Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/26/2003 12:45:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/26/2003 12:53:39 PM EDT by SteyrAUG]
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 1:50:46 PM EDT
Thats why I dont put much faith in Christianity much anymore...its all based on a heavily edited assortment of texts that were carefully chosen so that they agreed with each other, and anything that didn't jibe with the official story was edited out.
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 2:12:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/26/2003 2:18:18 PM EDT by alaman]
We are told all Scripture is inspired by God. You either believe that or you don't. I do. There were a number of non-Biblical books books like Enoch, Macabees I,II, and III, Mary, Thomas, etc. written but have been proven over time to be noninspired. The Gnostic Gospels are also heritical and adds to the requirements for salvation above those Christ set.
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 2:13:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By alaman:
We are told all Scripture is inspired by God. You either believe that or you don't. I do. There were a number of non-Biblical books books like Enoch, Macabees I,II, and III, Mary, Thomas, etc. written but have been proven over time to be noninspired.
View Quote

How do you "prove" that? How do you"prove" the rest of the Bible IS inspired?
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 2:20:23 PM EDT
It's simple to prove and yet no one has yet proved it. Historians, geographers, athesists, etc. have tried to find an error in the Bible. None have been proven so far and many have tried.
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 2:26:41 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 2:26:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/26/2003 2:31:47 PM EDT by Boom_Stick]
Either the Bible is completely wrong or it is completely correct.  There is no middle ground. Same goes for how he wanted his Bible organized, including what book and chapters belong in it.
A Haleys Bible handbook, a concordance and study time are great tools for proving whether the Bible is out of context or not.  
I have taken the last 5+ years to read the Bible in [b] context[/b], and I have discovered that even though it was written by different people, it agrees with itself %100 and answers all questions that it puts forth. Ie: The Bible interprets itself [b]IF[/b] read in context like any another book.

To truly prove the Bible wrong/right, you have to set aside EVERYTING you’ve been taught, stop listening to everyone else and study it for yourself with the correct tools(including prayer), otherwise your as foolish as a gungrabber giving a lecture on guns.
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 2:31:04 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 2:31:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By tcsd1236:
Originally Posted By alaman:
We are told all Scripture is inspired by God. You either believe that or you don't. I do. There were a number of non-Biblical books books like Enoch, Macabees I,II, and III, Mary, Thomas, etc. written but have been proven over time to be noninspired.
View Quote

How do you "prove" that? How do you"prove" the rest of the Bible IS inspired?
View Quote


Its this little thing called "faith".  I too watched that program.  I found it ver interetsing.  Along with the criteria of text being inspired, they also made the point that some text was excluded because it was written too far after the event to actually be reliable.

Its my understanding that the gospel of Mary was most likely not written by Mary.  What do you mean Paul never met Jesus...there was that little run in on the road to Damasacus.

If that program last night did anything, it made me realize that the books that are in the cannon really belong there.  

I was actually suprised that there was no mention of Lilith.  She's one of the mose interesting characters of the Apocrapha text.
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 2:40:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Then please explain the several versions of the Bible over the ages.
View Quote


Which versions?  Are you talking about bibles with different books in them?

Link Posted: 12/26/2003 2:44:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Basically it came down to a 4th century Bishop (not God or Jesus) who decided which books would be included and which ones would not.
View Quote


Well, that may not be entirely true. I always believed that God would protect the Bible from improper human influence, so just because a Bishop declared which books made it in, that doesn't mean that he made the wrong choices.
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 2:46:03 PM EDT
When you read the story of Job, doesn’t God come across as a dick?
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 3:03:40 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 3:08:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 3:14:40 PM EDT
I have debated similar things with several people on this board.  Steyr pretty much summed up my thoughts:

[b]And my views of the bible are based upon the bible, all of the versions written, the writings they were based upon, those that were chosen, those that were editted and included and those that were excluded but were parts of the complete original sources.

I also factor in the politics and motivators that led the the creation of many of the stories, their editted versions for later use and the circumstances of their adoption and formation into the larger greater canon that would become the original bible. [/b]

Translation wise I think the best version is the Lamsa Bible.  Translated from the Peshitta.  It was originally written in Aramaic and then translated into english by a person from the middle east.  Easy to read and makes much more sense.  YMMV
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 3:24:47 PM EDT
The ignorance of history and theology on this thread is incredible.

Ants discussing the history of elephants.
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 3:32:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Then please explain the several versions of the Bible over the ages.
View Quote


Which versions?  Are you talking about bibles with different books in them?

View Quote


All version prior to KJI.

From the greek orthodox to the constantine to the Henry the VII to the Elizabethian and all the lesser known versions in between.

You didn't think they were all just language translations did you?

That was pretty much the point of the KJI bible was to get rid of all the crap and try and return to a original, orthodox version.
View Quote


I thought that it was to find a version that fit the world view of King James so he could make a single verson and [i]ban[/i] all others.

Also, in all his other apperances after his supposed ressurection Jesus was careful to appear to more than ONE person at once. Why did he appear to Saul of Tarsus alone in the middle of nowhere? The twelve didn't get along with Saul by the way.
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 3:37:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
Either the Bible is completely wrong or it is completely correct.  There is no middle ground. Same goes for how he wanted his Bible organized, including what book and chapters belong in it.
A Haleys Bible handbook, a concordance and study time are great tools for proving whether the Bible is out of context or not.  
I have taken the last 5+ years to read the Bible in [b] context[/b], and I have discovered that even though it was written by different people, it agrees with itself %100 and answers all questions that it puts forth. Ie: The Bible interprets itself [b]IF[/b] read in context like any another book.

To truly prove the Bible wrong/right, you have to set aside EVERYTING you’ve been taught, stop listening to everyone else and study it for yourself with the correct tools(including prayer), otherwise your as foolish as a gungrabber giving a lecture on guns.
View Quote




To further this excellent point, I would like to add it isn't so much whether you can or can't prove the Bible correct (or wrong - depends on what you set out to do I guess), it comes down to simply whether you chose to accept it or not. Period.

It is about your faith.

There are a lot of things you can argue in and about the Bible. It still comes down to a simple matter of whether YOU want to believe or not.

There are some wonderful books like Lee Strobel's "A Case for Christ". However, I wish everyone could take the time and effort to read C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity".


Link Posted: 12/26/2003 3:40:51 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 3:45:01 PM EDT
Eliminating the OT or relegating it to a lower status would have made sense.  If you were proselyting a religion to the Gentiles, and were saying that you didn't need to be a Jew either ethnically or religiously to be saved, why would you need to follow the OT laws and rules God gave to the Jews and/or follow what is (from your expanded mission point of reference) a history of the Gods interaction with the Jewish people and a history of Israel?

Me, a lot of far better educated people have studied this.  I will let them continue their studies.
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 3:53:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/26/2003 4:04:06 PM EDT by thompsondd]
SteyrAUG - I admire your humor, honesty, etc [b]and I am glad that we can agree on this point.[/b] There are many, many questions that, to this day, I still have about my own religion (I am a Baptist BTW). However, I have a 'mentor' of sorts (my SS teacher) who I consider very well educated and fairly open minded about things. I have posed some of these questions over the years to him. Generally, he can give very detailed answers. Even with all the supporting evidence that is known, there are still several issues which can be argued time and again and it is he that has pointed me back to the one single cornerstone of what I think religion is about; my personal faith.

I am a scientific guy (engineer). I have been taught not to accept things unless proven. While this works in my professional life, it causes some severe conflicts in my spiritual life as you could probably easily guess. I went (back) to church a few years ago (after having drifted away for awhile) with an attitude that pretty much said "you're going to have to prove this" or "can you answer that". Once again, it came down to whether I wanted to, which I do.

This is a link to our SS class material. We are taking a 2 year (YEAR) class. The first year was spent on the OT, this year on the NT. Cover to cover. In depth. Led by a great instructor.

[url]http://bellsouthpwp.net/s/t/stepbystep/[/url]

Be sure to see these pages in particular:

[url]http://bellsouthpwp.net/s/t/stepbystep/sbsot3.htm[/url]
and
[url]http://bellsouthpwp.net/s/t/stepbystep/sbsnt04.htm[/url]


Link Posted: 12/26/2003 3:56:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/26/2003 4:00:44 PM EDT by thompsondd]
Originally Posted By PaDanby:
Eliminating the OT or relegating it to a lower status would have made sense.  If you were proselyting a religion to the Gentiles, and were saying that you didn't need to be a Jew either ethnically or religiously to be saved, why would you need to follow the OT laws and rules God gave to the Jews and/or follow what is (from your expanded mission point of reference) a history of the Gods interaction with the Jewish people and a history of Israel?

Me, a lot of far better educated people have studied this.  I will let them continue their studies.
View Quote


We DON'T have to follow the laws of the OT, unless you are an Orthodox Jew. That is what the New Covenant is about.
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 4:41:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/26/2003 5:09:18 PM EDT by Happyshooter]
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Saw a interesting documentary "Banned From The Bible" on the books of the bible and the process of canonization.

Of specific interest were the "gnostic stories" that were all discounted.

Of them was the gospel of Mary (who actually was the first to discover the resurection):

[i]The Gospel of Mary is a noncanonical or outside book in which Mary Magdalene is featured as a leader of the early church. Material in brackets are editorial additions and comments. The Coptic papyrus, from which the first six pages have been lost, begins in the middle of this gospel.[/i]


But funny how Paul, who never met Jesus, was accepted.

Basically it came down to a 4th century Bishop (not God or Jesus) who decided which books would be included and which ones would not.

Once Constantine ordered 50 copies of the Bible, a very costly thing to do, the canon was set.

The books were written by men (not God or Jesus) and that is why they are named after people.

Also found out that many of the OT stories (including Genesis) were almost discarded several times.

Was pretty informative and finally made sense of a lot of stuff I had difficulty understanding and was almost never mentioned.
View Quote


Constantine, the first Christian emperor, presided over the council of Nicea. He called it for the express purpose of discussing the gnostic beliefs.

Whhat resulted was the Nicene Creed for the Christian faith, and the banning of the gnostic material as heresay.

The emperor provided transport, at government expense, to each bishop of the faith in the empire. The gnostics being declared in error was a decision made by the majority of the then existing church.

He later ordered govenment scribes to copy the bible for free for any church that needed one. This caused the bible to be widely availible, but the actual text had already been set in the mainstream church.

As a trivia fact, he also gave bishops the power to free slaves they found worthy or unjustly enslaved.
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 5:02:52 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 5:22:46 PM EDT
One thing is certain. If the Bible is correct and without error as I believe it is, we will all find out it is correct as soon as we die. Since Christ reaffirmed the Books of the Old Testament and often quoted from them, they must be true because He pointed out the false aspects of the Jewish religion but never any false aspects of the books that are now part of our Bible. If Christ rose from the dead, He is God and therefore could easily inspire the writers of the N.T.
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 5:38:43 PM EDT
Thank you for taking the time the day after we Christians celebrate the birth of our Savior to share your completely unsolicited views on religion.
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 5:43:15 PM EDT
All points well taken. I, for one, believe there IS more to this and thus, try to live accordingly.

Again, I refer everyone to C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity". For anyone not aware, C.S. Lewis is the author of the children's classis "The Chronicles of Narnia" which includes "The Lion, The Witch, and The Warddrobe" as well as 6 other books. However, those were the only children's books that he ever wrote. C.S. Lewis was, at one time, an atheist. His book, "Mere Christianity" was originally given as a series of radio addresses over the BBC during WWII. They were later put into written form for the book.

Link Posted: 12/26/2003 5:55:09 PM EDT
In 1978, I took a class by Dr. James M. Robinson, professor of theology and history at The Claremont Colleges in Claremont, California.  He was, and still is considered to be one of the greatest minds in theological history in the world.  About ½ of the year he treks across the Holy Land and surrounding lands and digs up ancient texts.  The other half, he spends trying to teach dummies like me about Jesus and the times in which he lived.  I found his class very challenging and very rewarding, since it filled in a lot of ancient temporal holes for me.  He has published several books on this issue of the early biblical and heretical texts and was heavily involved in the translation and analysis of the Gnostic biblical texts…those gospels that failed to make it into the Bible.  In fact, during his class, we studied some of the heretical writings.  I found them fascinating, especially those of Thomas and Mary.  They sound pretty close to the New Testament Gospels in some ways…but again…they are still considered heretical.  Dr. Robinson also added a wealth of knowledge to Dr. Albert Schweitzer’s book, “Quest for the Historical Jesus”, when he published his, “New Quest for the Historical Jesus”.

Dr. Robinson recently completed a ten-year update of the Nag Hammadi Library, a detailed compilation of the heretical gospels.  This collection of texts gives a fascinating view of early Christian texts.  We need to remember, that these didn’t make it into the Bible either.  They were considered “out of the mainstream” and heresy.

Gnosticism was a sect of the early Christian Church.  As the Church aged and came to its present form, Gnosticism was ultimately eliminated from mainstream Christianity, save the occasional resurgence of underground and spiritual movements. Of course, Gnosticism was not an exclusively Christian-oriented phenomenon: many of the texts in the Nag Hammadi refer to Hebrew Scriptures only, and the question of Jewish Gnosticism is discussed by Dr. Robinson.

The Nag Hammadi library is actually twelve books, plus a bit of a thirteenth book. These are now kept in the Coptic Museum in Cairo.  They are actually Coptic translations of earlier Greek works. Coptic is the Egyptian language written with the Greek alphabet. They were discovered in the mid 1940s, just a few years prior to the discovery of the first Dead Sea Scrolls.

Included in Nag Hammadi texts are The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel of Truth, The Gospel of Mary and other gospel contenders.  The Gospel of Thomas has perhaps been the most famous text from Nag Hammadi; it has been translated and commented upon extensively, particularly in modern scholarship which discusses gospel development.

This gospel does not correspond to the narrative form with which modern readers are familiar; it is a collection of sayings.  Some modern scholars say that it basically came down to who was calling the shots back in the first few centuries AD and that it was style over substance that emerged victorious.  It also helps illuminate some of the early struggles in church formation.

Other writings include various Acts of apostles, pieces of wisdom literature, parables and stories, most of which have some basis in Hebrew scripture or Christian scripture traditions.

It gives insight into the varieties of early Christianity and Judaism. And it makes for interesting reading.

Dr. Robinson also presented a discussion of the “Sayings Gospel Q”.  Q is that mysterious Gospel whose writings/teachings/influence are pretty clear in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark.  Get a copy of the Gospel Parallels and see…Q is there!

Oh…I did my term paper on John the Baptist…and got an “A”!  [:D].

(Man…that was a long time ago!  Wonder if he is still teaching?)

Anyway…interesting topic.
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 6:26:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
So live your life according to your beliefs and I hope you try and be a better person for it. Just spare me the fairy tales.
View Quote


While I agree with you about organized religion and the sociological reasons for its existance and continued usage, I find it ironic that you wish to be "spared the fairy tales" when you brought up the discussion. Why attack the Bible if all you want is to be "spared" its fairy tales?

Trying to justify not believing in Christ is a stone cold bitch isn't it?

Link Posted: 12/26/2003 6:32:02 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 6:34:20 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 6:39:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By dport:
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
So live your life according to your beliefs and I hope you try and be a better person for it. Just spare me the fairy tales.
View Quote


While I agree with you about organized religion and the sociological reasons for its existance and continued usage, I find it ironic that you wish to be "spared the fairy tales" when you brought up the discussion. Why attack the Bible if all you want is to be "spared" its fairy tales?

Trying to justify not believing in Christ is a stone cold bitch isn't it?

View Quote


I find it even more ironic that, in spite of a title that clearly showed the intent of the thread, people still CHOSE to open it and participate knowing that they would be offended for sure and perhaps humiliated as well...
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 6:45:25 PM EDT
I can only see two possible motivations for starting this topic.

#1 Save the Christians from themselves. Show them the light. The problem is you're smart enough to know you aren't going to convince people of faith not to have faith.

#2 To tout this program as proof that you're correct in your beliefs. Only someone that is insecure in his/her beliefs would need to do this.

There is a third possibility. That would be a discussion of the program in a mature manner. I'm pretty sure that isn't the case here; otherwise, you wouldn't have used the program as a launching pad to attack the Bible.

But hey, whatever you need to do to make yourself feel better about not believing in Christ.

Link Posted: 12/26/2003 6:50:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By dport:
I can only see two possible motivations for starting this topic.

#1 Save the Christians from themselves. Show them the light. The problem is you're smart enough to know you aren't going to convince people of faith not to have faith.

#2 To tout this program as proof that you're correct in your beliefs. Only someone that is insecure in his/her beliefs would need to do this.

There is a third possibility. That would be a discussion of the program in a mature manner. I'm pretty sure that isn't the case here; otherwise, you wouldn't have used the program as a launching pad to attack the Bible.

But hey, whatever you need to do to make yourself feel better about not believing in Christ.

View Quote


You forgot, #4- Share with like minded individuals

and #5- Luring the non-thinking into making fools of themselves.
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 7:00:56 PM EDT
Arrogance always impresses me.
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 7:02:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/26/2003 7:05:31 PM EDT by dport]
Nonthinking fools. That's an interesting characterization as I have not felt the need to justify nor share my particular beliefs with anyone here.

You are making an assumption that I am a Christian. That is certainly one possibility. There is another.

It is no secret that the majority of the country has a Christian background of some sort. It is fair to assume that the vast majority of Americans have a familiarity with the story of Christ. In fact, Christianity was the standard until recently. So it is no surprise that someone would feel the need to justify their deviation from this standard.

Your #4 is covered under the third possibility. However, this topic was not approached in that manner.

Your #5 is covered in my first possibility.

Thanks for trying though.
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 8:48:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/26/2003 8:49:43 PM EDT by SteyrAUG]
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 8:59:42 PM EDT
OK, I was trying not to do this, but...

"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea off [i]just[/i] and [i]unjust[/i]? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe to when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because he is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too - for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should have never found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes we should never know it was dark. [i]Dark[/i] would be a word with no meaning."

C.S. Lewis - 'Mere Christianity'

now go read the book
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 9:25:14 PM EDT
Professing to be wise, they became fools... "bla bla bla bla bla bla"
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 9:38:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SNorman:
Professing to be wise, they became fools... "bla bla bla bla bla bla"
View Quote



Professing to be wise I keep my fucking mouth shut.

Charlie
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 9:53:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
How ridiculous.

Does the same apply to discussions of Greek mythology?

Do we only do it to save those who might believe in Zues or just to offer proof and make us feel better for not believing in him?
View Quote


No. There is not a large following of believers in Greek or Roman mythology. It is not the "standard" in the US. Christianity is. There is no cultural need to justify unbelief in Greek mythology.

For some reason unbelievers in Christianity need to justify it and tout it whenever they can. I can understand why Christians need to tout their beliefs; they are commanded to "go forth and preach the gospel." I can't understand why athiests need to go around trying to poke holes in Christianity. What's the worst that will happen in the athiest's view? Someone will try to live a good life for nothing?


Try #3.

It was an interesting program about a few things I didn't know about previously. It made many of the things I had learned 'fit.'

In fact much of my confusion came from religious teachings which overlooked so much of this.

Excuse me for trying to study history from a non religious view. Imagine if everything we knew about our history came only from the Koran.

Well I don't want my knowledge limited to KJI either.
View Quote


I also found the program interesting.  I've been well aware that there have been different versions of the Bible. The most obvious example is the version the Catholics use vs the version that many Protestants use. IIRC Catholics have more books in their Bible. (Personally I found the Ethiopian connection fascinating. It made me want to research the Ethiopian/Somalian wars a bit further to examine the religious aspects.)

The reason I tend to discount #3 is the wording you use in your arguments, ie "fairy tales" and "proven errors." These terms were used to elicit an emotional response from believers. That makes an adult discussion about facts harder to achieve. In effect, you're saying that Christians are weak minded people who are easily duped. Whether or not this is actually the case is not the point. You're a smart guy; you know these words will get the believers worked up. I can only surmise by the words you use, that is what you want to do.

I most certainly don't want to limit my knowledge of history to one text. I do find it fascinating that stories similar to OT stories are also told in other historical texts. That begs the question are those stories stolen from other ancient cultures or do they describe actual events that affected more than one ancient culture?

Finally, I must confess to my ignorance as to what KJI is. I am familiar with KJV ie King James Version. I can only assume you are speaking of the same version of the Bible.

Link Posted: 12/26/2003 10:47:57 PM EDT
RE Ethiopia

IIRC, the local tradition is that the (former, IIRC) royal line of Ethiopia (or the major tribe therein) believed they were descended from the offspring of the Queen of Sheba & King Solomon of Israel.

Also, one of the original Apostles wound up in Africa, leading to a few Christian sects that predated the European missionaries by centuries...

There's alot of religeous history in those parts of the world, especially with regard to Christiantity & Judaisim (Islam is a comparatively recent phenomenon) due to the age and the historical position of Israel (right smack in between the various major powers), Judaisim and later Christiantity got scattered around the world long before Europeans took up the call to do so....

Another interesting side-note: The Christian church is growing at the greatest rate in the 3rd world, to the point where the forseeable future will result in European/American Christians being a significan minority of the world Church...
Link Posted: 12/27/2003 7:39:02 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/27/2003 8:40:22 AM EDT
As you can see I don't post often but I am on the site daily for long periods of time just reading and taking mental notes.  I am a christian and would like to make some points.
I don't know every verse in the bible, I don't know about every version either nor the complete history of the bible nor the time periods in which it was written.  I know that the bible is relevant to my life as I live it now as it was to the people who wrote it.  The bible says have faith like a child..that means keep it simple don't make it complicated for you and for others.  The bible also says that without accepting Christ you cannot recieve the Holy Spirit which interprets the word of God.  It also says that there are many things that we won't understand .  So this debate over whether or not there is mistakes, or the bible was written by man - inspired by God, fairy tales will continue forever.  I belief the bible to be 100% written by man, inspired by God, and absolutely accurate.  I live my life accordingly and make as many mistakes as the non believer but I ask for forgiveness and strentgh to try again.  For you other christians if you know the verses I am refering please point them out for I don't want to be a false witness and would like to refer to Gods word and not mine.
Link Posted: 12/27/2003 8:58:46 AM EDT
Ahh the use of the words "fairy tales" is just that. That is how I view many of the OT stories about giants, global floods, etc. As far as "proven facts" I meant just that. A poster suggested the bible was error free, it isn't.
View Quote


Well SteyrAUG, old friend, here you go again. [:D]

I would only offer that you are partly correct.  I can't [b]prove[/b] that the Bible is entirely true.

But surely you will admit that neither can you [b]prove[/b] that it isn't.

As we've talked about before, it is a matter of [u]faith[/u].  I have faith that it is true.  You have faith that it isn't.  Neither of us can prove our contention.

But I would like to offer a different view from some posters.

I don't believe that you post these threads because you are trolling or trying to offend anyone.  I really believe that it is because you are searching.  You have these well-stated beliefs that you listed above.

But I think that you sometimes wonder...what if...

You do so because there is a God in heaven and He loves you.  Jesus died in your place and wants you to know Him.  The Holy Spirit wants to open the Word of God to you and make you understand it like never before.

He is "Tenderly Calling".  I am praying for you.
Link Posted: 12/27/2003 9:24:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Saw a interesting documentary "Banned From The Bible" on the books of the bible and the process of canonization.

Of specific interest were the "gnostic stories" that were all discounted.

Of them was the gospel of Mary (who actually was the first to discover the resurection):

[i]The Gospel of Mary is a noncanonical or outside book in which Mary Magdalene is featured as a leader of the early church. Material in brackets are editorial additions and comments. The Coptic papyrus, from which the first six pages have been lost, begins in the middle of this gospel.[/i]


But funny how Paul, who never met Jesus, was accepted.

Basically it came down to a 4th century Bishop (not God or Jesus) who decided which books would be included and which ones would not.

Once Constantine ordered 50 copies of the Bible, a very costly thing to do, the canon was set.

The books were written by men (not God or Jesus) and that is why they are named after people.

Also found out that many of the OT stories (including Genesis) were almost discarded several times.

Was pretty informative and finally made sense of a lot of stuff I had difficulty understanding and was almost never mentioned.
View Quote


You saw it on TV kinda like you read it on the internet=it must be true?  Yeah right.[V]
Link Posted: 12/27/2003 9:29:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
... I can't [b]prove[/b] that the Bible is entirely true.

But surely you will admit that neither can you [b]prove[/b] that it isn't.

As we've talked about before, it is a matter of [u]faith[/u].  I have faith that it is true.  ...
View Quote


That's part of the problem. There is no physical evidence of Jesus or God. Not scientifically demonstratable evidence. People that are operating on faith and emotion want to argue their points as if they had some type of tangible evidence too back them up. The only thing to back up their position is scripture.
and again-- unless Jesus spoke English- you're reading a very heavily edited version of what men wrote hundered of years after he lived.

There is no more evidence of Jesus, then there is of Odin.
Link Posted: 12/27/2003 9:31:00 AM EDT
Whats the real reason that you keep posting these threads about the Bible ?
We all know that you dont believe in God and thats fine, but why do you keep picking on the Bible?

post some threads about the Koran or comunnism that they suck also and you dont believe in them.

What are you trying to prove?

you are not going to change my mind anymore than i am going to change your mind.

The books of the Bible were chosen by THE Council of Nicea anyway not one man.  
Link Posted: 12/27/2003 9:46:40 AM EDT
Originally Posted By LWilde:
Oh…I did my term paper on John the Baptist…and got an “A”!  [:D].

(Man…that was a long time ago!  Wonder if he is still teaching?)
View Quote


No, they cut his head off and gave it to a dancing girl.
Link Posted: 12/27/2003 9:54:09 AM EDT
Well, I satyed out for a while but finally decided to add a response.

The important part is that whether the Bible is the true Word of God, total fabrication, a collection of long told tales finally written down, a series of political propaganda compiled to keep folk in line or any other interpretation is... It doesn't matter.

The validity or non-validity of the Bible has nothing to do with God, Christianity or Religion and is totally unimportant.


The Map is not the Territory.
Link Posted: 12/27/2003 10:24:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
I guess I didn't explain it well. Imagine if someone wanted to have a serios discussion about the tooth fairy. Imagine if someone wanted stories related to the tooth fairy taught as factual history in school. Imagine if people wanted YOU to believe in the tooth fairy.

Would you indulge them?

Personally I think people can believe whatever they want, that is the point of the 1rst. I know people who honestly don't believe we landed on the moon. But the only time it would really bother me is if they demaned that the "moon hoax" be part of history, taught as fact and accepted by me...

Ahh the use of the words "fairy tales" is just that. That is how I view many of the OT stories about giants, global floods, etc. As far as "proven facts" I meant just that. A poster suggested the bible was error free, it isn't.
View Quote


So basically the whole point of this thread was to tell Christians that their Bible is corrupted and since the Bible is the foundation of their beliefs, their beliefs are corrupted.

In effect, you are admitting that your purpose was my #1, to save the Christians from themselves. Only you mean to do it in a completely demeaning way. Wow, I expect such behavior from children who know no other way of reaffirming their own beliefs other than to put other people's beliefs down. I can't believe I'm seeing it from an adult.

I can see no other purpose. If you truly were concerned that people were being misled you would have argued in manner that wouldn't attack those you believe are mislead. If you wanted to discuss history vs the Bible, again you would have approached it without referring to it in emotional terms.

I don't think you are as strong in your beliefs as you'd like to think you are.





Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top