Literal Readings of the Bible

1. 59

   Liam Hannanposted 13 years ago

   Just a question for those Christians who profess to believe that the Bible is the literal and unalterable word of God; how do you justify the removal of the books of
   
   Baruch, Wisdom, Tobit, Ruth, Judith, 1 Maccabees & 2 Macabees
   
   during the 16th century?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Dave Mathewsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Liam Hannan: The book of Ruth is still apart of the Old Testament section of the Bible the book of Wisdom and the books of Maccabees I have heard of the others I am not familiar with but I know for a fact are included in the Roman Catholic Bible.
      
      It appears that Christianity and Catholicism do not agree on what books truly belong and what ones don't.
      
      One thing we must keep in mind though is that the "Old Testament" books are books from the days of the Hebrews the first 5 are recognized as their "Torah" The latter books I cannot speak for. There are also books or gospels or epistles missing from the new testament too, books that never made it in, at least 4 I am aware of.

      replyreport
      1. 73

         Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Catholics are Christians.
         
         Protestants are protesters that broke away from "The" Christian church and started the modern Prodestant Churches during the Reformation.
         
         The first breakaway church was the Luthern church started by a German catholic monk by the name of Martin Luther.
         
         The deleted books of the "Bible" were deleted by the political leaders of the era do to an inability to live up to the standards set forth in the "original" document. Hence the name "King James VERSION of the Bible".
         
         attempting literal/absolute interpretations of a document that has been re-edited over thousands of years to fit changing moral and political standards is nieve at best.
         
         http://hubpages.com/hub/Absolutism-in-Religion

         replyreport
         1. 78

            DoubleScorpionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Actually.. The original 1611 King James Version held all 80 books and only received one update for modernizing the language in about 1779...it was in about 1885 that the new protestant reformation decided to remove the 14 Apocrypha Books from the version that we see so abundant today.

            replyreport
            1. 73

               Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I don't understand what you are correcting from my post?
               
               "actually..."

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  DoubleScorpionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Not correcting... just adding to....

                  replyreport
2. 60

   SpanStarposted 13 years ago

   Why do people keep looking for ways to punch holes in Christian's belief.  If we want to used this same old approach to why the bible isn't to be believed because stuff was left out-frankly I don't know why things were left out and don't care the book is heavy enough already but now step back and ask that same question about public education- how much has been left out of History books- what are they hiding??

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Liam Hannanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I think you misunderstand my point; I do not feel that the Bible should not be believed, but I do feel that it is inconsistent to view it as literal and unalterable whilst having made alterations. Dave is entirely correct in pointing out that the Vulgate and Douay Rheims bibles (the Catholic translations) do not omit any passages of the Old Testament, however the Catholic Church also argues that a lot of the truth from scripture is more literary than literal. (For example, Vatican Doctrine now stands that Genesis is an illustrative text rather than an alternative to scientific theories of evolution).
      
        It is, however, incorrect (historically speaking) to view the Gnostic Gospels as "missing" from the scripture - because they were never in it in the first place. The NT as we know it is largely based on the work of Marcius (who was at the Council specifically to argue the point that the OT should not be included in Christian scripture; looking at how some sects are now using it one feels he may have had a point) and the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. To be honest - I can see why a lot of them were ommitted; other than the Gospel of Thomas they would pretty much all disrupt the narrative flow and obscure the point.
      
         I am also not asking why certain books were left out - the reasons for that lie in the reformation and the foundation of Protestant Theology - what I am interested in is how these changes are justified to people who believe that the Bible cannot change.

      replyreport
   2. 58

      Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      When holes become canyons, throwing a rock in any direction has a direct impact.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Pardon the intrusion but, in the interest of honesty; you should have said if, not when. Just a thought.

         replyreport
         1. 58

            Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Oh no, it is accurate. What were once holes in Christianity at first have now become grand and ominous canyons, wide in their fallacious expanse, bursting at the seams with disingenuous and dangerous contradiction and hypocrisy and deep with turtles upon turtles down. Just another thought.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Hey, that's a good post, but quite inaccurate. Yes, the church has made ridiculous claims as to the meaning of the scriptures. That is men seeking power. It's what they do. People have been bamboozled by salesmen repeatedly. Doesn't make the lies told true. I don't know where these canyons you reference are.

               replyreport
               1. 58

                  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Actually, I changed my post to make it a more relevant analogy.
                  
                  
                  
                  But, strangely, puzzlingly and most evidently, you have joined such an organization and hold their beliefs. Isn't that rather odd based on your statement?
                  
                  
                  
                  Yes, I know.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Arrgghh. Calling myself a Christian simply means I follow Christ. Nothing more. You read too much into the statement. I do not agree with the teachings of 'the church'. If I truly believed that the scriptures did not line up and did not show a message that is pertinent to our lives I would have to reevaluate. I have not found this to be the case.
                     
                     If you know some secret that has been kept from the free world, then please; share it with us. But don't waste our time with 'proof' like that ridiculous forum attempted.

                     replyreport
                     1. 58

                        Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        You got your beliefs in Christ from the church, which holds itself to the bible, as you do. In other words, the event of having your knowledge of Christ would never have occurred without the bible and the church.
                        
                        
                        
                        Many others have seen messages in scriptures that are horrifying and are not messages containing values or morals they would accept or strive to emulate in their lives.
                        
                        
                        
                        There are no secrets I am aware. 
                        
                        
                        
                        If I am wasting my time presenting an understanding of the world around us to you, it is entirely your prerogative to ignore and deny it. Feel free.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           You are not, in my opinion, wasting time. It is simply that it appears to me you go too far in your beliefs. I believe there has to be a middle ground. It makes no sense that you could be right.

                           replyreport
                           1. 58

                              Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Once again, I have no idea what you're talking about. What beliefs do I hold in which I am going to far?

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 That there is no God. The rest of your posts can be understood, as your point of view. Which I have always maintained that no one knows the truth for sure. Who knows, you could be right. I can only go by what I know.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 58

                                    Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    Once again, you show intellectual dishonesty. That is not at all a belief I hold and have never uttered anything remotely similar that I believed or held a belief that your particular god does not exist.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 0

                                       just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                       I am not dishonest, in any way that I know of. Please explain what you mean. Your posts have always implied atheism. If I was mistaken, I believe it to be an honest mistake.

                                       report
                                       1. 59

                                          Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                          TK? Gotta be. Thought you were banned?

                                          report
                                          1. 0

                                             just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                             ???

                                             report
                                       2. 58

                                          Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                          If it was an honest mistake, then the mistake can only be attributed to a reading comprehension issue on your part.
                                          
                                          Why, you ask?
                                          
                                          Simple, if you are presenting things that I never said and using them as if I did say them, then that is entirely dishonest. If you are indeed opining on what I said, then you need to explain yourself as to how you managed to make conclusions based on something I never stated.
                                          
                                          Do you understand now?

                                          report
                                          1. 0

                                             just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                             Sure. I understand you want to be difficult. Well done.

                                             report
                                          2. 0

                                             just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                             And so you know, when someone says I'm delusional for believing in the concept of God, it doesn't take a great deal of thought to take the statement at face value. I have never been dishonest in my assessment of your statements.

                                             report
                                    2. 0

                                       just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                       That is untrue and you know it. You have repeatedly told me I am deluding myself. I assume some recent revelation has led you deduct IQ points from your assessment of me. If this is the case, sorry. I had no idea you would be that type of person.

                                       report
                                       1. 58

                                          Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                          Funny how that is entirely different from what you claim I said.
                                          
                                          

                                          report
                                          1. 0

                                             just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                             I'll be honest with you. I find your point of view quite interesting, but I have always assumed you believed the end game was making a convert to your cause. I have no problem with you believing that. It would never happen.  But, I can't follow the games, or whatever.
                                             
                                             First, you fall into some turtle canyon on this thread, then accuse me of dishonesty for not telling everyone I was female on another.  I can't follow this. Makes no sense. So sorry.

                                             report
                                             1. 0

                                                SirDentposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                                You are female?????? 

                                                report
                                             2. 58

                                                Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                                Yes, but that is what we've been trying to tell you is that what we write here and what you assume we have written are two different things.
                                                
                                                
                                                
                                                You need not be sorry for not being able to understand things. No apologies necessary.

                                                report
                                                1. 0

                                                   just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                                   That is unkind of you, and you know it. Why would you say it?

                                                   report
                                                2. 0

                                                   just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                                   I just have one  last question. Why do you pull pieces out of a train of thought, twist them into something else and then reply to that as if it was what was said? Are you afraid of an honest conversation? Are you attempting to make a point with this dishonest way to communicate?

                                                   report
                                                   1. 58

                                                      Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                                      Not at all. What you refer to are called 'qualifiers' - they are statements made that should be able to stand on their own in any argument. If they can't, the entire argument can be false, if for example, the statement is a fallacy.

                                                      report
                                                      1. 0

                                                         just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                                         Ok. I see. Darn, I thought I was learning from you, not debating. I'll have to stop answering (after this of course) unless I'm  on a computer. That way I can see everything on one screen and cut and paste, and do the same thing back to you. It will definitely impede the process, but it sounds like a fun game.

                                                         report
                                                         1. 58

                                                            Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                                            Yes, I understand this is all a game for you. But, I'm not really interested in playing your games, thanks.

                                                            report
                                                            1. 0

                                                               just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                                               No, these are your games. Testy ones. It doesn't appear anyone really wants to understand where the other guy is coming from. Sorry if the atheist view point is interesting to me. I realize attempting to sere another's point of view is not within your ability, but it is within mine.

                                                               report
                                             3. 58

                                                Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                                That is a lie. I never accused you of being dishonest for that.

                                                report
                                                1. 0

                                                   just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                                   Maybe not. I just reread it. It implies it. Apparently at least one other hubber thought  that too. Why is it considered an issue by you? I hate to think anything I might do has offended another human being. It seemed so bizarre, the only rational reason I could come up with for your change in manner in subsequent posts was, maybe you were offended when I laughed when you asked if I was gay. I wasn't laughing at anything more than that I would be asked that.

                                                   report
3. 60

   SpanStarposted 13 years ago

   Contrary to popular belief the bible wasn't written as text book but a recording of events like today's history books.  Not being a professional in the historical events of the past this is my view point.
   
   Now we talk about science today as final facts but science is nothing more then men's attempt at trying to understand that which has already been created.
   
     Your clarification regarding your previous statement does channel my thoughts to the comments I've made previously however I still think it borders on making the bible fit standards we've created for present day text books.

   replyreport
4. 60

   hanging outposted 13 years ago

   the reasons for cannon are: authorship, authenticity, time period and flow and consistency.
   
   Since the catholic church in romes main concern was to mix n match all beliefs; paganism with christianity the church in rome included all books it could find and used them for scripture, including pseudopigrapha and apocrypha. Psuedopigrapha are books written by unknown authors under a different "pen name". Therefore these do not meet the needs of canon.
   
   another reason is that they, in each different way contradict the holy scriptures (OT) and teach unscriptural practices which ruin the consistency of bible flow.
   
   Many of them were written during the uninspired years (the 400 yrs of silence between the old testament and jesus) and being UNinspired they cannot be included with INspired texts.
   
   These books were dropped for GOOD reason and must not, i repeat MUST NOT be used for doctrine or teaching. The bible is complete and in it is everything the devout christian needs for instruction, learning and to teach by.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      DoubleScorpionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      ??? I am sorry...but I fail to understand how we as humans are allow to decide what is divinely inspired and what isn't...And a 400 year uninspired period??? So god just bailed on humanity??? So because "divine" writings don't flow and contradict they are wrong??? There are scriptures referenced in the bible that are included in the bible...The book of Enoch for instant...Well the Eastern Orthodox church still uses that one...Oh and the Apocrypha is used as well... you know the Church that was supposedly started by Jesus, The Apostles and St. Paul...

      replyreport
   2. 59

      Liam Hannanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      @ "Hanging Out"
      
      Three points;
      
      1 - If the Catholic Church included "all the books it could find", then how do you account for the exclusion of the Gnostic Scripts and the persecution of that sect?
      
      2 - Research (particularly by German theologians and historians like Kummell) has shown that the Gospels are, using your definition, Psuedopigrapha. (Although thought to be derived from earlier sources)
      
      3 - I fail to see how the books removed are in any way contrary to the narrative of scripture?
      
      For example, Tobit and the Epistle of James seem quite consistent with each other.

      replyreport
5. 52

   Daewalkerposted 13 years ago

   Fact is most Christians don't believe that the Bible is the
   literal word of God and this can be proven by the many
   unbiblical things that they do, many of them contrary to
   what is written in the Bible. Examples celebrating Christmas,Easter, new years and birthdays all of which are
   man-made human traditions that are not sanctioned or commanded
   in the Bible. Going to church on Sunday and not the Sabbath
   as commanded by scripture and many other such things. The Bible
   commands, to prove all things, by the scriptures yet many
   professing Christians blindly follow along because others are
   doing it! Christ said that many make the word of God have none
   effect by stubbornly following human tradition instead of following the laws and traditions of God. Many "Christians" have
   wrongly claimed that the perfect laws of God have been done away
   with really then what is sin,but the transgression of God's law
   and why does one need to repent of something that has been done
   away with and why did Christ die for the sins of humanity if
   the law was done away with, it makes no since. Many people
   profess Christ but very few actual obey his teachings yet they
   wrongly refer to themselves as "Christians" when in reality
   they are not! Christ said your Lord or Master is the one whom
   you obey if human traditions are what you live by then of course
   you are none of His and many unfortunately have been deceived
   and fall into this category!!!

   replyreport
   1. 0

      just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Now I'm curious. Jehovah Witness, or Seventh Day Adventist? I must know.

      replyreport
6. 52

   Daewalkerposted 13 years ago

   Catholics are not Christians, they are Catholics and Christ,
   himself was never referred to as the first catholic or pope!
   Amazing how little some know!

   replyreport
   1. 0

      just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      That's interesting. I always thought catholicism was a branch of Christianity.

      replyreport
      1. 52

         Daewalkerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Catholicism is it's own religion that masquerades as Christian but
         during many persecutions history has shown that the catholic church
         persecuted true believers that followed the doctrines of Christ like
         keeping the 7th days Sabbath and not Sunday the first day of the week
         as all protestants and denominations do. During one of the most
         famous councils I believe 325 AD the church stated Christians must
         not judiase  by keeping the Sabbath{the 7th day} but must work and
         keep Sunday the lord's day. failure to follow the edict meant torture
         and death to all within the power and influence of Rome and many
         were put to death! There is absolutely zero biblical authority for
         Sunday worship just and old unchristian edict of the Roman Empire
         which was more concerned with ruling the world than following
         Christ and used religion as a tool to control and rule over many
         people! This one edict more than any other led to the bloody
         Inquisition and thousands if not millions were slaughtered and
         called anathema, meaning away from Christ or heretic. Most people
         of today are unaware of this crucial history and blindly accept many
         false teachings as "Christian" because those doctrines were
         sanctioned by the catholic church a church that has always used
         its' power to destroy those that would dare disagree with it!!

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Liam Hannanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            and on a historical note - I would quite like to see some evidence for those claims.
            
            I am aware that the Sabbath was shifted from saturday to sunday by Constantine, however the idea that this one edict caused the death of thousands or millions is quite novel.

            replyreport
         2. 0

            just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I certainly wouldn't argue the atrocities of the catholic church through the centuries, but it is considered Christian. Whatever branch of the protestant faith you belong to is christian. What sect are you anyway? You are expressing rather strong views. I'm curious.

            replyreport
            1. 52

               Daewalkerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               None as I gave up being a protestant or any denomination many yrs
               ago and shall never return to their watered down unchristian false
               teachings that are not backed by the Bible like Christmas, not
               Christ's birthday nor commanded to be observed, Easter, New Years
               in Jan, birthdays and many other traditions that have their roots in
               pagan teachings that were renamed by the catholic church but never
               celebrated by Christ or his apostles. These human traditions make
               people disobey God's plain commands and make His Word of none
               effect as Christ said because people would rather follow those things
               taught and accepted by men than simply follow the provable teachings
               of Christ as outlined in the Bible that is why it is written in Revelations
               that the whole world is deceived and much of this deception has been
               done in the name of Christ by churches that refuse to obey Him but
               call on His name! There are very few true Christians as defined by the
               Bible but there are professing millions as defined by the churches and
               this world!!! amazing that any Catholic or protestant that came out of
               her could call itself Christian but then again the scripture said that
               Satan can present himself as an angel of light! Many/millions profess
               Christ but very few actually obey because it is way easier to call on
               His name than obey His teachings because one will be persecuted
               and suffer for not agreeing with the masses like the subject of gay
               marriage etc etc etc! God never compromises His standards of perfection
               that is why Christ died for the sins of all humanity. God reigns through
               His immutable Law and ALL are subject to it whether they agree with
               it or not their is no democracy in heaven God's government is a
               theocracy, government from the top down with God reigning supreme
               over all that is. there are no elections all are appointed by God himself
               to whatever office or power they have and hold! Angels don't vote
               never have never will now compare that to any government here on
               this earth and you can see the stark contrast! Democracy or any other
               for of human government cannot produce Utopia or perfection but
               God's theocratic government can and will just like it has in heaven so
               shall it be on this earth when Christ returns as the conquering Lord
               of lords and King of kings all rebellion will be totally obliterated! Mans
               day of misrule will finally and permanently be put to an end!!!

               replyreport
   2. 73

      Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      It is amazing isn't it?
      
      The Reformation is probably a good history lesson for some of these amazing people to start their knowledge quest... just a thought.
      
      Out of curiosity...
      
      Was Jesus a Luthern? a Southern Baptist?
      
      Pentecostal?

      replyreport
      1. 52

         Daewalkerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         True Christians do not belong to any denomination because Christ
         did not start any. Denomination means division and Christians are
         commanded to speak the same thing! People have argued over
         scripture and doctrine from the beginning so when people split
         denominations were formed against the clear instructions of Christ
         Divide and conquer is just one of the many strategies that the devil
         uses human nature and human reasoning is very east to twist!

         replyreport
      2. 52

         Daewalkerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         True Christians do not belong to any denomination because Christ
         did not start any. Denomination means division and Christians are
         commanded to speak the same thing! People have argued over
         scripture and doctrine from the beginning so when people split
         denominations were formed against the clear instructions of Christ
         Divide and conquer is just one of the many strategies that the devil
         uses human nature and human reasoning is very east to twist!

         replyreport
         1. 0

            just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Who determines what the same thing is?

            replyreport
         2. 78

            DoubleScorpionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Matthew 10:34-36 says:
            
            34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
            
            35 For I have come to turn
            
            “‘a man against his father,
            
            a daughter against her mother,
            
            a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
            
            36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.
            
            
            Seems to me like the Denominations or Divisions has happened just as Jesus planned for them to...Just a thought...

            replyreport
7. 59

   Liam Hannanposted 13 years ago

   Oh wow - one wonders where to begine really.
   
   Without any form of contestation, Catholicism (in the Western Tradition) is the original form of Christianity. Denominations were not invented until around 1519.
   
   One cannot be entirely sure whether Catholicism is faithful to the teachings of Christ simply because one cannot be absolutely sure what the teachings of Christ were. Let us not forget that the Gospels, from whence we draw Christian teaching, were not primary sources for the event and cannot be regarded as infallible on the subject. Never mind the Gnostic scriptures which also record teaching, some of which does not appear in Canon Literature.
   
   I would not presume to say that my Christianity is 100% accurate in it's adherence to Christ's teachings, however I feel it is as accurate as it is possible to be. Any church or any Christian who claims to have complete and perfect knowledge of such a thing is being intellectually dishonest and, quite frankly, kidding themselves.

   replyreport
   1. 52

      Daewalkerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Christ was not, is not and never shall be catholic what part of that don't
      you understand Christ is the author and finisher of the religion that
      bears His name not of the one that was founded and integrated into
      the so called Holy Roman Empire or did you conveniently gloss over
      the abyssal history of the Catholic not Christian Church stop defending
      the unchristian teachings of the Catholic Church which are indefensible!!!
      True it took more than one edict but this one was huge and a linchpin
      that galvanized the Roman Church which is still headquartered in Rome
      till this day! Christ is not catholic never was never will be or could be
      sorry for this little inconvenient truth but true nonetheless

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Liam Hannanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I didn't say he was. Look, you appear to be having a little difficulty, so I'll put my post up again. Try having a read and responding to the substance.
         
         
         
         I'll re-phrase the argument in bullet points to make it easier for you;
         
         *Jesus was not a Catholic, he was a Jew
         *If we are all to follow his religion theoretically we should all be Jewish (There was quite a strong Christ-Jewish movement until around the 4th century)
         
         *Alternatively we could follow the church that he founded
         *The surviving forms of this church are Catholicism in the Wert and Orthodox in the East.
         
         *Neither of them can be absolutely certain they are 100% faithful to his teachings
         *But no form of Christianity can be, because the Bible is not a reliable resource.
         
         *The further a church was from the founding of Christianity by Christ, the less likely it is to have an accurate understanding of his teachings.

         replyreport