations of people to fail, then destroy them for failing like God knew and planned?

You are fundamentally justifying your arguments with "magic." It doesn't make any sense to you or me, but to a being magical enough to make sense of it, it does make sense. However, I don't think you'd be able to prove that objective morality exists transcendent of nature, and all the organisms that constantly weigh the options of life, death, pain, pleasure, selflessness, and selfishness, in a never-ending struggle to maximize the well-being of the species.

For the lion, it's okay to kill the gazelle to survive, because otherwise the lion would just starve. But to the gazelle, it is horrible to be eaten by lions. Who is right, and who is wrong? No one is right or wrong, everything in nature is just competing with everything else. As humans, we are lucky enough to be at the top of the food chain, with the ability to think at a deeper level than any other species on earth. Our perception that there are moral laws outside of nature that apply only to our species may just be a result of arrogance due to our position in nature.

What gives you the right to say that objective morality exists, and that Yahweh was the one who created it?

And so you think he should have just let the Israelites stew as well? Or maybe you forget that part of the purpose of the chosen people was to be a witness and to show the nations the way.

One of the things that has always really bothered me is how badly Israel fails in general at being a witness and showing the way to the other countries.

For example, Moses left the Israelites for 40 days to collect the 10 commandments and regardless of the fact that they witnessed many of God's most powerful miracles firsthand in their escape from Egypt, the Israelites started worshipping a golden calf. The first King of Israel that God chose disobeyed him several times. The third King of Israel, Solomon, had the God-given gift of being the wisest man that ever lived, yet eventually started worshipping idols and lived in such luxury at the expense of Hebrew peasants that 10 tribes of Israel rebelled against Solomon's son and split off to form two countries: Israel and Judah. Judah had 8 Kings (out of 20) that pleased God, and Israel had NO Godly kings!

1) The Word is Christ (John 1)

Jesus only spoke directly to a tiny portion of people (and an even tinier portion actually heard most of what he said). That doesn't help any of the people who were born later and didn't have direct access to copies of the Gospels.

2) The Scriptures existed before this time, the Church merely recognized them.

Your mistake here is referring to "The Scriptures" as a single unit. Rather "The Scriptures" were merely a whole bunch of different pieces of literature that were written by early Christians to specific audiences in many different places. There were quite a few hodgepodge collections of these pieces of literature floating around until one of the Church Councils finalized the list of writings that were to be the New Testament and proclaimed them the official Scripture.

Here you go judging God again---you want to follow God on your own terms and only on your own terms. If God doesn't seem good to you, then you have an excuse for not following Him. Sorry, I just don't buy that this isn't what it is.

My de-conversion process never involved specifically looking for excuses not to believe. Trust me, I really wanted to believe...almost all of my family and friends were devout Christians, and I didn't really want to be the black sheep...but in the end I critically examined my beliefs and just couldn't accept them.

I'll engage in the other parts of the objections once you approach the subject from a faith perspective.

I'm sorry, but I don't have a faith perspective. I don't automatically assume the bible is infallible, then try and come up with justifications for the tricky parts and write off anything that isn't answerable with the excuse that God knows the answer (which is said in the bible).

In order to jump into that circle of logic, I first need to have faith that God is real. But that's something I can't do right now. I don't feel God's presence in my life. I never felt like God answered my prayers when I was still a Christian. I haven't witnessed any miracles. The Holy Spirit needs to enter me and convince me. I don't think anything else can give me such faith.

Minotaur, If you don't even believe in objective morality yourself, why are you judging God by moral standards? If it is because they are our moral standards and you wish to show our view is contradictory,

1) why? What is your stake in this?

2) why not be consistent and give our view of God's transcendence (far from an afterthought or excuse!) a fair hearing as well? You are prejudicing yourself, which is why I, personally, do not see your complaints as genuine.