Off topic ? on religion.

[turambar85]

To begin I would like to state that I consider myself a Christian, but very far from the puritan/fundamentalist views many will automatically associate with the word.

Now my question is what basis do Christians have for claiming that the bible is factual, unquestioned, and unchanged?

I have been confused on this, and realize this is political forum....but it doesn't have a proper home. Somebody help me out here, Im very confused on the logic behind this claim.

[Mr. Peabody]

To begin I would like to state that I consider myself a Christian, but very far from the puritan/fundamentalist views many will automatically associate with the word.

Now my question is what basis do Christians have for claiming that the bible is factual, unquestioned, and unchanged?

I have been confused on this, and realize this is political forum....but it doesn't have a proper home. Somebody help me out here, Im very confused on the logic behind this claim.

I believe in the Bible because it is the word of God. And I know it is the word of God because the Bible tells me so.

[bigzak25]

To begin I would like to state that I consider myself a Christian, but very far from the puritan/fundamentalist views many will automatically associate with the word.

Now my question is what basis do Christians have for claiming that the bible is factual, unquestioned, and unchanged?

I have been confused on this, and realize this is political forum....but it doesn't have a proper home. Somebody help me out here, Im very confused on the logic behind this claim.

as christians, it is not our duty to claim anything. it is our duty to have faith and lead by example. people will always doubt. even when the truth is right in front of their faces. but at the end of the day, the only people we can control are ourselves. that's what we must focus on good brother. Godbless you.

as far as factual, unquestioned, and unchanged?

well...to each their own, but i believe that it is questioned by many. i believe it has been changed through the interpretation of man. and as far as factual? Yes. I believe it is factual. That's what faith is all about.

[turambar85]

Hah, always good to get a response from the wandering Mr. Peabody. I love the use of the twisted logic, and I also realize youre not quite serious...so keep that in mind. But behind that christians claim that God would not allow somebody to change the bible, and change his word....but did not the 7th day adventists, the catholics, and the christians all start with the same bible? Why would God allow some bibles to be changed, yet exert all of his powers to protect a seperate one, so that only a portion of his "followers" are actually his followers. Also, the 4 gospels have different views of Christs last days....how does this happen if it is 100% divinely inspired...or even forced? And Christs own followers proved theyre untrustworthiness by denying and betraying him in his own days....

[Mr. Peabody]

Hah, always good to get a response from the wandering Mr. Peabody. I love the use of the twisted logic, and I also realize youre not quite serious...so keep that in mind. But behind that christians claim that God would not allow somebody to change the bible, and change his word....but did not the 7th day adventists, the catholics, and the christians all start with the same bible? Why would God allow some bibles to be changed, yet exert all of his powers to protect a seperate one, so that only a portion of his "followers" are actually his followers. Also, the 4 gospels have different views of Christs last days....how does this happen if it is 100% divinely inspired...or even forced? And Christs own followers proved theyre untrustworthiness by denying and betraying him in his own days....

Well, it's not just the four inconsistent gospels. There's also the gospels that weren't selected for the Bible. So basically what we have is an abridged version of the story.

[turambar85]

Amen brother

[Dos]

I will see it when I believe it...

[turambar85]

See what, exactly? The "unconfirmed gospels" or a 100% non-fiction bible?

[xrayzebra]

Hasn't this subject been discussed many times here?

[turambar85]

It may have, but I am relatively new to Spurstalk, and have not been a very frequent poster, and thus have missed out. So be kind and pretend you have never had this debate before.

[xrayzebra]

It may have, but I am relatively new to Spurstalk, and have not been a very frequent poster, and thus have missed out. So be kind and pretend you have never had this debate before.

Okay with me. But duck. It isn't going to be a pretty sight. :lol

[turambar85]

Thats the way I prefer it. Why do you think I brought it up? I could have struggled and kept it silent.

[turambar85]

Now, what is your take, xray?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Now, what is your take, xray?

Xray is from Ye Olde Schoole

[turambar85]

Even better

[Extra Stout]

But behind that christians claim that God would not allow somebody to change the bible, and change his word....but did not the 7th day adventists, the catholics, and the christians all start with the same bible?
When, for example, a Reformed theologian is discussing the infallibility of Scripture, he is talking about "original manuscripts," that is, when Paul wrote his epistle to the Ephesians, that was inspired by God and is infallible for matters of faith and practice.

There are copying errors, however. That is why, for example, newer English translations omit clauses that are found in the King James Bible. The latter is based upon the Textus Receptus, a Middle-Age manuscript that shows evidence of centuries of copying errors, and instances where annotations got copied into the actual text.

Much older manuscripts have been found, and newer translations are more faithful to the originals. Despite all this, no significant points of doctrine are in question due to any manuscript discrepancies.

Meanwhile, the Old Testament manuscripts in use have been shown to be 99.99% to the manuscripts found as the Dead Sea Scrolls, showing faithful transmission of Scripture over at least 2000 years.

However, some things get lost in translation. The OT was written in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic. The NT was written in Koine Greek. Other tongues lack some of the tenses, phrasing, and nuances of meaning of those languages. There is the oft-cited example of Jesus' threefold redemption of Peter after the Resurrection, in which English lacks the multiple words for "love" that explain why Peter weeps.


Why would God allow some bibles to be changed, yet exert all of his powers to protect a seperate one, so that only a portion of his "followers" are actually his followers.
The Catholic Bible includes the Apocrypha, several late books included in their Old Testament. These once were in the Hebrew canon, but later were eliminated because anachronisms were found in the text. They are omitted from the Protestant canon for the same reason.

Presumably, the Catholic Church does not believe that any such anachronisms invalidate the reliability of those books for matters of faith and practice.

Other sects and heterodox groups will change the text to suit their particular quirks of doctrine. I do not believe such groups are legitimately Christian.


Also, the 4 gospels have different views of Christs last days....how does this happen if it is 100% divinely inspired...or even forced? And Christs own followers proved theyre untrustworthiness by denying and betraying him in his own days....
The 4 gospels tell the story from different perspectives. Matthew expressed it in terms of prophetic fulfillment. Mark expresses it with brevity. Luke goes into scholarly detail. John gives the personal details on a frend who walked with Jesus.

You may notice that the gospels conflict with one another chronologically. As Westerners, we assume that anything out of chronological order is in error. That assumption does not necessarily hold for the gospels, as vignettes may be expressed in terms of spiritual meaning, or prophetic fulfillment, or other intent of the author.

[Extra Stout]

One more note about translation: you often will hear people that say the Bible cannot be reliable because it has been translated over and over again into so many languages over so many years. I guess the thought is that it went from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to 17th-century English to Modern English. That is fallacious.

The scholars who translate the Bible translate from the best available manuscripts in the original languages for each new translation.

If our Bible were really a multi-generational translation, it would read like a Chinese electronics manual.

[xrayzebra]

One more note about translation: you often will hear people that say the Bible cannot be reliable because it has been translated over and over again into so many languages over so many years. I guess the thought is that it went from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to 17th-century English to Modern English. That is fallacious.

The scholars who translate the Bible translate from the best available manuscripts in the original languages for each new translation.

If our Bible were really a multi-generational translation, it would read like a Chinese electronics manual.

If I remember correctly from my college days, I think the bible was
originally written in Greek and then translated. I could be wrong, but
don't think so.

[Extra Stout]

If I remember correctly from my college days, I think the bible was
originally written in Greek and then translated. I could be wrong, but
don't think so.
Old Testament: ancient Hebrew & Aramaic
New Testament: Koine Greek (not modern Greek)

[xrayzebra]

Does half a correct answer count?

[Oh, Gee!!]

If I remember correctly from my college days

was it clown or barber?

[xrayzebra]

was it clown or barber?

Both! Want a haircut? I know I always give you a good laugh. :lol

[Extra Stout]

was it clown or barber?Ausgezeichnet.

[Oh, Gee!!]

d'oh

[Extra Stout]

d'oh
That was my needlessly opaque version of :lmao, BTW.

[Oh, Gee!!]

That was my needlessly opaque version of :lmao, BTW.

a little too "on the nose" for my tastes

[2centsworth]

From a strictly spiritual point of view the bible must be 100% accurate because it's known throughout the world to be the word of Jesus. Since Jesus is perfect, all knowing, and in complete control why would he allow the bible to be known as his word if it wasn't so? If the bible is inaccurate then Jesus could not be all the things he said he was.

[spurster]

Unlike the Book of Mormon or the Koran which are claimed to come directly from God or angels, the books in the bible were written by people, copied by people, and selected by people. Infallibility doesn't hold much weight due to many inconsistencies and copying errors. Authorship is contentious in many cases.

The New Testament has a lot of problems along these lines. The first Christians thought Jesus was going to come back in their lifetimes, not giving them much motivation for initially writing it down. Also, they were persecuted off and on for about three centuries and did their best to destroy anything they thought was heretical.

Personally, I find these difficulties an advantage. Maybe God wants us to think things through rather than following by rote. The truth will set you free.

[bigzak25]

Personally, I find these difficulties an advantage. Maybe God wants us to think things through rather than following by rote. The truth will set you free.



RACK. :tu

[Guru of Nothing]

Meanwhile, the Old Testament manuscripts in use have been shown to be 99.99% to the manuscripts found as the Dead Sea Scrolls, showing faithful transmission of Scripture over at least 2000 years.

However, some things get lost in translation. The OT was written in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic. The NT was written in Koine Greek. Other tongues lack some of the tenses, phrasing, and nuances of meaning of those languages. There is the oft-cited example of Jesus' threefold redemption of Peter after the Resurrection, in which English lacks the multiple words for "love" that explain why Peter weeps.

99.99% ..... fulcrum ...

To be continued ... maybe ... deep thought does not suit me.

[mikejones99]

Detroit is used to the not pretty and now God says New Orleans will be the next nice black city like Detroit.

[travis2]

Excellent summary, ExtraStout...

[Mr. Peabody]

99.99% ..... fulcrum ...

To be continued ... maybe ... deep thought does not suit me.

Even if the Old Testament has been shown to be 99.99% accurate in relation to the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is amazing when you consider the passage of time, that speaks nothing about the document's accuracy as to actual events. And honestly, the thing that scares me is that there are people who believe that everything in the Bible actually happened.

I even had a graduate student, a well-educated intelligent person, tell me "Well, you know that everything in the Bible has been scientifically proven true." It bothered me that this guy actually believed this statement. That's not to say that he was wrong for having religion and faith in his life, but to try and convince me that everything in the Bible has been scientifically proven true is preposterous. But there are people out there who believe this to be true.

[Phenomanul]

When, for example, a Reformed theologian is discussing the infallibility of Scripture, he is talking about "original manuscripts," that is, when Paul wrote his epistle to the Ephesians, that was inspired by God and is infallible for matters of faith and practice.

There are copying errors, however. That is why, for example, newer English translations omit clauses that are found in the King James Bible. The latter is based upon the Textus Receptus, a Middle-Age manuscript that shows evidence of centuries of copying errors, and instances where annotations got copied into the actual text.

Much older manuscripts have been found, and newer translations are more faithful to the originals. Despite all this, no significant points of doctrine are in question due to any manuscript discrepancies.

Meanwhile, the Old Testament manuscripts in use have been shown to be 99.99% to the manuscripts found as the Dead Sea Scrolls, showing faithful transmission of Scripture over at least 2000 years.

However, some things get lost in translation. The OT was written in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic. The NT was written in Koine Greek. Other tongues lack some of the tenses, phrasing, and nuances of meaning of those languages. There is the oft-cited example of Jesus' threefold redemption of Peter after the Resurrection, in which English lacks the multiple words for "love" that explain why Peter weeps.


The Catholic Bible includes the Apocrypha, several late books included in their Old Testament. These once were in the Hebrew canon, but later were eliminated because anachronisms were found in the text. They are omitted from the Protestant canon for the same reason.

Presumably, the Catholic Church does not believe that any such anachronisms invalidate the reliability of those books for matters of faith and practice.

Other sects and heterodox groups will change the text to suit their particular quirks of doctrine. I do not believe such groups are legitimately Christian.


The 4 gospels tell the story from different perspectives. Matthew expressed it in terms of prophetic fulfillment. Mark expresses it with brevity. Luke goes into scholarly detail. John gives the personal details on a frend who walked with Jesus.

You may notice that the gospels conflict with one another chronologically. As Westerners, we assume that anything out of chronological order is in error. That assumption does not necessarily hold for the gospels, as vignettes may be expressed in terms of spiritual meaning, or prophetic fulfillment, or other intent of the author.


To elaborate on an already good explanation.... I found this site about a year ago....

http://www.jpdawson.com/synopt/synopgos.html

One of the points the analysis mentions, is that the styles of the Gospels and the intended audience had much to do with the finished product.


Unique Subjects and Style


Matthew - Written to the Hebrew thinking
-Presents Jesus as King of Israel

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luke - Written to the Greek thinking -
- Presents Jesus as the Great Healer -

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John - Written as an interpretation of the Life of Jesus,
not just reporting. -
- Presents Jesus as the Son of God, the Savior -

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark - Written in the ordinary language of the day -
- Presents Jesus as the Servant -



Also consider this.... if the Gospels all looked and read the same, would that give them any more validity???

Let's say for the sake of an example, that there was an accident on Commerce street. If you were to interview some of the witnesses most of them would probably notice different things and explain it a bit differently.... that wouldn't necessarily mean that they were lying or that they were wrong.

1st witness: "I was walking along the sidewalk and saw that a man on a bicycle lost his balance. A red Toyota Camry then hit him. There were three bystanders close by and two of them ran toward the man to offer aid, the one with the black shirt then gave him CPR. The ambulance arrived about 8 minutes later."

2nd witness: "At about 2 P.M. a red sedan ran over a bicyclist. The driver immediately phoned for help. One bystander ran to the victim and began administering CPR."

3rd witness: "A man was accidentally hit by a car. Two people ran out to offer aid. The driver of the car called the ambulance. The ambulance arrived quicker than I expected."

4th witness: "It was a windy day, and the wind caught a hold of a cyclist's hat. When the cyclist tried to catch it he lost his balance and fell on the street. A Camry turned right and didn't see the cyclist on the road. The impact was not fatal but it rendered the cyclist unconscious. The lady in the car retained composture and immediately called the paramedics. They arrived shortly after and right before it began to pour."

Imagine now that every witness said the same exact thing word for word... You would be freaked out and get the feeling that something did not feel right.

Perspective is a very important tool and used to convey style and personality. Surprisingly several events in the Gospels share this very same concept.

[Mr. Peabody]

To elaborate on an already good explanation.... I found this site about a year ago....

http://www.jpdawson.com/synopt/synopgos.html

One of the points the analysis mentions, is that the styles of the Gospels and the intended audience had much to do with the finished product.


Unique Subjects and Style


Matthew - Written to the Hebrew thinking
-Presents Jesus as King of Israel

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luke - Written to the Greek thinking -
- Presents Jesus as the Great Healer -

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John - Written as an interpretation of the Life of Jesus,
not just reporting. -
- Presents Jesus as the Son of God, the Savior -

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark - Written in the ordinary language of the day -
- Presents Jesus as the Servant -



Also consider this.... if the Gospels all looked and read the same, would that give them any more validity???

Let's say for the sake of an example, that there was an accident on Commerce street. If you were to interview some of the witnesses most of them would probably notice different things and explain it a bit differently.... that wouldn't necessarily mean that they were lying or that they were wrong.

1st witness: "I was walking along the sidewalk and saw that a man on a bicycle lost his balance. A red Toyota Camry then hit him. There were three bystanders close by and two of them ran toward the man to offer aid, the one with the black shirt then gave him CPR. The ambulance arrived about 8 minutes later."

2nd witness: "At about 2 P.M. a red sedan ran over a bicyclist. The driver immediately phoned for help. One bystander ran to the victim and began administering CPR."

3rd witness: "A man was accidentally hit by a car. Two people ran out to offer aid. The driver of the car called the ambulance. The ambulance arrived quicker than I expected."

4th witness: "It was a windy day, and the wind caught a hold of a cyclist's hat. When the cyclist tried to catch it he lost his balance and fell on the street. A Camry turned right and didn't see the cyclist on the road. The impact was not fatal but it rendered the cyclist unconscious. The lady in the car retained composture and immediately called the paramedics. They arrived shortly after and right before it began to pour."

Imagine now that every witness said the same exact thing word for word... You would be freaked out and get the feeling that something did not feel right.

Perspective is a very important tool and used to convey style and personality. Surprisingly several events in the Gospels share this very same concept.

Please tell me that you are not arguing that the New Testament is an accurate depiction of actual events.

[Phenomanul]

Please tell me that you are not arguing that the New Testament is an accurate depiction of actual events.


It is the basis of our redemption, and reveals the nature of GOD as Father. It is the Revelation of Christ as Savior. Yes I believe in the Bible... NT included.

The example was not that difficult to understand.... It's perfect Peabody Logic if I ever saw it....

Though the witnesses say different things, they don't necessarily contradict each other....

[Mr. Peabody]

It is the basis of our redemption, and reveals the nature of GOD as Father. It is the Revelation of Christ as Savior. Yes I believe in the Bible... NT included.

The example was not that difficult to understand.... It's perfect Peabody Logic if I ever saw it....

Though the witnesses say different things, they don't necessarily contradict each other....

My questions is -- why does it have to be factually accurate? Can you still believe in the teachings and the wisdom of the document, can't you still follow the principles of the book, without it being 100% accurate?

Some of you seem to think that if the Bible is not a completely accurate depiction of actual events, then somehow that diminishes the value of the teachings. You have to question the faith of these people. The Bible contains some of the greatest teachings in history, regardless of the factual accuracy of the book.

By insisting that all of the events depicted actually occurred, you take something away from what it is to have faith in something. It's like you need validation for your beliefs or they are not worth anything.

[smeagol]

Well, it's not just the four inconsistent gospels. There's also the gospels that weren't selected for the Bible. So basically what we have is an abridged version of the story.
Those “gospels”, “acts”, “epistles” and “apocalypses” you refer too were not selected for a reason. They were forgeries.

While the New Testament Books were all written in the 1st Century, between 20 and 60 years after Christ’s death and Resurrection (Paul’s Epistles are believed to have been written in the 50s AD, the synoptic Gospels between 60 and 70 AD and John’s Gospel between 75 and 85 AD), scholars agree that the apocryphal gospels and other books were written in the mid to late 2nd Century. These books, such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Philip, push a Gnostic agenda and are in contradiction with Christianity (very easy to see why they were not included in the Canon of the Bible).

Furthermore, St Justin, who lived in the earlier part of the 2nd Century, already wrote of four and only four Gospels. St Irenaeus, in the later part of the 2nd Century, wrote the same thing. St. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who in turn was a disciple of St John. Ireaneus is therefore linked with the Apostles themselves.

[smeagol]

My questions is -- why does it have to be factually accurate? Can you still believe in the teachings and the wisdom of the document, can't you still follow the principles of the book, without it being 100% accurate?

Some of you seem to think that if the Bible is not a completely accurate depiction of actual events, then somehow that diminishes the value of the teachings. You have to question the faith of these people. The Bible contains some of the greatest teachings in history, regardless of the factual accuracy of the book.

By insisting that all of the events depicted actually occurred, you take something away from what it is to have faith in something. It's like you need validation for your beliefs or they are not worth anything.
I have mixed feelings about this. My personal view (which does not mean much) is that the NT is factual. The OT, on the other hand, has stuff that is difficult to reconcile, at least in my mind, with what must have really happened. Adam and Eve is probably a story which is mostly allegorical.

[Phenomanul]

My questions is -- why does it have to be factually accurate? Can you still believe in the teachings and the wisdom of the document, can't you still follow the principles of the book, without it being 100% accurate?

Some of you seem to think that if the Bible is not a completely accurate depiction of actual events, then somehow that diminishes the value of the teachings. You have to question the faith of these people. The Bible contains some of the greatest teachings in history, regardless of the factual accuracy of the book.

By insisting that all of the events depicted actually occurred, you take something away from what it is to have faith in something. It's like you need validation for your beliefs or they are not worth anything.

"Factually accurate" is a very broad and oft' misconstrued statement....

Are you talking about Jesus's doings.... i.e. his miracles... the accounts of his crucifixion and resurrection? Or about the doings of his disciples... or that of some of the other followers such as Paul's? or Timothy's? Perhaps the accounts in the Book of Revelations???

The New Testament has so many literary elements you can't try to label it as a work of 'fiction' or 'non-fiction' .... it is way too complex to fit neatly into either category.

Factuallity in this book, however, has major implications... Some events in the New Testament, though seemingly mundane to the casual reader, are the manifest culminations of prophecies in the Old Testament.

You are right in that the teachings themselves are priceless and value-rich guidelines to life, but to say that the historical context is irrelevant is not correct.

Again, the Gospels reveal the nature of Christ.... the incident where he calms the storm in the Sea of Galilee reveals Christ's dominion over nature... the incident(s) where He casts out demons from the possesed reveals His authority over the minions of Hell... The many incidents where He heals people reveal His authority over disease [and death in the case of the little 'sleeping' girl, and Lazarus]. Jesus's Transfiguration reveals Christ's divinity.

You may see these events as only 'supporting', 'contributing' non-essential works... but again, they are still needed so that a more 'complete' picture of Christ can be revealed. If the accounts that Jesus walked on water, or turned water in wine, or calmed the storm were not in the Bible, would that take away or diminish Jesus's Divine authority over nature? No, in fact Jesus himself stated that this [performing miracles] was not his purpose. But the fact that the accounts are included reveal other aspects of Jesus's 'personality' such as His obedience, compassion, and passion for GOD's justice [scene where he overturns several merchant's tables outside of the temple].

For me to sit here and claim with 100% certainty that the events in the New Testament are completely true would be out of my jurisdiction, and not to mention out of my grasp [I don't have access to original scripts... nor am I fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek so...]. But, I still believe them to be true based on Old Testament prophecies, and based on the consistency of Christ's nature as revealed throughout the entire Bible.

Yes, faith is certainly required to believe in the New Testament. Particularly because a chunk of it enters the supernatural realm. But belief in the factual accuracy of events in the New Testament as a part of one's faith is not equanimous to having a flaw in faith... OUR Cornerstone should be Christ....

[Brutalis]

as christians, it is not our duty to claim anything. it is our duty to have faith and lead by example. people will always doubt. even when the truth is right in front of their faces. but at the end of the day, the only people we can control are ourselves. that's what we must focus on good brother. Godbless you.

as far as factual, unquestioned, and unchanged?

well...to each their own, but i believe that it is questioned by many. i believe it has been changed through the interpretation of man. and as far as factual? Yes. I believe it is factual. That's what faith is all about.
I agree

[Brutalis]

If the book of Mormon was so real, why do they have to knock on my front door every month? Please, they are like ad companies.

I love their commercial, where the two girls are talking and one is like "i just feel so happy and complete" and here I'm thinking, ever heard of the uh... Bible? Laff.

[Phenomanul]

I have mixed feelings about this. My personal view (which does not mean much) is that the NT is factual. The OT, on the other hand, has stuff that is difficult to reconcile, at least in my mind, with what must have really happened. Adam and Eve is probably a story which is mostly allegorical.

Remember that article I posted a while back? The one that analyzed the literary style of Genesis vs. other books in the Old Testament....

If Genesis were more allegorical and symbolic it would flow more like passages from Psalms or Proverbs... Instead it reads more like the 'historical' books such as Kings, Chronicles etc... This is from an analysis of the breakdown of nouns, adjectives, verbs in the original Hebrew text....

Again, it requires a great deal of faith to accept Biblical creation, simply because the overwhelming power and authority of GOD is on display. However, I will concede that certain statements are not written in stone and subject to interpretation.... Though some of it can be literal... who knows... maybe GOD did make each of His 'creation' days equivalent to millions of years, or He simply 'fast forwarded' and compressed the 'events of millions of years' into each of those days (<--- my new theory)... With unlimited power to wield all I know is that it happened.

[2centsworth]

Please tell me that you are not arguing that the New Testament is an accurate depiction of actual events.
it has to be or else why would Jesus allow the Bible to speak for him. A god that powerful and perfect would never let his word to man be imperfect. Therefore, if you believe in Jesus the bible must be perfect.

[hendrix]

The OT, on the other hand, has stuff that is difficult to reconcile, at least in my mind, with what must have really happened. Adam and Eve is probably a story which is mostly allegorical.

:lol :lol
Sorry Smeagol... I can't believe someone might actually think "Adam and Eve" is not completely allegorical.
I know, i know... I'm a infidel bastard to all of you :) but still... come on!.

[Oh, Gee!!]

it has to be or else why would Jesus allow the Bible to speak for him. A god that powerful and perfect would never let his word to man be imperfect. Therefore, if you believe in Jesus the bible must be perfect.

who says it does speak for Jesus?

[Mr. Peabody]

who says it does speak for Jesus?

I think it says that in the introduction section of the Bible when God is talking about his process for writing the Bible and how he got the idea for certain characters.

There is also a nice foreword by Krishna.

[hendrix]

No, it's in one of the first pages, it says: "To my son, whom I love so much".

[Phenomanul]

it has to be or else why would Jesus allow the Bible to speak for him. A god that powerful and perfect would never let his word to man be imperfect. Therefore, if you believe in Jesus the bible must be perfect.


Your sarcastic undertone.... scratch that... the whole post wreaked of sarcasm....

But Zak said it best... to each his own.

The Biblical story of redemption is all that really matters... you either accept Jesus's act of redemption or you don't.... it's really that simple. The choice, however, is only yours to make...

Understanding God's word then becomes a matter of time considering the Holy Spirit is the one that reveals the purpose of His Word for our lives.... Until then, the Bible will simply be just another book... And this will continue to be the case for you or any other person who seeks to read the Bible without first seeking guidance from the Divine Author... just my 2 cents.

[smeagol]

:lol :lol
Sorry Smeagol... I can't believe someone might actually think "Adam and Eve" is not completely allegorical.
I know, i know... I'm a infidel bastard to all of you :) but still... come on!.
You would be surprised how many people believe the Adam and Eve story word for word.

[Mr. Peabody]

You would be surprised how many people believe the Adam and Eve story word for word.

I believed the story, until I was about five and realized that there are no talking snakes.

[Mr. Peabody]

What happened to turambar? He started this thread as if he was going to make a really good point, but then never posted anything.

[smeagol]

I believed the story, until I was about five and realized that there are no talking snakes.
So, do you believe Jesus raised people from the dead, walked on water and lultiplied the bread?

[Phenomanul]

You would be surprised how many people believe the Adam and Eve story word for word.


I'm not ashamed to deny it.... albeit I happen to think that GOD compressed the events of millions of years into each day of His 6-Day creation time-table.

That would support many modern 'scientific' claims whilst allowing for the creation of life to have a divine origin. <--- something science will never be able to run experiments on.... unless time travel is unraveled.

[Mr. Peabody]

So, do you believe Jesus raised people from the dead, walked on water and lultiplied the bread?

I am not sure. I believe that many of the events in the NT did take place. As far as the miracles go, I can't say that I believe in them. I am of the belief that miracles are merely phenomena that cannot be explained by the current state of science. As science progresses, the "miracles" are explained.

The miracles of Jesus, I believe, were embellished to prove up his divinity.

[Oh, Gee!!]

somebody read david hume

[Mr. Peabody]

somebody read david hume

As much as I hated the empiricists, I guess they had some influence on me.

[Oh, Gee!!]

you can't be a rationalist, can you?

[Phenomanul]

I am not sure. I believe that many of the events in the NT did take place. As far as the miracles go, I can't say that I believe in them. I am of the belief that miracles are merely phenomena that cannot be explained by the current state of science. As science progresses, the "miracles" are explained.

The miracles of Jesus, I believe, were embellished to prove up his divinity.


I'm beginning to see your perspective...

Anyway, miracles don't need embellishment.... they are what they are. If the Bible recounts that Jesus fed 5000 people with 2 loafs of bread and 5 fish... It wouldn't matter if Jesus had only fed 100... it's still a supernatural act nonetheless.

What you're trying to say, then, is that you believe Jesus performed no miracles at all...

[Mr. Peabody]

you can't be a rationalist, can you?

Hell yeah. The rationalists were just more interesting to read than the empiricists.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Hell yeah. The rationalists were just more interesting to read than the empiricists.


plodding thru Spinoza's dense logic is not my idea of fun

[Phenomanul]

And to clarify a bit...

Miracles alone would not prove anyones Divinity....

satan and his demons, as well as Angels are capable of producing supernatural acts also...

[Mr. Peabody]

I'm beginning to see your perspective...

Anyway, miracles don't need embellishment.... they are what they are. If the Bible recounts that Jesus fed 5000 people with 2 loafs of bread and 5 fish... It wouldn't matter if Jesus had only fed 100... it's still a supernatural act nonetheless.

What you're trying to say, then, is that you believe Jesus performed no miracles at all...

I'm sorry. I should have been more clear. I don't believe that the miracles were embellished to make them seem even more miraculous, I believe that the miracles themselves were embellishments used to make the argument that Jesus was the son of God.

[turambar85]

Sorry, I have been busy with school.

Now 2centsworth, you say that a good and powerful god would never allow his word to be tainted, but that is a blatant contrast to the nature of God to begin with. We were given free will, and that free will is all-encompassing. God can not/will not go any lenghts to demand our allegiance, which would not be that difficult, and can not directly dictate our actions. All God can do is give a story to man and allow him to write of it what he will.

The men selected to write this book were Godly men, but they were still men, and thus inherently flawed. The main purpose of the story of God is put out in this text, which is all that God would truly desire or need, and to break the basic guidelines of the religion and life itself and force the hand of the writers and translators makes him a God none of us want to believe in.

As I had mentioned earlier, there are many teachings on God, many bibles, and a lot of them have much in common with our own. Why would this good and powerful God allow these teachings related to "himself" become tainted? What logic enables you to suggest that "he" safeguarded the Christian bible, yet allowed the catholic, 7th day adventist, the koran, and others to become "twisted"? It is part of the egotistical nature of man to believe that he is always right, and that his beliefs are perfect, but why, as peabody asked, must we believe the entire bible is 100% factual, and not just a very good spiritual guideline?

[Mr. Peabody]

And to clarify a bit...

Miracles alone would not prove anyones Divinity....

satan and his demons, as well as Angels are capable of producing supernatural acts also...

True. The ability to perform miracles is not sufficient in itself to prove divinity, but it is necessary.

[turambar85]

And peabody, I have no great points or posts to throw out, sorry to dissapoint. I am just a 20 year old sophomore at a community college with no highschool education, so you won't get memorable, brilliant posts from me....only legitimate questions, and an occasional feeble attempt at a response.

[Mr. Peabody]

plodding thru Spinoza's dense logic is not my idea of fun

Yeah, I just liked the fact that these guys were building these huge philosophical constructs and getting everything they could out of their beliefs.

[Oh, Gee!!]

sophomore at a community college with no highschool education

makes sense to me

[turambar85]

Yeah, I realize that that is kind of unusual, but I was homeschooled from 8th grade on. Throughout "highschool" I did 1/2 of 1 semester. So, in essence, I have no h/s education. I b/s'ed my highschool transcript and lucked out in the act to get in.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I hope you realize that lying about your education on a college application is a federal crime. Good luck in prison

[turambar85]

Not lying, stretching the truth. If you consider that we bought all of the books that were necessary, and that I did well enough on the ACT, things aren't that big of a deal. In fact, two professors already know of this and found it amusing. So I can save my rectal virginity for a while yet.

[Mr. Peabody]

Not lying, stretching the truth. If you consider that we bought all of the books that were necessary, and that I did well enough on the ACT, things aren't that big of a deal. In fact, two professors already know of this and found it amusing. So I can save my rectal virginity for a while yet.

Haven't you heard, there is no rape in prison.

[turambar85]

Quite right, now let's see if we can get off the subject of rape, and back to religion...despite it's occasional similarities.

[Oh, Gee!!]

God is dead and we killed him

[2centsworth]

Your sarcastic undertone.... scratch that... the whole post wreaked of sarcasm....

But Zak said it best... to each his own.

The Biblical story of redemption is all that really matters... you either accept Jesus's act of redemption or you don't.... it's really that simple. The choice, however, is only yours to make...

Understanding God's word then becomes a matter of time considering the Holy Spirit is the one that reveals the purpose of His Word for our lives.... Until then, the Bible will simply be just another book... And this will continue to be the case for you or any other person who seeks to read the Bible without first seeking guidance from the Divine Author... just my 2 cents.
I was not bein sarcastic at all.

[Guru of Nothing]

I was not bein sarcastic at all.

That's funny.

[travis2]

Sorry, I have been busy with school.

Now 2centsworth, you say that a good and powerful god would never allow his word to be tainted, but that is a blatant contrast to the nature of God to begin with. We were given free will, and that free will is all-encompassing. God can not/will not go any lenghts to demand our allegiance, which would not be that difficult, and can not directly dictate our actions. All God can do is give a story to man and allow him to write of it what he will.

The men selected to write this book were Godly men, but they were still men, and thus inherently flawed. The main purpose of the story of God is put out in this text, which is all that God would truly desire or need, and to break the basic guidelines of the religion and life itself and force the hand of the writers and translators makes him a God none of us want to believe in.

As I had mentioned earlier, there are many teachings on God, many bibles, and a lot of them have much in common with our own. Why would this good and powerful God allow these teachings related to "himself" become tainted? What logic enables you to suggest that "he" safeguarded the Christian bible, yet allowed the catholic, 7th day adventist, the koran, and others to become "twisted"? It is part of the egotistical nature of man to believe that he is always right, and that his beliefs are perfect, but why, as peabody asked, must we believe the entire bible is 100% factual, and not just a very good spiritual guideline?

Just to throw something in here...Catholics are Christian. There is no reason to put them in separate categories.

[2centsworth]

That's funny.
Christanity makes a lot of common sense to me. Here's my thinking in a nutshell:

1. Is there a God? Yes

2. Does he punish the bad? Yes

3. Is everyone bad? Yes.

4. Would a God who punishes people who violate his laws have a law book? Yes. It's called the bible and it's not a coincidence it's the best selling book of all-time. Otherwise we could plea ignorance on judgement day.

[Mr. Peabody]

Christanity makes a lot of common sense to me. Here's my thinking in a nutshell:

1. Is there a God? Yes

2. Does he punish the bad? Yes

3. Is everyone bad? Yes.

4. Would a God who punishes people who violate his laws have a law book? Yes. It's called the bible and it's not a coincidence it's the best selling book of all-time. Otherwise we could plea ignorance on judgement day.

I would have to disagree with your first argument that the existence of God is common sense. I don't see how the existence of a supernatural being is common sense.

Well, actually, I disagree with all of these arguments being tabbed as common sense.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I would have to disagree with your first argument that the existence of God is common sense. I don't see how the existence of a supernatural being is common sense.


Ahah!! I knew you weren't a Rationalist.

[Mr. Peabody]

Ahah!! I knew you weren't a Rationalist.

I don't know that a rationalist would agree those four arguments are common sense.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I don't know that a rationalist would agree those four arguments are common sense.


Descartes would say that knowledge of God's existence is innate.

[Mr. Peabody]

Descartes would say that knowledge of God's existence is innate.

Right, however one can still be a rationalist and argue that knowledge of God's existence is not innate knowledge.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Right, however one can still be a rationalist and argue that knowledge of God's existence is not innate knowledge.

no, one couldn't (and wouldn't)

[Mr. Peabody]

no, one couldn't (and wouldn't)

Care to explain?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Care to explain?


According to Rationalists, objective truth is independent of what we experience. However, we have to ability to discover the truth through reasoning and logic (for example, we have the ability to use our mental faculties to learn mathematical concepts). Other truths are self-apparent because they were encoded in our minds since the beginning of time. The most fundamental and self-apparent truth is that God exists.

Edit: God (maybe not the Judeo-Christian god, but surely a sentient and creative force) is the source from which all reason and logic flows. Without God there is no reason, logic, or truth.

[Mr. Peabody]

According to Rationalists, objective truth is independent of what we experience. However, we have to ability to discover the truth through reasoning and logic (for example, we have the ability to use our mental faculties to learn mathematical concepts) . Other truths are self-apparent because they were encoded in our minds since the beginning of time. The most fundamental and self-apparent truth is that God exists.

Man, it's amazing how much information I've lost over the years.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Man, it's amazing how much information I've lost over the years.


Don't you remember that the three philosophers credited as the fathers of Rationalism are Spinoza, Liebeniz, and Descartes? Those dudes were always trying to prove the existence of God.

[Mr. Peabody]

Don't you remember that the three philosophers credited as the fathers of Rationalism are Spinoza, Liebeniz, and Descartes? Those dudes were always trying to prove the existence of God.

Hell man, I took a class titled Rationalism v. Empiricism, but I completely forgot that the existence of God was innate knowledge. I remember logic and mathematics, but forgot about God's existence.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Hell man, I took a class titled Rationalism v. Empiricism, but I completely forgot that the existence of God was innate knowledge. I remember logic and mathematics, but forgot about God's existence.

which is why your soul suffers in quiet desperation

[Mr. Peabody]

which is why your soul suffers in quiet desperation

That can't be the case, I sold my soul for $5. I even documented the transaction by writing "Peabody's soul" on a piece of paper and giving it to the purchaser.

[Phenomanul]

That can't be the case, I sold my soul for $5. I even documented the transaction by writing "Peabody's soul" on a piece of paper and giving it to the purchaser.


Reminds me of that episode where Bart sells his soul to Millhouse....

[2centsworth]

I would have to disagree with your first argument that the existence of God is common sense. I don't see how the existence of a supernatural being is common sense.

Well, actually, I disagree with all of these arguments being tabbed as common sense.here's why i think each is common sense.

1. How do we know there is a creator/God. How do we know a building has a builder or a painting has a painter? We know because they exist. The existence of Man is proof enough for me that God exist.

2. Everyone thinks bad will be punished, whether you think of it as Karma or Hell. Most people think Murderers, rapist, and child molestors who get away with their crimes on earth will be punished by God.

3. Are we all Bad? Just go down the ten commandments and you will soon realize not one person on earth is good in the eyes of God.

4. If there is a God, wouldn't it be strange if he didn't communicate with us? If there is punishment for wrong doing it is neccessary for God to hand down the law.


Whether you agree or disagree, that's my common sense approach to my faith.

However, not having faith is a gamble I'm not willing to take. Also, my faith enhances my life rather than detracts but even if it didn't I would still believe the same.

[Mr. Peabody]

which is why your soul suffers in quiet desperation

My reasoning used to be that logic and mathematics were necessarily a part of this universe, in that their existence was written in the fabric of the universe (overused statement, I know, but best way to put it). God, on the other hand, is not a necessary part of the universe. The universe could exist and continue to function as it does without God.

Now, lately, I have been reading some stuff that talks about how the basic rules of logic do not necessarily hold true for all things in the universe. And if logic has been vanquished, can I still hold on to mathematics. How long before that system is exposed? Where does this leave me?

This is why my soul is in quiet desperation.

[2centsworth]

My reasoning used to be that logic and mathematics were necessarily a part of this universe, in that their existence was written in the fabric of the universe (overused statement, I know, but best way to put it). God, on the other hand, is not a necessary part of the universe. The universe could exist and continue to function as it does without God.

Now, lately, I have been reading some stuff that talks about how the basic rules of logic do not necessarily hold true for all things in the universe. And if logic has been vanquished, can I still hold on to mathematics. How long before that system is exposed? Where does this leave me?

This is why my soul is in quiet desperation.
my understanding is that there's not a mathamatician in the world who doesn't believe in God. Also, the majority of Doctors do too.

[Mr. Peabody]

my understanding is that there's not a mathamatician in the world who doesn't believe in God. Also, the majority of Doctors do too.

What does this have to do with my statement?

And why would I care if doctors believe in God?

[Mr. Peabody]

my understanding is that there's not a mathamatician in the world who doesn't believe in God.

I would also like to see some proof of this assertion.

[2centsworth]

What does this have to do with my statement?

And why would I care if doctors believe in God?
I saw it as you using math to disprove the existence of god, but if not I withdraw the statement.

Nevertheless, I hope the best for you in your spiritual life.

[Oh, Gee!!]

My reasoning used to be that logic and mathematics were necessarily a part of this universe, in that their existence was written in the fabric of the universe (overused statement, I know, but best way to put it). God, on the other hand, is not a necessary part of the universe. The universe could exist and continue to function as it does without God.

Now, lately, I have been reading some stuff that talks about how the basic rules of logic do not necessarily hold true for all things in the universe. And if logic has been vanquished, can I still hold on to mathematics. How long before that system is exposed? Where does this leave me?

This is why my soul is in quiet desperation.


Hawking?

[Mr. Peabody]

I saw it as you using math to disprove the existence of god, but if not I withdraw the statement.

Nevertheless, I hope the best for you in your spiritual life.

No, I never said that math disproves the existence of God. I don't pretend to know enough about math to make such a statement.

[Mr. Peabody]

Hawking?

No, I can't think of the book or the author right now, but I have it at home. I'll lend it to you if you want.

[Phenomanul]

I'm sorry 2centsworth for misinterpreting your statements.... They were very bold... which is why I thought you were being sarcastic... Again, my apologies.

[Mr. Peabody]

1. How do we know there is a creator/God. How do we know a building has a builder or a painting has a painter? We know because they exist. The existence of Man is proof enough for me that God exist.



You know a building has a builder because your experience has taught you that buildings don't occur in nature. The only way they can come into being is if someone creates them. The same thing with paintings. I don't know that the only way for man to come into being is through the existence of a god.