Why can't I delete my own posts?

Methinks I was misunderstood. Never mind.

Jonno, you are a horrible person online.

Once again I have had enough of communicating with you and instead of trying to understand me you've put many words in my mouth and it's plain disgusting.

I won't try and explain myself because it's pointless talking to you.

And just for the record I have done a whole whack of preaching and hardly ever come up against these sorts of issues. Now please twist what I said.

I personally (in real life) know nine people who have a problem with this stuff. Four of them have left. I'd be willing to bet that people with this problem don't talk to you about it Richard, because it's not an easy subject to broach.

But I ask people about it. I am also getting people to write articles on things like the canon of Scripture. But most people are like "textual criticism is nonsense, the Bible is the word of God - look at Israel!"

Right. And what I am saying is that Jonno's concerns should be tempered by the fact that it has not been an issue for many years, and only recently has the atheist challenged come more to light. So that's why people are not "genuinely being challenged by this" because they haven't even thought about it.

The reason it's challenging is because very few Christadelphians have looked into things like textual criticism and so forth.

You certainly got that right.

And the reason is that for the vast majority of Christadelphians it's not an issue. It's becoming more of an issue lately due to exposure to ideas because of increased communications, but most Christadelphians don't even bat an eyelid when it comes to accepting the Bible as the word of God.

It's just not something that's ever been an issue for the past x number of years.

For whom? This thread is proof that it is an issue for individual Christadelphians, and you can bet your last Canadian dollar that palladium isn't the only one who's grappled with it over the past x number of years.

No, but they are in a small minority. I hardly ever, and I talk to a lot of people, come across anyone grappling with these things. I don't doubt the number is growing, but still for your average Christadelphian these things are not an issue.

Your response here merely underscores the perils of the apathetic sloth which has weakened our community over the past 5 decades.

Maybe it does, but the point still stands that the vast majority of brothers and sisters in Christ accept the Bible as the word of God and have never even thought about going into things like textual criticism. I was merely answering Jonno's concerned post and that he doesn't have to be as concerned as he sounds because for most people it's a non-issue.

'Oh, it's never really been a problem.' Yes it has. That's the whole point of this thread.

But only for a small niche section of our community has it been a problem. Perhaps blind faith that the Bible is the word of God can be seen as a negative, but not necessarily so.

I suspect most of the people who don't think it's a problem are those who are ignorant of it altogether.

Yes precisely!

Most of the rest will have a loose idea of what it is, but won't understand the subject beyond a vague sense that 'it all works somehow.' The tiny remainder will have made some attempt to grasp it; we can probably divide them between those with a solid comprehension and those who only know the basics.

It is the former two groups who are most at risk. Their ignorance renders them vulnerable to atheist challenges which are are superficially strong but lacking in substance.

Most don't even get into debates with atheists. Not many people are like you and Jonno and Ken and so forth. Most don't spend their lives debating atheists and discussing online and reading stuff.

It's just not something that's ever been an issue for the past x number of years.

Only the last 100 years or so. The early editions of the CMag were full of this stuff, for the first 30 years or so.

And since then the vast majority of Christadelphians have looked at things like textual criticism as old hat, sorted out, and now we can move on to other stuff since it's been settled.

Looking into things like that in today's busy world is difficult for most people. The spare 10 minutes people have to do some of this sort of study doesn't cut it.

Ah, priorities.

Yes. Most people get on with life and don't worry about this or that supposed contradiction in some obscure part of the Bible. Most are satisfied that Jesus rose from the dead, that there is a God in heaven with a purpose, that Israel is the great sign of the coming kingdom and that the Bible is the word of God and they can trust it. And there are people who are getting on with more important things like the more important aspects of Bible study, like exhorting one another to love and good works, and getting on with living the truth. Yes there's a lot of lousy Bible "study" out there but there's a lot of good stuff, helpful stuff, too.

So while what you're talking about on here is useful for some, it's a small niche element of Christadelphia. At the moment, the numbers may grow, but in conversations I have had over the years about 1% of the time my brothers and sisters are worried about these sorts of things.

This thread has been very interesting. It's certainly true that many people will come across these issues and be challenged by them. It's good to see them discussed.

You can find this stuff aired and answered extensively in the CMag, Testimony, and a number of works in our community. The answers are also readily available online. If people in our community are genuinely being challenged by this, then it's a tragedy. It makes me utterly embarrassed to be a member.

The reason it's challenging is because very few Christadelphians have looked into things like textual criticism and so forth. It's just not something that's ever been an issue for the past x number of years. Looking into things like that in today's busy world is difficult for most people. The spare 10 minutes people have to do some of this sort of study doesn't cut it.

This probably won't be helpful but for what it's worth, apart from prophecy especially concerning Israel,

I have started a new thread to discuss prophecy. See here.

the fact that the Bible contains astonishing wisdom about human nature and the development of the spiritual mind, and the way it connects together to form a beautiful tapestry of truth, are all reasons to have faith that it is the Word of God.

Sure, I could use this as proof when talking with the software engineers I work with. How do you like my chances of convincing them?

I don't think you can use it as a preaching idea, it's something you come to appreciate through Bible study.

I have a very real problem with the fact that relatively few scientists, engineers, and similar technically minded people are christians. Can you help me understand why that might be the case?

Really? I know plenty of technically minded people in the truth. I think the logic of Bible study appeals to that mindset a lot of the time.

This probably won't be helpful but for what it's worth, apart from prophecy especially concerning Israel, the fact that the Bible contains astonishing wisdom about human nature and the development of the spiritual mind, and the way it connects together to form a beautiful tapestry of truth, are all reasons to have faith that it is the Word of God.

I suspect we agree on this - the reason I'm taking the time to talk about Divine Command Theory again is the suggestion that God's morality could be different from ours. What we know to be right (even when we fail to adhere to it, which is depressingly often) is what God regards as morally right.

Of course God's morality can be different from ours (if we take 'ours' as society). You look at what society calls good and it totally contradicts what God has said in his word. I am not sure what Divine Command Theory is - do you mean we just obey God because he said it? In a sense we do, but not blindly. We obey God because we know he's right, and he has given us abundant evidence that he is right, so when there are things that seem right (Proverbs 14:12) we don't go that route and we choose God's way instead.

Woodrow? No way! Evangelical to the core.

OK it must have been folklore - you're right.

Didn't he become a Catholic?

You might also like to look at Malachi 2 which explains why God instituted one man-one wife - to produce a godly seed. That was what God decided, not organics.

No, Malachi 2 says that God instituted marriage to produce a godly seed which is what family is all about. You cannot have a family without a marriage (well you can try but it's going to be dysfunctional and not the ideal God instituted) and you can have marriage without a family but Genesis 1:26-28 is very straightforward and I will go with the Bible. Let God be true and every man a liar.

A simple "oops I was wrong, sorry" would have sufficed Ev.

I am happy about that. Because I believe Ev's point to be wrong and that I have the Bible on my side!

He isn't, and you don't;

On the contrary; he is very wrong and I do have the Bible on my side. This is what Ev said:

//The concept of family is not a pagan one. It arose organically from observations of nature.//

Which is nonsense. I replied with Genesis 1:26-28 and I didn't say a man and a wife is a family. I even clarified with quoting from verse 28 - "be fruitful and multiply" i.e. have children - form a family.

God invented the family. It says the same thing in Isaiah 45. The family principle is central to God's purpose and has nothing to do with arising "organically from observations of nature."

a man and a wife isn't a family. That's the point he made, and it's right.

And if I had said "a man and a wife is a family" he would almost have had a point.

Saying there was going to be a family in the future doesn't change this. Saying Adam and Eve were told to be fruitful and multiply doesn't change this. Saying the family principle is central to God's purpose doesn't change this. You're trying to redefine the English word 'family'.

I never even tried to define the word 'family' using the phrase "a man and his wife".

Verse 28 - "be fruitful and multiply" and then into Genesis 2 - marriage. The family principle is central to God's purpose.

<----- The point. ---------------------------------------------> Richard.

I am happy about that. Because I believe Ev's point to be wrong and that I have the Bible on my side!

Um... you mean Genesis 1:26-28, surely? God invented the family.

Man + woman does not = family. There's no family until Can & Abel are born. And I was speaking generally.

Verse 28 - "be fruitful and multiply" and then into Genesis 2 - marriage. The family principle is central to God's purpose.

Even if it was, what would that prove?

That God quite sensibly took a variation of an already understood pagan concept in order to speak to pagans? i.e like your accomadation theory concept?

The concept of family is not a pagan one. It arose organically from observations of nature. God didn't say 'I'm going to call myself a Father and Jesus my Son because pagans have this concept called "families" and that will make sense to them.'

Um... you mean Genesis 1:26-28, surely? God invented the family.

Richard, how does the blood of Christ getting to my conscience = God giving me a new heart? Sorry if it isn't obvious to you, but my reading of what you have said seems like I get myself a new heart by thinking about Jesus a lot or something.

I am just going by what the Bible says. The old and new covenants are ratified by blood, and the difference is shown in Hebrews 9, which is in the context of the new covenant (chapter 8). If you want to make something else up without Bible commentary then feel free but the answers are usually in Scripture and that's the passage I go to to explain what's going on.

"Thinking about Jesus a lot" isn't a good summary.

Oh sorry, thanks for the clarification .

I think it's saying that the experiential knowledge of the mercy of God will be a motivating factor in new covenant.

Sorry to be picky, but 'they can change their heart' or 'God can change their heart'?

God does it, but he tells us how - through his word and through his chastening.

Acts 16.14 is interesting because "the Lord opened Lydia's heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul". So far the consensus exposition of "God changing our heart" seems to be that "we change our heart by reading God's word" or similar. I find it hard to read that sort of process into Acts 16.14. The process in Acts is that God works on our heart so that we come to respond to his word. We might read God's word all our lives and not respond.

"The Lord opened Lydia's heart" could mean anything. It could mean she had been encouraged by reading the Scriptures. It could mean she had experienced the mercy of God. It could mean something had happened in her life to make her think about things. We don't know.

Under the old covenant they sacrificed bulls and goats. Under the new covenant God gave his son. See Hebrews 9:13-14. The blood of Christ gets to our conscience like the blood of bulls and goats never could.

My articulation's not so clear. I suppose the question at this point's become the 'How does God write on our hearts?' one, and the related, "How does the spirit (if it does) help the believers live righteously (bearing in mind that they can't 'do it alone' [to probably misuse a phrase from Radey])?"

If you look at Deuteronomy 6 it explains how the law is written on the heart - by diligently teaching it. Verse 6 says it must be in our heart and the subsequent verses show how this is done. The passage is linked with Proverbs 3 which puts Bible study in tandem with chastening.

The difference between the old and new covenants is how the law is received. Under the old covenant the tendency for the Israelite was to receive the law as instructions from a taskmaster to slaves. But in Romans 8 Paul says "you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but the spirit of adoption whereby we cry 'Abba, father'". In other words the spirit of God gets inside us by receiving the law of God as a child receives instructions and chastening from their parents - it's a completely different spirit. The spirit of God enters us when we experience his loving kindness as a father pitying his children. That loving kindness was expressed to us in graphic form with the giving of his son to die for us, and that's why Hebrews 9 tells us the blood of the new covenant is so much more efficacious than the blood of bulls and goats.

So it's about understanding God, as a father, instead of a hard man who reaps where he does not sew and gathers where he does not straw.