The Bible is a "theological fact."
First, for my brothers and sisters in Christ, I believe grace through faith is the only way of salvation. I do not believe God or the Bible are short of the real meaning of fact or factual. We are addressing the unbelieving mind here, Proverb 26:4-5.
Now, as to the subject, sometime back I posted a rebuttal to "scientific fact" being equated with "true" fact. Some folks may still be dealing with it, but their own postings proved my point, so I moved on.
But then it comes to mind, in a purely temporal thought process and using the oppositions arguments presented supporting a commonality between fact and "scientific fact," could we not use the same criteria for "proving" the veracity of the Bible? Why not!
Based on the many supporting issues of secular history, unproven challenges and claims, lack of evidence against and the many tried and true experiences (experiences being the believer's "spiritual lab tests"), it is apparent that the Bible is, by temporal definition, a "theological fact."
And given this fact, the contents of the Bible are equally factual. And, by the criteria set in defining "scientific fact," one may safely assume that 'The Bible is a "theological fact." And therefore, with the help of temporal man, we have the proof of the existence of God. A "fact" by their definition and one they have been ignoring.And the Quran? The Book of Mormon? The Torah? Are they "theological facts" as well?
The koran is a take off of the Bible begun around around 600 AD. The Book of Mormon is an addition to the Bible. The Torah is a portion of the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh. Of this group, the Torah only would be a "theological fact."
I see. Only your scripture is theologically factual; all others are lies.
But the Torah does not agree with biblical scripture. While the bible is a takeoff of the Tanakh, it was changed into something more palatable to those in power rather than being taken verbatim. This must make the Tanakh (and Torah) a lie then?It is not my scripture. It is the Word of God. If the writings of man do not agree with the Bible then they are incorrect.
A common reference point is needed. The Bible is not a take off. The Bible is a compilation of the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament (OT) is the Tanakh. It is the foundation of the New Testament (NT). The NT does not change, subtract from nor add to the OT. It expands the OT while fulfilling the prophecies of the OT. If you will, they complete each other.First, it is not the word of any god. The many people pretend a god wrote it (perhaps through people) doesn't make it so, and there is no other evidence that the god even exists, let alone wrote that lying tome.
A common reference?? Between what - the Book of Mormon and the Quran? You lost me there.
Yes, the OT came from the Tanakh. Not verbatim, and with many changes, but it did. As the two are not the same, does not the Tanakh lie or the bible?
If the NT did not change the rules of the OT, I assume you do not eat shellfish and stone neighbors wearing different cloths? No, the NT changed the perception of the god in the book from an evil, spoiled, tantrum prone but strong child to something worthy of worship. Whether the god changed or just the morals of man (requiring the perception of god to change as well) is questionable.A common definition for "Bible" would have been a better way to put it. Maybe I could have been more clear on that. Anyway, when I say Bible, it includes OT and NT, it means all the books of both Testaments. The other two things are not considered as being part of the Bible, only spurious partial copies or additions.
As far as the Law is concerned, its not that simple. The issue, as defined by unbelievers today, seems to be as you put it, ie. don't eat or don't do etc. And what was the punishment? Sometimes death, sometimes repayment.
The Law, if you will, is impossible to follow, always was and, if you want to try it today, it will continue to be impossible to follow. But then, following the Law had nothing to do with eternity, per se. It had to do with a peaceful existence, on earth. A person's eternity has always been depended on faith in God.
The Hebrew was the example, not the test case. Whatever was needed, it was provided for them. And, note several times, as a people they said something like "whatever you say God, we'll do it without question." Never happened.
One confuses themselves trying to separate the OT from the NT. So back to the OP.
The Bible has never been proven to be wrong, only disliked and disparaged. Therefore, outside of faith, and using the same criteria as "scientific fact," the Bible is a "theological fact." The evidence of God is in the Bible."The Bible has never been proven to be wrong"??!!
Of course it has; we need only look to the tale of creation to find it isn't true unless we change the meaning of the words to something other than what they plainly say.
But that isn't the core of what I meant. You find the bible to be theological fact; Muslims find the Quran to be so and Mormons no doubt believe their sacred writings are factual. Yet they both disagree with your bible; what makes [your scripture "fact" and others lies? What makes the tale of the god Jesus "theological fact" when the Jews will hotly contest it? Just because you believe it or is there something else?
It would seem that "theological fact" is better known as "belief". There is no necessary correlation with reality, but rather belief is what makes that "theological fact". The writings in the Quran are "theological fact" as are those in the Book of Mormon and every other religious belief. Yours cannot be shown to be any more "factual" than any other; they all carry their own "theological facts" even as they disagree with each other.You have a right to your opinion, but do you have a question?
I guess the question is the definition of "theological fact". Whether it applies only to Christian studies or whether other religions, just as valid, can be considered to have truth and fact as much as Christianity.
I guess the question is the definition or make up of "theological fact". (Many will call this apologetics, and it may be so.)
As I tried to make clear in the original post, we are considering the authenticity and veracity of the Bible from a secular point of view. I don't, for one moment, look past the fact that salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ alone. But faith will not satisfy the secular mind. So we go to the formula for "fact" used by the secular world and deal with it on a secular level as much as possible.
The premise of a "scientific facts" is that they are as close to "fact" as one can get based on all the tests, experience and studies of its adherents. By admission of it defenders, "scientific fact" is not 100% fact but may be relied on until such time as tests and studies show other wise, of which there have been many. Therefore, using the same criteria, I have presented the "theological fact."
"Theological facts" are those derived by tests, experiences and studies of its "adherents" and the studies. The overwhelming results of these folks state the Bible is true and inerrant. Therefore, that which is found in the Bible is equally "theological fact" until such time as tests and studies show other wise of which there have been none.
As to the couple of off-shoots of Christianity and Judaism (the melding of the two has been explained) you mentioned, they are the result of folks in rebellion against God. Theological fact shows that all life and beliefs began in the Fertile Crescent, probably the middle eastern section of the crescent, under the direction of the Creator, not "a" creator. But that is for future discussion, if we get there.I see. Or at least I think I see, although I am at a loss to understand why only the bible and not other religious thinking can be considered a theological fact.
Veracity and authenticity of the bible: Zero authenticity is possible as only a couple of the writers are known and there is some doubt as to even those. About the only "authenticity" possible is that the bible compiled by Constantine and the Catholic Church is a close facsimile of what we see today.
But authenticity does not preclude veracity and truth. Unknown writers can write truth as much as famous ones. The bible is a mix of history and religion, with the history being about as accurate as any history written by the victors ever is. It is verified enough to be generally acceptable, if not in detail.
The religion end, on the other hand, is a horror of lies and errors. There can be no veracity at all when not a single "fact" is verifiable and many of those same "facts" are known to be false.
Although you indicate that "theological facts" are derived by tests, I have never seen a single test showing a god or any other miracle (defined as an event that violates natural law). Studies of "adherents" at best show that they aren't interested in fact, but only belief, and this does not lead to truth.
For instance, "Theological fact shows that all life and beliefs began in the Fertile Crescent, probably the middle eastern section of the crescent, under the direction of the Creator, not "a" creator.". But reality tells us differently; that there is no known place of creation, that there was no need for a creator (whether the Christian designation or any other), and that beliefs sprang up wherever man was and not in a single area. The Theological "fact" is then seen to be contrary to reality and cannot therefore be compared at all to a "scientific fact". The two have no common ground, whether truth or the process used to get there.The process used in both is exactly the same. Whether one titles the workers theologians or scientists, each works with the evidences at hand.
I like your point on the origin of man (not darwin). It shows a lack of knowledge (not pointed at you personally) in a certain area of science where theology has no lack.
Theology, accompanying by secular history, states and shows that modern man first appeared in and around the present Middle East, the Fertile Crescent. As with science, theology uses all information that encompasses a certain point of contention and draws conclusions based on these. So it is that world history supports man's origins in the Middle East and thereby creation, and thereby "theological fact" and thereby the Bible. Not sure if the progression is acceptable, but the conclusion is hopefully clear.OK - the disagreement lies within that "test" that you believe comes with faith (theological fact). So how do we "test" for the location of the origin of man? Well, science finds bones, older and older ones, that lead us to the heart of Africa. Believers look at their book, written by people that did no testing, either, and says it happened in the middle east. As it is clear that it did no such thing, we'll then define "modern" man as that which DID originate in that area of the world.
Alternatively, how do we "test" for the origin of the universe? Science looks at a thousand stars, all moving away from each other. It looks at the reverberations of the big bang, still "visible" today (microwaves). It deduces that it happened in one place at one time and, coupled with evidence from quantum physics, that there was no god necessary. As no record of the event exists, science gives no specific answer, just a generalization that it happened this way. The theologian, however, checks the book and finds that ancient barbarians, ignorant of the most basic facts of cosmology or our home system in specific, says a god did it in 7 days. So 7 days it is, by a god - no testing, no examination of the universe, no deduction, no extrapolation. Just the book.
The "theological fact" then is determined by a book written thousands of years ago that explains the universe. It is not to be tested in any way, no experiments can be performed, no observations made (outside of personal, subjective ones by people interested solely in promoting religion instead of truth). "Theological fact" is required to match the book, with never anything new discovered as all knowledge is already available in the bible. At the root then, "theological fact" is not fact at all, but faith. Useful, valuable in itself, but not necessarily factual and not intended to be. The only real problem occurs when someone decides that in order to "compete" with science, truth, evidence, reality, etc. that a play on words is needed; that the term "fact" be introduced when no such thing can be shown. The modifier "theological" is then used to keep the term in play, never mentioning that it nearly negates the meaning of the word in the first place.
Or can you test the 7 days of creation? The Garden with the talking snake? The man living in a fish for days? The spreading of the waters? The god-hood of the man named Jesus? Your "test" of the garden was done by the sophistry of declaring that "modern" man originated there, but even that cannot be shown to be true outside of biblical claims that do not locate the garden at all and claim that man existed before woman.Let's not forget that "science" is the one that put together the criteria for "scientific facts" and uses this term as if it were a true fact. But if one applies this same formula to another endeavor or position, it is unacceptable.
Christians are accused of being bias and narrow in their view points and I agree, but I don't apologize. Far be it for the non-believer to accept this premise as to their own positions though. This is played out in the "scientific fact" scenario which seems to be "If you can't make it work for you, dumb it down to what is acceptable and give facts a new definition.
At any rate, I'm don't get too much into the things outside of the realm of our world and its beginnings, that being the world we can directly relate to. One can present evolution and all that goes with it but it appears we both agree that science does not have all the answers. Nor does theology.
"How old is the world" or "What happened before Genesis 1:2" is of no value with regard to man's relationship with and belief in God. And this is where the use of the term "modern man" comes into play. It's not shifty or mystical. It is the scriptural beginning of mankind. And try as they might, science always ends up back in the Fertile Crescent when discussing man, modern man. Time and again, science has begun with a position of disproving the Bible and its happenings only to end up agreeing with the history found in the Bible, history written by folks you class as "ignorant." These ignorant folks, in many cases, still have science wondering "How'd they do that?"
I have tried to make the point a couple times that faith is not theological fact. "Theological fact" has as much veracity in many areas as "scientific fact" in certain areas. But where scientific fact leaves the unbeliever still searching and wondering. "Theological fact," as it were, helps bring one to faith in God, an end of the search.Too much to reply to it all, so just a couple of points.
The only reason science ends back into the "fertile crescent" with modern man is because you defined the term as beginning there. There is absolutely nothing in science that begins there except perhaps construction that is still visible. Certainly our ancestors did not originate there.
Theological fact vs faith: I know you claim a difference because facts can be tested, but so far you haven't shown how to test a single supernatural event, entity or concept. Truth is that "theological fact" is faith, not fact.Of note, when I was younger, the Fertile Crescent presented in public schools did not extend west past the Sinai Desert. Today the Crescent extends into Egypt. Could it be that the extension was necessary to prove certain faulty theories?
"Theological facts" are a block or maybe a foundation for faith. They are not the same. They may be accepted historical facts that are a part of the Bible. They maybe personal experience, an accepted facet of gathered knowledge. They may be "lab tested" in the reality of life, though some might call it coincidence. They may be that which we know inherently such "right and wrong."
And most certainly our ancestors did originate in the "original" Fertile Crescent.Then theological facts are not testable (personal, subjective experience never is) or, if tested, results are required to conform to the tenets of Christianity regardless of truth ("some might call it coincidence"). There is no inherent right and wrong, so that's out, as is the large majority of the bible including most of the history.
Our oldest ancestor was found in olduvai gorge, which is in Tanzania, not the fertile crescent. So even expanding the crescent still does not prove the faulty theory that man originated there. Shoot, we have solid evidence that man had slowly migrated into the Americas long before the garden was supposed to have existed. And in Australia over 40,000 years ago. Except, of course, if they don't fall into that all-important "modern" man by definition. Biologically they did, but maybe the "theological factual definition" doesn't include them?"Our oldest ancestors" is not modern man. (I really don't like the term "modern man" but I'm in a quandary to come with a better title for "us.")
Modern man's history begins in Genesis 1:27. Like everyone else, I really have no idea what took place prior to that. Yes, we have a lot of bones and such that have been dated and this and that. And we have some projected beginning for the Earth as it is. We have carbon tests and strata dating. There are actually even some "Christian" theories regarding these. However, they have little bearing on the man of today, modern man. (There was a time in my younger days when archeology and Egyptology, as well as Greek mythology, enthused me greatly.)
The secular history found in the Bible now enthuses me to a greater degree. You have made a lot of comments to that history, i.e. who were the writers and the blood and guts stories and the like, but these do not change the history. The history found in the Bible is "theological fact" as well as secular teaching. As noted above, I did spent a lot of time reading secular history and related subjects. I still read bits of mythology for the adventure and enjoyment. (Please don't tell the pastor.)
If one ignores the history of the Bible, one has to honestly ignore much of secular history also. A question is generated from this. So, as a groundwork, and setting aside personalities found in the Bible, is the Bible correct in its accounts of history? If not, why not?
You do realize, the mythology that you enjoy reading was once believed as true just as your current beliefs now are.
Steven King's books contain aspects of "history" that is factual as well...does that make his stories non-fiction? According to your argument, it should.OK - one question cleared up. You have defined the concept of modern man as beginning in the myth (untestable, unsupportable opinion) presented in the bible. Not the history, which comes much later.
By this tactic you are now prepared to support the claim that "Modern man" (per your definition) started in the fertile crescent. However, I maintain that the Garden of Eden existed in Brazil, that when Adam and Eve were tossed out they were "thrown" (not literally of course, God could have set them down gently) across the ocean, landing in Egypt. This is known theological fact as there has never been a garden discovered in the middle east, while parts of Brazil are still not well known and the remains of the garden simply not discovered there yet.You're funning' me, aren't you?
You mentioned a couple things in the past where we could probably delve into (though with no more success than science) regarding the displacement of man. The three foremost would be the Beringia, the Pangea Effect and most recently, but without much support, is Kon Tiki.
I personally think that biblical history is as accurate as any "biographical" writing ever is. It glorifies the people involved and demonizes any others, as history always does.
This does NOT mean, however, that the accounts of miracles or even cosmological events happened as reported. It just means that after centuries of repetition and exaggeration that is what we have today - just as reports of other god's activities have been reported over the millenia. People DO have a tendency to explain the unknown via a god tale, don't they? Whatever they don't understand, God did it."People DO have a tendency to explain the unknown via a god tale, don't they? Whatever they don't understand, God did it."
I don't like to think that this is more true than not, but it probably is. Along with it is the "similar" tendency to "blame God" for our own stupidity.Probably happens, but not so much. In general, God does not produce bad results, but people sure do! So unless it's a case of "God's ways are inscrutable", people can't much blame God for their mishaps.
There probably isn't much real history in the Bible. It is mainly metaphorical and astrotheological.
But bible does not bring one to faith in god, quite the opposite. It is a book by the fallen aeon and it brings one close to the fallen one, not to God. Your Matthew 12:25-28. proves it, Satan disobeys God while obeys his leader.
So what you call "theological fact" is your interpretation of bible?
London, Paris, guillotine etc are mention in "A tale of two cities", will that make the novel some kind of fact?
OK. Reproduce any facts contained in the Bible. I'm a Christian, so I'm exceptionally open to such reproduction.
Have your ever considered the possibility that the bible is an inverted fact?
Bible is the creation of the fallen one.Jesus is from the fallen one. Do you think that the fallen one is a fool who cannot even make a good drama? Why else did the demons shout out Mark 5:7, by shouting such they were actually acting against their own interests?
Well this is a unique and interesting discussion. I am not sure where to jump in. My first and only quick question is perhaps on the last two sentences there. I wonder what you mean exactly there? Thanks.
In a previous discussion regarding "scientific fact" it was stated that "scientific fact" is not a 100% fact but the best man can do, presently, in certain "scientific" studies. My contest was "If its not 100%, then it is not fact" but supposition, theory, postulate etc. It was an interesting discussion but seems to have changed nothing, at least from my point of view.
Here I am stating that if the criteria for "scientific fact" is allowed to be less that fact, then theology (from a secular position, faith aside) should be able to use the same criteria and develop "theological fact" which could be used in study with the same veracity.Is it that a science fact is allowed to be 99% and accepted as true and therefore a theological fact should be 1% and accepted as true?
The difference is that there are mounds of evidence behind scientific facts, but zero evidence behind the (supernatural) theological fact yet you are trying to equate the two in veracity. Or am I still missing your point?Interesting you use the word "mounds." There are many "mounds" (the homonym) of facts in theology. They are called "tels" and are archaeological discoveries that, along with the structures you noted previously, have become theological facts.
And which tel supports creation in 7 days? The opening of the sea? The resurrection of Christ? Any supernatural event?
Or do the tels just support the history end of the bible? Those theological facts that are also scientific facts, testable and observable by people today? Is that what you mean by "theological fact"; something that is also factual in the natural world, the world of science and observation?
Sure, why not? I just haven't heard anyone really talk about it like that. I kind of operate that way, if I am understanding you correctly.
In general, if there is a god, there will be theological fact. That seems just an obvious and factual statement. Of course, we get into WHICH is correct, which some have brought up and it has been touched on. The details matter, the facts matter, the cause and effect does too. With reasoning, logic, facts, and understanding how history comes to us in the first place, the bible DOES score amazingly well, even by secular standards to those without an agenda, without held beliefs clouding the whole ability to see it. Many are being taken advantage of, because there are authors,
Even when very loud objectors DO vocalize their reasons for disagreeing, you can see where things break down, strongly held beliefs are reasserted and insisted upon, and usually some very big talk included about how they would know better, etc.
Anyway, it can be helpful to respect it for what it is. Some people could just choose to reject it, or disagree with it, etc. Or just want nothing to do with it. That isn't what we see though very often, strangely. We see like a campaign against it, using some old favored (though flawed) means of trying so hard to prove it wrong, fight it, demean those that disagree, etc. We see things within the book in question, that shed light on and reveal what is going on there too. Another evidence/prediction, to me.
In following your logic on this...
You can only state that the bible is christian theological fact...Not theological fact...As theological covers any and all study of god or gods...
But I would say...that since christians can't seem to agree on the meanings contained within the bible, I would say the bible can't even be called christian theological fact...That's absolutely accurate. Christians, in fact, cannot even agree on what a Christian is... let alone what the Bible says...
They can quote verses... which aren't all the same because of the HUGE number of versions of the Bible... They can say what they... or their clergy.... believes the Bible says, but no one agrees. There is no "Christian" figurehead. There is no one single church. There is no consensus on really anything.
So yeah, finding a fact should be fun.When it comes to a christian universal belief...There is only one way to have this...remove all free thought and education. Just as when the religion first took on a major hold...
How long did that last really? Was there ever a time where there were no arguments, no differences in interpretation? I mean the council(s) of Nicaea... if everyone even then agreed, what was the point?
Christians have never agreed. Hell, even the Apostles didn't agree. The faith has never been cohesive... I'm not sure it was ever intended to be (speaking as a believer). My completely personal opinion was that Christianity was always supposed to be personal and individual.LOL...true....and with that said....there can be no facts...just personal experiences...
In this case, they.
If someone says they are a Christian to me, it's usually good enough. If someone says a Bible verse means this or that to them, it's usually good enough.
I may argue about "them" applying their standards to "we" but I don't particularly care about what "they" believe personally.When the bible speaks of Jews and Gentiles being grafted into the vine... adopted into the family of God, do you feel a kinship with those who have placed their faith in Him? Do you believe in Heaven? Do you believe that those who have given their hearts to God will be spending eternity as a family?
Actually, I do feel a kinship... however that feeling in no way means I have to agree with my kin or defend what they do, especially if my conscience is telling me it's wrong. I don't have to LIKE them, I just have to LOVE them.
I guess in a vague way I believe in heaven, although it's not something I particularly aspire to or think about. And if I have to spend an eternity with my "kin" I will look at it exactly like I look at dinners with my earthly family... If it's the price I have to pay for following Jesus, I guess I'll accept it and try to make the best of it.Just picking your brain... So... what do you mean you will look the same? Like... you will be a brunette in Heaven... or??? What price will you have to pay?
I mean I will regard eternity with my spiritual "kin" exactly as I regard my life with my biological kin. It's not particularly pleasant, its certainly not fun, but I love them and I have to put up with the pain of dealing with them to continue loving them.
The price for following Christ, in this case, would be having to spend eternity with people who often irk me, drain my patience, and give me a headache.That totally bums me out. I have always thought about how there will be ppl from every tribe and tongue. Ppl who will share the amazing miracles God did in their lives... the ppl of the old testament, family members I haven't seen for years... my children. There is no suffering there. I will even like customers in Heaven. It seems impossible, but they will cease to complain. What would they have to complain about? It's Heaven!
Seeing my children in heaven would be a motivation, but quite honestly the rest seems horrid to me. I don't like people. I occasionally like persons, but people? Nope.
Now, if your offering a nice, solitary fluffy cloud with occasional scheduled visitors who stay brief periods of time and bring chocolate... I'm good with that.
To be honest though, being surrounded with happy, talkative people for all eternity kinda seems like a punishment to me. So unless God completely changes my personality... I'm not too gung-ho about it.I understand that and identify with that 100%. I really am a loner/isolator. But I believe all my flaws, like the things that make me dislike community etc. will be healed in Heaven. We are talking about eternity. I imagine there will be precious times... like maybe if you could imagine some amazing old person that you could talk to for hours, and exciting times, like a warrior's tale... and then times alone, walking along some beautiful waterfall, or stream. The light of God would just shine on your path. Heaven is going to be wonderful... something too incredible to even describe, not something to be endured. That's what i believe.
The new testament isn't a factual account of a god, it's an exaggerate account of a man and his thoughts... perhaps. It may just be a fiction from beginning to end.
But let's assume it isn't. As written it is easy to see that it is a bad attempt to find a messiah. Time and time again we are told Jesus and others do things specifically to fulfill prophesy.
If you go around doing things with the specific intent of fulfilling prophesy are you really fulfilling it? I don't think so.
It's like the man walking in the woods who saw a tree with an arrow in the center of a bulls eye. as he went a little farther he saw another and another.
Then he saw an archer and said: "You're amazing. I counted ten bulls eyes. How do you do it?"
The archer said"It's easy. I shoot an arrow and then draw a circle around it.
That's what purposely fulfilling prophesy is. Anyone can do it.
Besides which, Jesus did not fulfill the prophesy's. The Jews know this. He did not come to lead them to greatness and vanquish their enemies. Just the opposite.
The messiah was to come from the of David through Solomon. Jesus did not have a human father according to the myth so as hard as Matthew tried he couldn't legitimately link Jesus to David.
Mother's line is irrelevant under Jewish tradition, by the way, so that's a nonstarter.
Adoption is also out. A priest who adopted outside the priest class could not pass on the class to the child. Neither can the line of kings from the house of David be given to an adopted child. There simply is no way to link Jesus to the house of David.So he did not fulfill that prophesy, and that's the one the messiah is based on. The Jews couldn't accept such an obvious ruse.
Sorry, but nothing in prophesy said the messiah was to be more than a man. Nothing about him being the intermediary between man and god. In fact, to a Jew believing and worshiping such an intermediary is blasphemy and according to the NT, that was pointed out to Jesus.
Personally, I think that if he existed he was probably a bit of a lunatic; certainly delusional..
WOW!!!
I am not even going to bother to point out the problems with this topic..
People never cease to amaze me that is for sure.Holy Crap a DS sighting!!! *tacklehugs*
Hello Girl.
I've been extremely busy of late.
- SirDentposted 9 years ago
0Same old same old. The OP expected a logical discussion. First answer was to add other writings in as evidence that the Bible is false. I am not schooled in debating tactics and logical fallacies but even I know that it was some type of fallacy.
Please, give mishpat the discussion he/she wants. It is to the point of name calling and not even off the first page yet.
Edited to spell mishpat's name correctly.Read again. Mishpat did not bother to define "theological fact", just seems to assume that it can only apply to Christianity. That post did not point out that the Bible was false but that Christianity is not the only religion in the world and that all religions, not just the one, have as much right to their own "theological facts" as any other.
read it again.
Also
What I have seen in this thread is that those who replied did not want to give any thought at all to the OP so the fallacies started. Highlighted certain parts that I consider needing to be addressed.OK - read again. Found no attacks outside of conducting reality checks on opinions served up as factual. And in spite of trying to address just what a theological fact is, nothing was or is forthcoming from the OP except that he views his scripture as factual but no other. That, and the beliefs of Christians are proof of a god as they are factual - an enormous logical fallacy if there ever was one.
Sir Dent, I looked at your profile. I have some questions. Can we do a sidebar by email?
Thanks to several of you for your recent comments. Rather than address them directly in a redundant manner, let me just say that I find the Bible is correct and a very useful text and has been helpful in bringing secular history up to date on many occasions.
But you also claimed that the Bible is evidence for god, which is a contradiction in terms. The Bible is the claim about the Jewish/Christian God, and something cannot be both the claim and the evidence for that claim simultaneously.
Are there true facts in the Bible? Of course. But there are also true facts in fictional works as well. No one goes on to say that because spiderman is based in New York City and that's a real place that everything else in the spider man comics is necessarily true as well. Look at historical fiction. There are stories about real places and real events and often real people, but there are also fabricated elements. No one reads war and peace or a tale of two cities and thinks it's a history book that should be taken factually.
You can believe that the Bible is correct all you want. You're entitled to that belief, and I know of no one who would stop you. Your belief, however, is not necessarily factual, especially in the sense that anyone else should believe it. "Theological facts" if you want to posit such a term would have to apply equally to all religions or Holy texts or all you'd be doing is a massive and transparent case of special pleading, and fallacious reasoning is not going to get anyone anywhere in terms of convincing anyone else.I've never understood the desire of Christians to convince anyone else anyway. I honestly have no idea why that's a thing. Bending and twisting and completely contrived arguments to convince people of "theological facts" makes no sense to me. If anything, it seems patently dishonest and quite frankly desperate. (In general, not speaking in specifics)
Those who are secure in their beliefs (any beliefs) don't particularly care if everyone else feels the same way. They don't do philosophical backflips to prove it to the world. It just seems like they are trying to seek approval of the rest of the world that they are right. Those with strong faiths really don't require anyone else's validation.I agree with you. Having to invent new definitions for understood terms or to appeal to philosophical gymnastics in order to try and prove something due to a lack of any actual evidence is simply tap dancing around the fact that most believers I've met are not believers because of some apologetic argument or overwhelming evidence, but rather because of emotion, culture or geography.
What's interesting to me is finding out what, if anything, convinced a believer that their beliefs are true and correct. It's never - and I do mean never - because of evidence, or an "argument" they heard. Yet that is what they turn to in an attempt to convince someone else who is more skeptical. Perhaps its because they recognize on a subconscious level that it's all they have when faced with someone who is not simply going to accept it "just because".That's actually a pretty interesting point, and I agree... although I don't really see these attempts as a way to prove Gods/Jesus' existence to others but more as a way to convince others that THEY, personally, are correct.
There's a difference.
I have atheist friends... people whose opinion I care about... in as much as I care about anyone's opinion anyway... and I've never felt any real reason to convince them that my "I found Jesus, Hallelujah" story was a perfectly good reason to be Christian. I do, however, occasionally get offended by the "Christians are stupid" kind of comments that occasionally happen. In that case, it is obviously not my belief in Christ that I am insecure about, but the public perception of my intelligence.
Then I realize that I am brilliant and certainly more intelligent than the person making such comments and I laugh and laugh at my momentary defensiveness. Which brings me back to my point, those who are secure don't feel the need to prove themselves
I think it's a bit of both, actually. I'm sure there's an element of "respect me, my beliefs (and therefore I) am correct, and here's why" side to it - but there's also the side where I'm approached in conversation repeatedly both online and in person by others who find out I'm an atheist who immediately launch into "well evolution is stupid" "you have to have faith in science in order to believe it and not believe in Jesus" "but there's all these fulfilled prophecy, let me prove it" "but the bible is true, because it mentions this historical place" "have you heard of the ontological, cosmological, etc argument?". It happens constantly to me - and I'm hardly the only one.
It is never my intention to tell anyone that they are stupid for whatever beliefs they may have. I'm met brilliant believers (as you well know, since I've met you). But I've also met a lot of genuinely good people who believe things for simply bad reasons, mistaken facts or even downright lies. Those are some of the reasons I engage in these conversations.IMHO, the evolution vs. creationism thing is so mind-boggling inane as to rank as an actual stupid debate... which is an odd belief for someone who believes that all debate is inherently useful. It's a give unto Caesar thing for me. The whole idea that evolutionary theory in some way endangers Christianity is really confusing coming from my viewpoint. I see no reason to teach creationism in school... I really don't see a reason to teach creationism at all... but again my POV. I just don't understand the defensiveness.... really.
So if Christians have started that argument, and I'm sure they have, I... once again... apologize for Christianity.
I'm not sure there is a bad reason to believe something. I have lots of beliefs that I treasure that I have no idea why I believe. Now, when my beliefs start affecting others, then I better damn well have a good reason why I'm doing what I'm doing. Since I don't really have the kind of game that leads to my beliefs affecting others, though, I'm good.
It's kind of a believe what is best for me, behave in the way that is best for everybody kind of thing... again I digress.
But, there is one fact... my beliefs aren't fact. Religion can never be a fact, because you can't prove anything about it... that's kind of the point of faith. If you have to make justifications for your faith, you don't have it.
Now, is the Bible historically accurate? Nope... well sort of... but no. It certainly isn't the only source for secular history of the time. It's a nice footnote though, I guess. There are certain passages in the Bible that mention historical events, but that doesn't prove that anything else said was accurate.Once again we agree. The bible is a great source to look into a culture that set itself apart as monotheistic in a world that was mostly polytheistic. It was a great look into ancient life. But it was never intended to be a history or science book, nor does it claim to be. Saying that the Bible is scientifically factual or 100% accurate in every way is to fly in the face of reality in many ways. People do not live in the bellies of fish for days. Snakes don't talk - nor do they have vocal cords to be able to speak. Donkeys don't talk. Again, it's like saying that spiderman is true because it's set in a real city that exists.
I see your point about good/bad reasons to believe in something. What I was intending to get at was if you, as an individual, are trying to convince someone else that they should believe what YOU believe, and you get to the point of threatening them with eternal damnation and/or torture if they DON'T - then you should be able to justify why your beliefs are accurate, and you'd better have a good reason for believing what you do. When it comes down to "I believe it because I was told it was true" or "I believe it because of this outright, blatant lie I heard some youtube apologist say that isn't even remotely factual and I didn't bother to do any research whatsoever on my own" or "I just believe what people I think are smarter than me tell me to believe" those simply are not good reasons - not in the sense that someone else should follow suit because of it.
I think that creationism can be taught - but only if we agree that creationism is the ONLY thing that we'll have time to teach in public schools since we have to go through thousands of cultures and religions and philosophies in order to make sure that we cover them all and not give one preferential treatment because it happens to be more dominant in our particular culture. Well, maybe not. That seems a bit silly, doesn't it? :-)Granted, and you know my feelings about indoctrination of any kind. I get your point about the youtube thing and I agree.
If you feel you are an ambassador of sorts, it would, in my mind at least, be best for you to apologize for something a specific Christian said... if you feel it wasn't Christ-like. However, I don't think you should ever apologize for Christianity, or you might find yourself apologizing for Christ. I can't imagine that would be a place you would want to find yourself in.
If you do not believe the bible is accurate, on what do you base your faith?Probably not, Christ and Christianity don't seem to have a whole lot in common to me most of the time. At lease, I've never felt the need to apologize for anything that Christianity did that seemed even vaguely Christ-like.
I base my faith on the Bible and my feelings Beth, same as you. I don't have to believe it's accurate to believe it's true. I dang sure don't have to believe it's factual, because it's not. I don't "know" I'm right, and I never will. I have faith though, and that's enough for me."I don't have to believe it's accurate to believe it's true?"
How do you mean that?The best analogy I can think of is my hubby. I believe him to be the most handsome, wonderful man in the world. This is my own personal truth. It is not, however, accurate in any way, shape or form. The "truth" applies only to my personal feelings, it is an emotional truth... felt only by me and applicable only to my personal life.
I understand your reasoning. That's a good explanation. I would think though that biblical truths are not subjective. In other words, they are basic truths. It is all linked together from Old to New Testament. If one part is false, the whole thing collapses. If the whole thing collapses, then why would anyone place their faith in this God? He is the God of the Bible, or He is just a God we have made up. I don't want to waste my life on a false God. If I doubted His word, I personally would be an Atheist. Do you know what I mean?
See, I come at it from another direction. I actually do believe in the "personal relationship with Christ" line, although I absolutely hate the language. I think Christianity is an individual thing, with each person receiving what they need from Christ for their "journey" though life. As such, it follows, to me, that the Bible would also be subjective. Another analogy: If I'm reading a text-book on Math, and in chapter 4 there is a wrong answer, that doesn't mean that every answer in the book is wrong. If I'm reading a medical text and need information on how to treat a burn, it doesn't mean that the rest of the information is useless.... It's just not what I need.
Subjective doesn't mean wrong... it just means personal. I'm fine with that. I always kind of thought when people refer to the Bible as a "living" text, that's what they meant. After all, the words don't change--- err well yeah they do but I digress--- so the meaning has to be applicable to all people in all times. That means it almost has to be subjective.Ok... but... and Im just playing devils advocate, which I hate when other ppl do. lol
To use your own analogy, your quote was that the answer in the math book was wrong. But then you say subjective doesn't mean wrong. So that analogy doesn't really work.
Let me use that same analogy. If the editor of that math book makes a mistake (lets compare him to a pastor or a teacher who wrongly divides the bible), I can understand. It's human error, I am human, I err. But if the word itself is wrong... if a math theorem is wrong... math as we know it crumbles. There has to be one solid truth. Without it, there is no basis to stand on. Our foundation crumbles. We may all have varying ideas and notions, but that cannot change actual truth.When looked at that way, I would have to cease being a Christian altogether. I know there is at least one error in the Bible. It's small and horribly insignificant, but I know it is wrong. (It has to do with an herb and how/where it grows)
Again, some people take the Bible as the literal word of God, like it was written by him. I never believed that. It was written by very human, very fallible men.
Saying that, I'm not sure what Universal Truth (as opposed to personal truth) or "Math theorem" the Bible contains. Could you give me an example?
In addition, one math theorem being wrong wouldn't crumble mathematics. If everything we knew about division was wrong, it wouldn't alter addition.Would you share with me the fact about the herb?
Math is all congruent. Subtraction is addition backwards and vice versa.
Without the bible, how would you know of God right now?
Word of mouth? Have the ppl in your life shown themselves to be great keepers of wisdom?
Have they proven themselves as those who are great "carriers of truth?"
And if they have, how do you know that the generation they got their info from were infallible, and the generations before that?
At some point, a mistake would have been made.
God states that Jesus himself is the word. This is the importance He puts on scripture, b/c *something has to be without error... something has to be *absolute, or we cannot put our faith in it.Hyssop is said to be growing out of walls in Kings. Hyssop doesn't behave that way, it is a bush.
If things were absolute, there would be no need for faith. I don't have faith that when I drop something, it is going to fall... I know it is. If I were to believe that the object was going to float, against all reason, that would be faith.
I would "know God" (again, I hate that terminology) because I have a conscience. I have a little "voice" that tells me something is wrong or right.
I don't have to know something to believe it. I'm perfectly fine working on the purely irrational and illogical emotional conclusions. The Christian religion, and most other religions, is full of non-facts... It is completely irrational. There is not a bit of provable information anywhere. I'm OK with that. Trying to spin fact out of yarn is dishonest though. You either believe or you don't.
Again with the husband analogy... I have absolutely no idea why I love him, but no one is going to convince me I don't... however, I also would look like a complete idiot if I tried to get anyone else to love him based on my beliefs about him."even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall;
which grew about Jerusalem, and in the mountains of it, as an Arabic writes testifies {p}, the lowest and least herb; so that what is between the cedar and hyssop include trees and plants of every kind and sort: whether the same herb we call hyssop is meant, is not certain; some take it to be mint; others marjoram; some house leek; others the wallflower; Levinus Lemnius F17 supposes it to be Adiantum, or maiden hair: the Targum interprets it allegorically, that he prophesied of the kings of the house of David in this world, and in the world to come of the Messiah:"
Will me "armchair analyzing" bug you? Please don't let it, it's not personal. I do it all the time, whether with myself, my friends... strangers... I think, as a kid my family didn't make sense to me, so I tried to figure them all out. Right or wrong, it's what comes naturally to me. Let me know if you find it offensive and I'll try to keep my thoughts to myself.
What I hear, when you talk is a woman divided. You'd prefer to be an Atheist. In your mind, Atheists use logic. There is no hypocrisy there. You don't want to be lumped with the Christians. Christians are emotional. They preach "sinlessness", but sin. You believe in God, so you are stuck with a label, but it's not the label you want. So you must, at all times, distance yourself from believers, lest you be viewed as one of those you detest.
The problem with that, is the logic of an Atheist is utter foolishness if the Bible is true. A wise Christian learns that emotion is beautiful, but that it should never control you or make your decisions for you. You forget to offer Christians the same grace you show Atheists, and that you show yourself. If you deserve grace, we all do. IMO, you should set your mind on eternity for a bit and start thinking about the possibility of spending eternity with other believers. If God has included you in His family, then how can you despise His children? He adores His children. Maybe allow God to start doing a work in your heart concerning believers. You don't have to do the work, (we are not capable of change b/c our perspective is too narrow) we simply have to open ourselves up to letting God be the surgeon.Beth, if an entire long paragraph from Wiki is needed to explain why hyssop really isn't hyssop then I think that's about as subjective as you can get.
If the Bible was accurate in this case, hyssop would be hyssop... which doesn't grow out of walls. So yeah, either it's not hyssop... in which case the Bible is inaccurate... or it didn't grow out of walls... in which case the Bible is inaccurate.
Now, honestly Beth. If I would prefer to be an Atheist, I would likely be an Atheist.
Large swaths of Christians, the loudest and most noticeable, embarrass me. I don't detest them, but I would really rather they just shut up and mind their own business. These are the Christians that use Christ as an excuse for trying to force everyone to do and say as they think they should. I find their behavior detestable, yes. It's not Christ's fault. It's the human nature of people who all share the same idea to gather and attempt to force every single person to conform to their standards, whether they share the same beliefs or not.
As these behaviors have been allowed by the majority of Christians, I feel the need to explain that all Christians don't believe that way. I don't wish to be judged by the loudest and most ignorant of my faith. So, I'm not separating myself from Christianity... I'm separating myself from a distinct type of Christian that -with the allowance of most other Christians- has been allowed to become the representative arch-type of the faith.
Yes, in my mind atheists have come to their conclusions largely by logic and reason. I'm cool with that. I also have no problem admitting it, because it in no way affects my own capacity for logic and reason. This is they way they (mostly) approach religion. It's the way I approach taxes. Logic and reason is not the way I approach my faith though, and I see absolutely no reason to pretend it is. If that is how others do, great... but logic and reason can be proven. So if that's the cornerstone of the religious debate, then religionists are going to fail. It's like explaining logically why you like purple. So, yes, in the way atheists have chosen to form religious opinions, they are 100 percent accurate and I respect their right to think that way and also completely understand it. In the same way, I respect the Bible as the way Christians have formed religious opinions and I respect the quuaran as the way Muslims have formed their religious opinions.
The point, because that was rambling, was that those who believe in forming such opinions by logic and reason need to be convinced otherwise (If for whatever reason someone wishes to convince them, again, I don't get that) by logic and reason. The Bible does not meet that particular standard of proof.
Conversely, those who say that Christians cannot be swayed by logic and reason are also correct... because it's an entirely different process. Arguments would need to be on an emotional/intuitive level... which is also a dismal failure. Logic and reason do not meet that burden of proof.
Why this ISN'T a conflict for me is because I am completely fine with emotional and intuitive decisions. It doesn't bother me a bit to admit that my faith is a result of those decisions. No need to defend myself equals the ability to concede points rather than protect my own position. Agreeing with an Atheist in no way alters my faith, it doesn't shake the foundations of my belief and I don't fear God's wrath for it.
As far as the last part, eternity has never been a big selling point of Christianity for me. For some reason, this confuses a lot of other Christians. Salvation isn't a consideration... I don't despise anyone, I just don't like people and would prefer not to spend eternity surrounded by them. If I absolutely HAVE to take that version of heaven to follow Christ, I guess I will... but it in no way appeals to me.
That being said, I love all people. I probably wouldn't ask God to show me how to love Christians more than non-Christians because I don't believe that is a lesson that Christ would have wanted me to have. Christ taught me the exact opposite lesson, as a matter of fact. You love everyone equally, regardless of what they believe. It removes the need for bias and defending people who really shouldn't be defended just because they share the same faith.My bad... but the point is still valid. If someone has to go to such lengths to explain why something really doesn't say what it says, then that's pretty damn subjective
It's funny. What you see as an excuse, I see as an in depth explanation. It doesn't say it isn't hyssop. It just offers possibilities... a more in depth knowledge of the subject.
If the Bible wasn't subjective, no in-depth explanation would be necessary. Hyssop growing out of a wall would, indeed, be hyssop growing out of a wall. To me, at least, when someone says to me "Hey, there is hyssop growing out of that wall." It's a fairly simple statement. I don't say "Oh, you must mean mint, because hyssop doesn't grow out of walls, but that's not a mistake... you just interpret "mint" to mean hyssop so your statement was completely accurate...even though mint isn't hyssop in any way, shape or form."
This kind of astounds me. The fact that you would disparage the word of God b/c of your understanding of how hyssop grows. The possibilities for this are endless.
This site (http://theherbgardener.blogspot.com/201 … yssop.html) says, " Hyssop, a native to the Mediterranean, has been naturalized in the U.S. and Canada. A number of native American plants also go by the name hyssop but aren't related to Hyssopus officinalis. Verify that you have the right plant before you use it in your recipes and other preparations." This is not a biblical commentary, this is simply a gardening site claiming that many plants go by the name of Hyssop, but aren't.
Do you know how many types of hyssop there are? They prefer a dry environment, presumably birds and wind spread their seed. How difficult is it to imagine that there would be crack in the wall, or ledges on which seed could have germinated? What if the hyssop simply grew thru the holes in the wall? This is not a huge stumper to me.
What surprises me is how fast you are willing to dump the word of God over your worldly knowledge of hyssop, you know? Isn't it possible that you just don't have all the facts? Is it possible you have more faith in yourself than you do in God? I will shut up now if you want me to. I'm not trying to cause a fight. Im speaking openly, but I can just as easily mind my own business if Im offending.What amazing and surprises me is how far some of us Christians will go to maintain untruths. If we examine the texts of that time with an open mind we find all kinds of flaws that indicate the Bible was written by real people who although may have had good intentions may have stretch the truth and or were misinformed. But does that have to take away faith that Jesus was the son of God. I don't think so, but that's what faith is. So it may be best to acknowledge an error rather than pretend it doesn't exist and in the process look and appear dishonest.
For example the gospels portray Caiphas as an angry irrational man, but when we study what he himself wrote of the trail and what happened after the trial and what others had said about him we find something utterly different. Add to that the timeframe that the gospels were written and it's possible to conclude that the gospels accounts of the trials were an attempt to distance themselves even more from the Jews.Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have never heard Melissa say she was going to dump the word of god over a plant or anything else. If she was going to, I doubt she would call herself a Christian. What's surprising to me is the length that you are willing to go to to research and suggest that by hyssop, the Bible meant something else - one tiny example of a mistake out of literally hundreds. What's wrong with admitting that it's possible that in the writing or the translating or the multitude of different versions, interpretations, etc that the Bible might have an error? Does it make the whole thing false? Absolutely not. But maintaining that it is perfect and infallible doesn't make that extreme true either.
The whole point that you're trying to make about the Bible being necessarily objectively true falls by the wayside when you have to turn to a concordance or commentary to try to rectify what appears to be an error. If the Bible was indeed objective, then everyone would get the same message and interpretation. That is clearly not the case.1) When I said dump the word of God, I meant that she would not claim it as His inerrant word.
2) Yes, it would make the whole thing incorrect b/c God says the bible is without flaw.
“And the words of the Lord are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times” (Psalm 12:6).
“The law of the Lord is perfect” (Psalm 19:7).
“Every word of God is pure” (Proverbs 30:5 KJV).
“All scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16)
What does is say about the author if God breathed mistake into those He chose to carry the quill?
I don't know how I involved so many other ppl all of a sudden... must have hit a nerve of some kind.A) only a group of denominations claim the Bible is inerrant. It is a small group when considered in light of history, tradition and beliefs world wide. It's not Christianity-wide, and just because you believe it is true does not necessity make it so. Granted, the infallible subset is the most vocal and popular one in our culture, but that's not the case everywhere, in Christian tradition and history.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infallibility
B) the Bible did not exist until the second or third century ad, long after everything that was included in it was written - therefore if God said in the Bible that the Bible was infallible, no Bible existed yet which would make that impossible. Additionally, that is a claim, not the evidence for that claim, and it would need to be demonstrated to be correct, which you cannot do. Including passages from the old testament to prove that point is a bit disingenuous as well, since at the time over half of the Bible did not exist yet. What does Paul consider Scripture in his letter to Timothy? The gospels did not yet exist, and there is no indication that he believed his letters to churches or individuals would one day be considered Scripture - nor does he suggest that he thinks they should be. He's referring to the Hebrew Scriptures. That's - again - all that existed at that time, which makes the use of that verse disingenuous as well.
If you notice, I was speaking in this thread to Melissa and the op before all this started. No nerve was hit, I was already here, and wanted to jump in to correct what I viewed as an incorrect assumption that was made.You have to understand, I was not speaking to someone who claims to be an Atheist. I was speaking to someone who claims to be a believer... more than a believer, a Christian. This is why I address her with the concern that she is dismissing not only those that should be her family, but the very foundation of what we know of God.
So when you present your argument, which is an Atheistic argument, it doesn't really address my comments or the purpose for which they were offered.How is discussing the rather modern concept of scriptural infallibility or inerrancy an atheist argument? What is an atheist argument? Any argument put forth by an atheist? This is not a new concept in fields of biblical studies or textual criticism and it's rather wildly known. It's not something I'm just making up out of thin air.
I understand that you believe yourself to be exhorting or teaching a fellow believer, but that has nothing to do with my comments. Not all Christians or even most Christians believe in biblical infallibility or inerrancy. I understand that you do, but that still does not make it true.Not that any of this matters, I suppose, but, "Additionally, that is a claim, not the evidence for that claim, and it would need to be demonstrated to be correct, which you cannot do."
This becomes a Theist/Atheist debate, which is not what I was entering into. I am now talking to everyone, *but Melissa. If she is not interested in this conversation, I will respect that and drop it. It was that conversation that I was interested in atm.I'm sorry you see it that way, but it is simply not the case. I'm not attempting to get into an atheist theist debate, I was simply contributing to the conversation that I was already a part of before you began. Yes, I'm an atheist and you're a theist - this is also an open forum where anyone can comment on anything, is it not?
Yes, of course you are more than welcome to participate in every conversation. Let it never be said otherwise.
Not sure who to reply to, so last post gets the quote.
I do not believe that the Bible is the actual, spoken word of God. The ten commandments being the only possible exception... even then...
God-breathed to me means God-inspired. He very well may have been working on the conscience of the writers, but he did not actually put the pen to paper. He worked with imperfect tools and got a subjective book as a result.
If you go back, I stated before that subjectivity is what makes the Bible a living document. To me it is perfect because each person gets exactly what they need from it, but that doesn't mean its accurate. It doesn't make it factual.
Addition: And no, my belief system doesn't hang on the identity of a plant in an obscure verse... that was kind of my point. I don't care if it's improperly identified, or requires an inordinate amount of backflips to be explained. I just don't care about hyssop that much.So, do you believe that God was not able to overcome man's fallibility, or do you believe that He did not account for it? Either way, making Him imperfect... fallible... a failure?
Or do you believe He lied when He said His word was truth? Which would make Him a sinner. I don't know... I just can't wrap my mind around your perspective of God.I believe that God teaches in the way that is most necessary for people to understand him. I don't know the mind of God, but it's just possible that he knew the Bible was going to be subjective and was fine with it. That it had to be filtered through the mind of a man to be understood by men.
Lets take parables, which are fiction. Was Jesus lying when he was telling these tales or was he presenting information in a way that could reach people? Not sure why if Christ can teach in that way, God can't present his word in the same way.Right, I get that... and of course, Jesus is the mouthpiece of God to the world, "...Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father..." Jn 14:9 so if Jesus taught that way, naturally, God taught that way. But Jesus did not present parables as facts. He presented them as parables/precepts.
But God presented His word as absolute truth. Mt 4:4 But he answered, “It is written, ‘Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” Why would this verse even matter to me if the word had errors? If it was wrong about hyssop, why couldn't it be wrong about salvation? The bible must be absolute or it is just a good book.That's apparently the way you have to believe, Beth. It has to be absolute to you and completely literal. That's fine.
I don't have to believe that way, and honestly probably couldn't. To further blow your mind, even if every single word of the Bible was fiction, I would still consider it a personal truth. It matters that little to me. Even if Jesus never stood on this Earth, his words would still be a personal truth. I'm not sure how to explain it any better.So do you claim Jesus, but not God? Do you separate them?
I'm not sure what you mean by "claiming" but yes I do separate them. I don't believe in a the Trinity Doctrine.
So let me return to my original question, if I may.
If you don't believe the Bible to be true, and if you don't believe Jesus is the embodiment of God, then you have based your belief on something. So what is it you've used to base your beliefs on?My emotions and intuition... and that the lessons of Jesus ring true to me.
So much of history doesn't sit well with us, but it is true nonetheless.
Let me ask you this, if you liked the lessons taught by someone, but not the person, would you still "own" their teachings? Do you have to like the teacher to find truth in what they are saying?No, no at all. As a matter of fact, many people I find repugnant, I occasionally agree with. Those "truths" though, aren't universal. They apply only to my world. I agree with ideas, not people.
Apparently I could keep going forever, so I should probably just let the rest of my questions drop lest I become more obnoxious than is tolerable. Thanks for the convo.
LMAO, thanks for turning the spot-lights off. Anytime though.
Interesting that you chose these passages...as they are speaking to something that they view as word of God...not the words they are writing themselves...So since we are reading their words...it was added to the "scriptures" they were following...
And what of Timothy...he states ALL Scripture is God-breathed...so why isn't all scripture included in the bible? Ahh yes...because man decided what was God-breathed...Im afraid you do not understand what the word "inspired" means.
And you must not understand reading comprehension...
These passages are clearly referring to something other than their own writings...How does someone not agreeing with your particular take on "inspired" equate to not understanding it, exactly? If watching a movie inspired me to write an easy on it, it does not mean a character from the movie was sitting perched on my shoulder dictating every word I wrote. You see inspired as divine dictation, yet there is no evidence that is the case, nor is there any possible way that your claim can be verified.
Melissa and Beth,
The problem we are facing here...is due to a translation issue.
The Hebrew word that is translated to Hyssop...simply means "of foreign origin"...
And the passage is written in poetry format so it wouldn't be factual...
The trouble with things today is everyone bases an argument on a faulty translation...which is why I would lean more to how Melissa sees things...which is a strong belief, in God...not the Bible, which has been badly corrupted by man if it even truly is the word of GodIm glad that my faith in God has nothing to do with whose side you would lean more towards and everything to do with His infallible word.
And I am interested to see that there are "Sides" to Christian beliefs...
I said that I would lean more toward her view...not her side...
Sadly the bible is a bastard of the original version(s)...
So unless you are reading the Original Language and Original texts...then you are working with a faulty product, which in turn makes your belief, if based solely on that product, faulty by association...
So with that being said...One who is following God and not a product of man...would, in my opinion,hold more faith in God and not so much faith in the perfection of man attempting to speak for God....I guess "view, opinion, side, perspective" are not interchangeable with you.
It is your view that man was speaking for God when putting word to page, but as I already pointed out, “All scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16)
You either believe it or you don't. If you don't... then I do indeed challenge the foundation of what you believe.And why would you feel the need to challenge what I believe...
I don't feel the need to justify my belief...Nor do I need others to agree with it.
And yes there is a difference between sides and views....
In this case...
A side would be...believer or non-believer...
A view would be...how one follows their side...
You are the kind of theist I admire. Like My good friend Mo you are reasonable and yes; logical about your beliefs. Wish all religious people were like you two.
You understand that faith means not wanting proof, and that once proof is supplied, faith is no more.
Of course that's why I can't believe. For me, faith is not what I want. I know that most people value beliefs, and that is very human. But for me there are only two states: fact and speculation. Fact does not require belief. They are facts or they are not. Belief is irrelevant.
Speculation is not worth believing or having faith in as far as I am concerned, and I'm not just talking about religious subjects. I'm talking about all speculative ideas including those in the sciences.
Faith is an interesting thing. It gives the feeling of certainty when it can't actually give certainty in a factual sense.
To me, that's the root of so many human problems. We all want to know and be certain right now, when most of the time there is no way to be certain at the moment. To me there is nothing wrong with waiting to see rather than insisting that we have certainty right away even when we can't.
Thus I form opinions based on the facts I have without investing faith even as week as simple belief in those opinions, so that if and when new information comes up, I can modify my models accordingly without being hampered by a belief which I have to try to defend in the face of new evidence.
That said, in debate one is expected to defend and explain their arguments, exploring them and refining them until they stand on a foundation of logic or fall apart and need to be tossed.
One fact of existence is that all interactions change all parties involved,even if that change seems slight, it is accumulative. Hence debate plants seeds and good debate forces people to think.
The internet and these forums are great places for debate with no holds barred, but people need thick skins in religious vs atheist debates.
If you refuse to be insultable (probably not a word) and take it as a place to hone your thinking skills, it can be invaluable to any quest for answers. I just wish I had more time again.
Spiderman, a fictional work of Stan Lee (Leiber) is quite entertaining. I didn't care for the latest humanizing of the character. It similar to mans attempts to humanize God in order to circumvent man's short comings.
"Theological fact" is posed as a response to "scientific fact". Scientific fact is a replacement term for "actual fact" as is accepted by those that would "humanize" or downgrade what facts really are.
The Bible, in relation to theological fact, becomes a text book such as that used in a science. (Note the OP makes it clear we are on a secular level.) A textbook may have a "statement" followed by the "answer or formula" clarifying the statement. So it is with the Bible. And, as with science, all questions may not have a direct, provable answer to the statement, but neither are they proven to be in error. Personally, I have found no errors in the Bible and it has remained unchanged in its message for eons. However, science changes its postulates quite regularly, many times with the help of the Bible.
As to other religions (religions is such a misused word), all of them are spin offs of the faith and belief of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (OT) with the exception of Christianity (NT). Christianity is the extension and completion of the OT, making one of the two.
What men do in the name of Christianity is an entirely different issue, but using this argument is a well used way of self emancipation from God. And by the way, calling oneself a Christian but not believing in the Bible in totality is, well, disingenuous.I'm not so sure about that, one can call oneself a Christian and understand that the gospels were written well after that fact and may contain some exaggerations. For example, the gospels descriptions of Caiaphas does not match up with Caiaphas's own writings and or the Jewish documents. His tomb was found with what may very well be the nails used to nail Jesus to the cross which would be an indication of his respect for Jesus. At the time that the gospels were written Christians were attempting to distance themselves from the Jewish faith so they may have embellished the trials as a way of rewriting history to suite your own needs. It's kind of a common thing us humans do, but it doesn't mean Jesus wasn't who we think he was.
Sorry, I can't agree with any of this. The Bible is the foundation of Judeo-Christian belief. Therefore, without the Bible and belief and faith in all of its contents, Christianity is just a word or label. It does not define the person beliefs only the person.
Labeling ones self as Christian and saying one does not believe the Bible, is (using a phrase from atheism) "purposeful public ignorance." However, unlike the atheist pogrom associated with the phrase, one should all be allow to express themselves in proper venues without fear of being "extinguished."I don't believe I said I didn't believe what's said in the bible didn't happen? I just understand that's some of it may have been stretched. One can't honestly believe the universe started and we were put in it in six days anymore.
One can. And more.
One is not allowed to pick and chose that which they want to believe about the Book. Though misconceptions of what is written on some pages is rampant, God says what He means to say. It may not be explainable or understandable to the finite mind (such as mine), but, too be direct, it's all or nothing. God is either God or He is not. I chose "is."You are welcome to chose "is" if you like, but that doesn't negate the evidence. It's not all or nothing for most people, some of us can understand that God's word came through people and people are flawed.
It would seem that many use this same argument to skirt that which they don't want to do or believe. We, including me, may not always do as we are instructed, but the instructions are always infallible and always quite clear. We are all just "big kids" hoping to get away with something.
I don't feel I'm a big kid hoping to get away with something, that would imply we want to do bad things. I don't want to heart anyone. The bible however is full of instructions that don't seem to make any sense and therefore don't make any sense. How can one justify some of the OT? There is no way a just, moral God wrote that stuff.
First, God is the Father, therefore you and I are just kids (in our thinking). Jesus actually calls us "sheep" which is one of the dumbest of animals.
Second, God did what had to be done, and He didn't try to hide it. Nor did He justify those that took things into their own hands, but He did tell us about.We can think of him as a father all we like that doesn't mean that I'm the kind of kid that is trying to get away with something. I may in fact be dumb, but that still doesn't mean I'm wanted to get away with something. I have no idea what's going on in your mind, but I can only know what's going on in mine.
He did what he had to do? The God that made the entire universe in a few day had to ask people to kill each other? No, sorry, none of that makes any sense. See we can't have it both ways, if God is compassionate and just then some of that stuff could not have happened as described. If one feels all of that stuff happened as directed by or done by God then one is not worshiping a compassionate, just God. We humans are fully capable of understanding compassion and morality. The God I believe in would not have told people to kill others for him.I think there is just one also. Its just a response to you saying, "The God I believe in....." You were seeming to take issue with the ancient Hebrew history in the OT, so I just thought I would ask. I don't assume anything anymore in the forums, if I ever did, lol.
I may take issue with what is written about him, just as you may take issue about what is written in the Quran or the Book of Mormon, but that doesn't mean I have a different God than you. Does it?
I think its possible for people can believe in or worship non existent gods at times. It may not really matter that much in the sense you are describing it. The reason it might matter though, is that if a totally different god is being described, prayed to, worshiped, etc, then it could be said that its impossible they are the same god. It may be me, that believes in a non existent god! I don't think so though, I hope not. The particulars matter I think, but an inconsistency indicates something illogical or impossible. In other words, I don't think there can be one god, but multiple different gods at the same time. Someone is likely wrong, or maybe all are wrong. All can't be right however. Some people rule out the god of the bible, focusing on ancient Hebrew history for example, or how they personally interpret the creation story they read. Instead of focusing on the more recent, revelation in human form of God, through his son Jesus. Who seemed to explain what could have possibly been misconstrued on a few counts. (Like the law, works, fulfilling the law, what that means, etc.) Just my take on it.
I can't deny there is some very tough stuff in there. I am not a Christian though because of the OT stories, but because of the gospel as presented by God's best revelation to mankind, Jesus. This is just speaking for myself, to hopefully explain where I am coming from.
Again, we can not pick and chose which parts of the Bible we will believe. As Jesus said "He that is not with me is against me.". And Jesus is God. We also have to be aware that unbelievers are headed for eternal punishment (Rev 20:15), by His direction.
That said, we have no information in scripture as to why God wanted a certain group of people left alone. We do know that utter destruction was the end of those that fought Israel during their Exodus travels to Canaan, and sometimes that included the children. We might makke certain assumptions, but that would be fruitless.
When one comes to Jesus as the one and only way of salvation, it is only necessary that they accept that they are sinners by God's measure and that nothing they do can change that. Forgiveness of sin is by the grace of God alone once the sinner recognizes what he is and asks for God's forgiveness. It is then that the new born in Christ receives the Spirit of God and the training begins. That training is a personal, lifetime journey for the individual. His only guide is God. I am confident that part of that training is in regard to the importance of the Old Testament in this "new life." I have yet to meet someone that knows the meanig and purpose for all the issues of both the Old and New Testaments. Equally, I have yet to meet a "Christian" that did not believe the Bible in its entirety once they had taken the time to study it in more than a passing subjective manner.I'm sorry, but this seems like an incredibly narrow view of Christianity as a whole. In fact, the majority of christians and denominations do not hold to biblical inerrancy. The doctrine of inerrancy didn't even begin in earnest as a movement until the 18th or 19th century - so to hold that you've never met a Christian that didn't believe it is to, in essence, to say that you've never met a Presbyterian, or one of the many other Christian denominations that do not claim inerrancy or infallibility of scripture. Again, it seems like a rather narrow view of a history of Church doctrine.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran10.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy
"During the 18th and 19th centuries, various episodes of the Bible (for example the Noahide worldwide flood,[19] the creation in six days, and the creation of women from a man's rib) began increasingly to be seen as legendary. This led to further questioning of the veracity of Biblical texts. According to an article in Theology Today published in 1975, "There have been long periods in the history of the church when biblical inerrancy has not been a critical question. It has in fact been noted that only in the last two centuries can we legitimately speak of a formal doctrine of inerrancy. The arguments pro and con have filled many books, and almost anyone can join in the debate".[20]
In the 1970s and '80s, however, the debate in theological circles, which centered on the issue of whether or not the Bible was infallible or both infallible and inerrant, came into the spotlight. Some notable Christian seminaries, such as Princeton Theological Seminary and Fuller Theological Seminary, were formally adopting the doctrine of infallibility while rejecting the doctrine of inerrancy.
The other side of this debate focused largely around the magazine Christianity Today and the book entitled The Battle for the Bible by Harold Lindsell.[21] The author asserted that losing the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture was the thread that would unravel the church and Conservative Christians rallied behind this idea."See you took it as he had never met a Christian that believed otherwise. I took it as the Scotsman fallacy... a subtle attack... and I laughed and laughed.
The no true scotsman is probably more accurate, but I took the approach that he was simply mistaken and uninformed about doctrinal history. :-) it's amazing to me how people fail to see how convenient it is to take a recent (by comparison) doctrine and run with it, believing that it must be true and has always been that way while it completely coincides with what they want to believe.
This is what I have been trying to understand. You accede with the Atheists nearly every single time, unless maybe it's Motown, and you scoff (not just disagree with, but flat out mock) those that you claim are members of the same family that you are a part of.
If I didn't like something someone had to say, I would tell them what I disagreed with. If I didn't like the person in general, I might just avoid them, but if you say you agree with Jesus's teachings, then how is insulting them an acceptable expression?
I have a sarcastic sense of humor too, you know that, but I usually use it when I think I am engaged in some kind of game. I used to use it with ATM all the time 'cause I thought he was playing. Somewhere along the way, maybe after I got banned 12 times, I realized he might not be as fun as I thought he was. lol But I try not to cut ppl with my words. My tongue can be very sharp, but I have to be careful not to spread hate as it just doesn't seem very Christ-like. In your belief system, is being Christ-like the goal?Nope, not about atheists in the slightest. This one is about Christians telling other Christians that they aren't Christians. This is a subject I've discussed on here so many times that I just short-hand it now. Wasn't an insult, I'm not sure how you construe it as such. I honestly do laugh at the comments now. Not laughing at the person, but laughing at the absurdity. Not spreading hate, I don't have hate for anyone, but I don't have to treat such statements seriously or give them any kind of consideration... they aren't worthy of serious discussion.
It seems we shouldn't disagree with the creationists for if we do our thoughts are garbage.
That's a twisty way to look at it. What I meant was, when you make up your own set of facts, it lacks foundation. Something without foundation is not real. It's made up.
We need to stop and think a little about this. Who ends up with "garbage", the person who believes the universe was created within 6 days with us in it or the person who believes that the time frame of the story should match reality? I think if you want to take everything in the bible as literal, you will have to start ignoring all of science.
God is the creator. Science is His creation. Rather than making science the centrality of your beliefs, and seeing how God fits in that picture, why not make God your focus and see how science fits into the picture? It seems to me a backwards way of looking at things.
Sure, lets do that. The bible says the universe was created within 6 days with us in it. Science says almost 14 billion years have passed before we came alone. We have two options, we can say science is wrong or we can say the timeline described in the bible must have been and exaggeration or perhaps a miscommunication. I'd rather not pretend all those brilliant minds are off by 14 billion years because of a few sentences written after being passed down for generations verbally. But you go ahead, but please refrain from calling my beliefs garbage.
"Science says almost 14 billion years have passed before we came alone."
Do you mean that science says we came along 14 billion years after God created the world?Science doesn't tell us what started the universe, but it's age has been verified. Science also tells us humans evolved in Africa a few hundred thousand years ago and has plenty of evidence to back that up.
I invite you to do a little research on how the OT was was written, edited and translated to and from various languages and then put together. Ignoring facts will not make my faith stronger, but it will make them silly, even to me.You do know that a few decades ago that science said the earth was only a few million years old?
That is the whole premise of this thread. Scientific facts are not true facts. Science keeps changing timelines and things like that to make room for their theoretical facts. Of course they say it is because of new information.
Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible. It was not handed down to him mouth to mouth but was directly from God Himself. God showed His hinder parts, remember? We have no way of knowing how long Adam and Eve were living before the fall. Adam was created in the image and likeness of God, meaning, He was spiritual. He could do anything and go anywhere.
You might find it all silly if you want, but I find it fascinating.Again, do a little research as to how genesis was put together and you don't have to take a seculars point of view. Look at what the experts and religious scholars say. It's just a google search away. The bible directly says how old Adam was when he died, in years.
I tells us how many years Adam lived, not how many years he lived after he disappointed God. Seems like you hold onto a creation in six days but question the text that clearly explains how long someone lived.
You seem to have missed the part about Adam being created in the image and likeness of God. God cannot die and cannot be killed. he told Adam to not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil because if he did, he would surely die. Death was introduced only after the fall of Adam.
Can God create everything in 6 days? I will state that everything could have been done in one day, 24 hour period, if He chose to do it that way. If the God you believe in is unable to do the same, maybe your god is not who you think he is.
I have a pretty good grasp on the Old and New Testament.
I understand that many believe in a creation that was not a literal 6 days. It makes sense. My husband believes in the non literal 6 day creation. He questions how you can have a full day without a sun and a moon and that the bible says to God 1,000 years is as a day and a day is as a 1,000 years. I am not closed to this proposal. There are many things we will not understand until we meet God face to face. However, you bring up stories that aren't really open to interpretation. You say, "Why didn't God just kill the king instead of allowing the king to kill the children?" It is at this point where you question the character of God. It is not within your reasoning to say that you do not understand God. It *is within your reasoning to say God does not think like you, therefor you must throw out the parts of His word that you are not comfortable with. Again, without the Bible, where did you come up with your knowledge of God? Is He a creation of your imagination? Or did you base your belief in God on something? And if you based it on the Bible, at what point did you decide that your reasoning superseded the very text where you first learned about Him? This goes back to my My Romeo and Juliet example... this was to point out that if I change the story, the story had to exist for me to change the facts... and if I change the facts, then I not only claim to be superior to Shakespeare in the writing of his own story, but I then change the story itself. Which story then becomes the dross? The original or the "new and improved version?" Do you understand what Im saying?I like this, you admit that a day may not have been a day, but that's as far as you go. I mean what else doesn't make sense? Again, study how the OT was put together and how many years it took for all the stories to come together and how long it took for the Israelites to even buy into it and then get back to me. If you would rather worship someone who supposedly committed those atrocities then it will be you standing before God trying to explain to him why you didn't use your brain and blindly followed a God that would commit those atrocities. I'm sure he is shaking his head in wonder, I know I am.
You claim to be a Christian... or at least a believer, am I right in saying this? You are not a sock puppet? If you are, would you be willing to share your identity? Just curious.
I am glad it makes you happy that I do not claim to have perfect understanding. I have never claimed otherwise.
I did not see you address my point concerning the fact that you had to base your belief on God on something, and that if it was indeed the bible, then I am still wondering how you feel you are qualified to "improve" upon its description of God. You *do want me to claim to have less than perfect understanding, but *you do not claim to have less than perfect understanding of scripture?
So when a story comes along that you cannot reconcile, you claim God to be a barbarian as opposed to saying there is something you do not understand?No, I do not claim God is a barbarian, where did you get that from? I feel there is a God, but I feel humans have twisted some of the OT and it makes him seem like a barbarian. Are you willing to follow a barbarian? I think Jesus had the right idea, but some of those stories have been exaggerated as well as they don't coincide with the documents of that time.
You also claim to be a Christian?
If I needed or wanted you to know who I am I would have used my real name.
What's a sock puppet? Why do you continue to want to make conversations personal.
Anyhow, I'm out of here. I don't have the time or the inclination to defend my beliefs to a fellow supposed Christian.
Yes, I am quite narrow minded, especially by today's liberal definition. In years past I would have been called a "fundy." Before that maybe a protestant, though that is a misused term. However, anytime the majority feels they can set the standards for God, you no longer have a God who can be counted on to do as He says, which is what He has always done to date. And the reason we know Him is because of His word, the Bible.
It does get tedious hearing all the comments about those that "God killed" War has never been a pleasant idea. It would seem if the lesser battles were fought with the ferocity shown by the Israelites, similar to their tactics today, the major battles and more killing would have been averted, such as the ongoing Middle East wars. "Oh that's not true" or "That's barbaric." It may seem barbaric but history shows it to be true, both Biblical and secular history.
And as to all the errors in the Bible. No one has ever found an error in the Bible, errors do not include the unanswerable. This challenge is a long but well used tool of politicians and other malcontents. Say it loud enough and long enough, people will believe it. "Et tu Brute" is a well known result (though maybe not true) of this thought process.
Jesus said "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18
Jesus said "He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth. Luke 11:23.
Proverb 14:12; "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
I can call myself a mathematician. But, foundationally, unless I believe 1+1=2, it doesn't make it so.
One is either a Christian or they are not according to the Bible.
The Bible is either the Word of God or it is not.
This is not a sermon. Its several of the reasons why I believe in such a narrow minded manner.I never called you narrow or closed minded, I think you need to reread what I actual wrote prior to assuming and running with it. You seem to be under the impression that all true Christians accept that the Bible is infallible and inerrant and that they have always done so, which is simply not true. The inerrancy movement is incredibly recent comparatively, and to say that you have not meet anyone who is a Christian who believes otherwise makes me think you are unaware of the fact that the majority of denominations do NOT hold that view, as demonstrated by the links I provided above.
To say the Bible has no errors is in essence to stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and mutter under your breath. You can excuse them or rationalize then away all you want, but biblical scholars - even religious biblical scholars - acknowledge errors in the Bible, and I sincerely doubt that you know better than them. How many of the original languages do you read, and how many "original copies" have you personally investigated?You got me there. I don't have any of the "originals." All I have is what God preserved, Psalm 12:7, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, John 16:13. I'll stick with these.
Since he has determined that all Christians agree the bible is infallible, it is completely logical for him to to say "True" Christians have to share that belief...You are making an irrelevant argument in that context. The relevant argument would be "Who decides this?" The answer, of course, is he does... in that light no valid argument can be made...
He, of course, doesn't decide that. So his opinion is not relevant to... well, anything. He doesn't define Christianity for any secular agency for which that determination would matter and he certainly isn't going to be determining it for God. So, other than being insulting to anyone who would actually care, and I can't imagine who that would be, his definition really doesn't affect anything, anywhere. So why bother?
It seems as it's you who can't pick and chose which parts of the bible we believe, because I'm just fine with it.
I guess it makes perfect sense to you that an all powerful God who wants his people freed and instead of simply going and talking to and influencing the king, instead punished his people until he eventually lets them go after killing each first born in the city. Could have just killed the king, but no, he has to kill innocent people first.It sounds to me this is not the God you want to serve. It is not possible to change Him, so what will you do?
I'm not changing him at all, but I can understand what makes sense and what sounds like something was grossly over exaggerated. I for one don't believe the universe was created in six days with us on it. But that doesn't mean I don't think God wasn't involved in making the universe.
I don't believe Juliet was a girl. I believe she and Romeo were a gay couple and they didn't kill themselves at the end, they adopted a set of twins from Russia and divorced when the kids hit puberty.
You see my point right? I can say anything I want... anything to make me more comfortable with the God I am creating in my mind, but if I don't have a foundation of absolutes... then it is garbage.So you believe the universe was created in six day with people already in it? And you believe what I believe in garbage, then you go after MelissaBarrett for not believing just as you do as well.
That's sad.I believe what the Bible says, is true. I don't "go after" Melissa. We are sharing our thoughts and beliefs. I do not understand where she is coming from, so I ask questions. She was kind enough to answer them.
"Something without foundation is not real. It's made up."
And what is the foundation for the creation tale of the bible? Just the words from an unknown barbarian, passed down verbally through generations and then spun into something agreeable with the VIP's of Nicaea?If you do not believe God to be real... everything about Him is false, no?
If you believe God to be real, then there has to be a basis to your beliefs.
If ppl who come up with their own description/back story for God, did not have the Bible, on what did they base their hypothesis?Wrong question. Right question - what did the people that wrote the bible have as a basis for the stories they told?
Answer: the verbal stories from generations and generations past, from a people ignorant of the most basic reality of the world. A people no different than any others around the world that have made up tales explaining the unexplainable without regard as to truth or veracity.
And this is the same basis that people today still use for their beliefs. The twisted, mangled, spun words of unknown authors from millenia past that hadn't a clue how the world works.
Rather than write a new response, I'll follow up your comment with a copy of a response to a similar comment. Most of it applies here.
Yes, I am quite narrow minded, especially by today's liberal definition. In years past I would have been called a "fundy." Before that maybe a protestant, though that is a misused term. However, anytime the majority feels they can set the standards for God, you no longer have a God who can be counted on to do as He says, which is what He has always done to date. And the reason we know Him is because of His word, the Bible.
It does get tedious hearing all the comments about those that "God killed" War has never been a pleasant idea. It would seem if the lesser battles were fought with the ferocity shown by the Israelites, similar to their tactics today, the major battles and more killing would have been averted, such as the ongoing Middle East wars. "Oh that's not true" or "That's barbaric." It may seem barbaric but history shows it to be true, both Biblical and secular history.
And as to all the errors in the Bible. No one has ever found an error in the Bible, errors do not include the unanswerable. This challenge is a long but well used tool of politicians and other malcontents. Say it loud enough and long enough, people will believe it. "Et tu Brute" is a well known result (though maybe not true) of this thought process.
Jesus said "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18
Jesus said "He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth. Luke 11:23.
Proverb 14:12; "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
I can call myself a mathematician. But, foundationally, unless I believe 1+1=2, it doesn't make it so.
One is either a Christian or they are not according to the Bible.
The Bible is either the Word of God or it is not.
This is not a sermon. Its several of the reasons why I believe in such a narrow minded manner.
In fairness, (and I doubt you would disagree, so this is just a reminder), the one's "left alone", were also kept after. If I am right in thinking you mean the Israelites.
We can't forget how God had super harsh words for them, and distanced himself from them, when they would forget the most simple of points. He would respond in different ways, and they would recoil and call out to him again for help! He sent prophets with messages for them about how horrible things had become, and the prophets didn't want to share such things, it was very unpopular! God didn't just scold or be harsh with the non Israelite people, though we don't see exact treatment.
I think he used them to show himself to the world in that day, and it seems to have worked. Look at Rahab the harlot, she had heard about their God..... He got stuff done, when it was the most unlikely result at times. This is not a defense of anything, btw. Just a reminder and more broad response to some of the things we see being said about God and people in the OT times. Again, I think Jesus clarified a lot, which is incredibly helpful. To the Israelites, sometimes they called for God and he was silent, he had seemed to have it with them too at times. Not just the non-Israelites. (Speaking mostly in general here Mishpat, not directed to you, just your post made me think of some things.)Thanks for the input. I think we are looking at things the same way. But this seems lost to a lot of folks. Galatians is clear. The OT was our schoolmaster. It taught us a lot about man and God. Now its time to move on (cross over Jordan as it were) into the NT. But like all experiences in life, you don't have to "live there," but you're foolish is you forget the lessons taught.
"As to other religions (religions is such a misused word), all of them are spin offs of the faith and belief of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (OT) with the exception of Christianity (NT)."
Is this a theological truth, made up from imagination without the necessity of truth? Because Hinduism, buddhism and wicca are not spin offs of the Abrahamic religion. Neither were the older religions of Europe or the Americas. Not those from the far east. Only Christianity and Islam, as far as I know are, and Christianity is a spin off of Judaism, not the other way around.
Or have you defined "religion" as only those beliefs that accept your god, all others relegated to the trash can as "obvious" frauds?The direct, personal relationship between God and man began in the Middle East, as did man. Though it has had it's share of bumps, mainly in the Garden, it has always been the same relationship. This relationship is the basis of the Judeo-Christian faith. The Bible is the foundation of this faith which is completed in Jesus Christ. That which does not recognize the God of Creation and Jesus Christ as the savior, is not Christianity. The spin offs are evident.
Suffice to say, the other corrupt "religions" you mentioned are nothing more that man's humanist efforts to eliminate God and any form accountability.Ever heard the term out of Africa? There are fossil and genetic evidence that humans have been in Africa for hundreds of thousands of years before biblical times. Of course the writers of the bible could not have known that, if they had they would have attempted to include that in their stories.
How old was Adam before he ate the forbidden fruit?
Well, the bible tells us he was 130 years old when he became a father and live until he was 930. Is there a purpose to your question?
Thanks, but this was covered several pages back when defining "modern man."
Wow, I missed that I guess. So you think God made modern man a few thousand years ago in six days, but there were people before modern man. I'm not sure how or way you would attempt to keep track of all that.
I don't have a hard opinion on this. But it is an area open for discussion.
For people that really want to broach this subject, Headly VonNoggin on HubPages has given an idea that makes sense of all of that, and is in line with history as we know it. Many disagree, but its rather interesting and he has written on this at length.
To Mishpat, while you may disagree with some of the details (I wonder), I think you might find the ideas interesting, since you have studied some history and shared some yourself, about the fertile crescent, etc. (Not caught up here, by a long shot!)
Others have had similar ideas, (not totally the same, but that makes sense of it), and it is an interesting discussion. I think the writers being inspired, wrote possibly from the point of view they understood things in their day. They wrote it down, to pass along the ideas in a way that THEY understood, but that we don't. I think God doesn't just use the written, revealed word of God to get his revelation across. I think it reflects what is actual, and we are to look at all things, taken together.
I think that whatever is true, actually true, lines up with God, the one true God.
What you say at the end there..... If the Bible is the written revelation inspired by a real God, God himself, then what you say there would be just the case. All in a way that no one could make true, it just would be. Kind of cool! I think Jesus got it right, and those that follow him are following a good thing.
Is this thread all about asserting a lie as "theological fact"?
Nice that you put it. I have a hubpage about the Jewish wisdom of the Kabbala at a glance (so basically I hope I am not very much biased). I believe that god exists. However, did you know that the bible written as a metaphor to describe the spiritual journey of the Hebrew people? It’s very complicated to discuss, but I don’t think we have a choice, what so ever. Maybe I’ll write a hub on this one. You just gave me an idea.
The biblical theological fact.
Yahweh is the son of the high God(El) [psalm, deutronomy]
Satan is the sidekick of Yahweh [job...]
Jesus is the son of Yahweh or El, not specified.Proving the Bible through science is not a new concept. Just Google "science and the Bible" and you will see plenty of sites with information. Go to Amazon with the same search, and you will find many books on the subject.
One can believe in Science and Religion at the same time - people do it all the time, and there are some top scientists who have faith in God.
The simple difference is this:
The Scientific Method requires that you start with a hypothesis -- not a fact -- and then you conduct experiments, tests and studies to test the hypothesis. Science is constantly conducting experiments, and continuing study to learn more. Often the hypothesis are proven wrong, or a new experiment tweaks what was learned about the last one. This is why "science is always changing the facts." It's part of the learning process. When something has been tested frequently enough, and all variables accounted for to make sure that the test was valid, then the hypothesis becomes a theory -- the term used to indicate an accepted explanation for the phenomenon (as in, the theory of evolution).
Religion, on the other hand, requires a leap of faith, and acceptance of that which cannot be proven. The Bible does not prove that God exists. You would have to first prove that God wrote the Bible, which in itself creates a conundrum.
The Bible is a collection of writings that were selected by men. And in this case, I refer to both human and gender. One might be able to say that the men who selected the writings were "inspired by God." Some question why the book of Mary -- the mother of Jesus -- was not included (yes, there is a Book of Mary. It is just not in the Bible). So, one might also suggest that those who selected the books may have had an agenda of their own -- good intentions or not.
The Bible is, at the very least, an historical book. One only has to turn on the History Channel to see explorations in search of Noah's Ark, Scientific evidence of the Great Flood, historical accounts of the life of Jesus and of what else was going on in the world (e.g., Rome) at the same time.
Me? I believe in God, and am less enamored with organized religion -- although I am Catholic by choice (as opposed to birth). I believe that God was the first and most amazing scientist. After all, he has created a world that is self-sustaining and continuously growing. He doesn't HAVE to "babysit" and be involved in every individual action that goes on. He designed it to produce, sustain, and grow. The job of our scientists is to discover what he created, and to learn how it all works. Look how long it has taken us to learn the little that we have!
My hope is that those who fear that science contradicts their religion will learn to embrace the science that could help them learn more about and even increase their appreciation for the God that -- as Pope Francis has reminded us -- is not a magician with a magic wand (that would be too easy and in my mind, insulting), but the greatest scientist ever!I keep seeing this "God created the universe in 6 days" thing. I must have missed that part of the Bible.
1Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. Gen 2:2
We are in agreement here that He rested. The question is "When did He start?" Genesis 1:3 addresses the Creation of Earth and man and stuff. The open question is had He done anything prior to Genesis 1:3. It appears the Genesis 2:2 means He is not making anything else, no more dirt or water or gold or people. But we have to remember He created angels. What else did He create? When did that start?
So what's my point? God created. The Earth project was a 6 day affair and it goes against a lot of science and agricultural things. Remember "God is light."
There is no indication that He worked from dawn to dusk each "day." On the contrary, He spoke and it was. After that "split second" maybe He just sat back at looked at it all, like men do when the pour a block of cement.
Then there is time. We could say (and I believe) time as we count it began when man began to die, when they ate the fruit. But what was the measure of a day prior to the fall? 24 hours may or may not be correct. We assume the "evening and the morning" mean what we see today.
Things changed monumentally at the fall. What did flies and mosquitoes do during the time of innocence? Did roses have thorns?
I'm going to ask Him about these and other things directly some day.Where do you get this stuff? Again, for you to believe that you would have to throw everything we know about space and time away and start again, back in the middle ages, where if you said something that contrasted what some interpreted from the bible they could kill you, so most people didn't study or learn anything for hundreds of years. Time started just after the universe began, we know that for several reasons but one of them is that the light we see from distant galaxies has been travelling for billions of years. We don't see any more that 14 billion light years away because there wasn't time before that and it takes time for the light to get to us.
Please Christians and Atheists understand very few Christians think like this.I guess I am supposed to be insulted. However, I just want to thank you for making your position clear. Tolerance of and apologizing to the atheist is not for me. It would seem its time to move on.
Why would you need to apologies to the Atheists? If you've got nothing left then perhaps it is time for you to move on.
Dudley, to be fair, I haven't seen a hard answer (and I may have missed it) on how much time passed before the fall of Adam and Eve. Mishpat seems to remain open to whatever it actually was, according to my reading of things. I think you may have misread him? Because the way I read it, we don't have to throw away everything we have learned from space and time and light travel, etc. Far from it. You assumed I think maybe, that his comments were a strictly a literal 6, 24 hour day interpretation, from the beginning of the universe, not from the moment man began to die after breaking the one rule in the garden. Its not overly clear, but I see it there. I could be wrong on this take of Mishpats views, and he can correct if so.
I know many Christians that highly esteem the whole of scripture, hold it inerrant, and believe in a several billion year old earth, for example.He stated time started when Adam ate from the forbidden tree. The bible is very specific in regards to how hold Adam was when he died. And science is full of information regarding how many years the universe is old.
Well.... right, but even if the bible states how old Adam was when he died, is only in relation then to some view of when he was born, or from the view of eating the fruit,that date. Mishpat's view, as I have seen it, says he doesn't know how long time was before the eating of the fruit. Its open then..... the idea.
Mishpat, can you weigh in on this point, before I defend what I may be misunderstanding of your view? lol, sorry and thank you.
And now something is becoming a little bit more clear, I will see......You are stating that time did not exist before Adam ate from the forbidden tree as well? How is that possible when we know that time has been ticking along for almost 14 billion years?
No, I didn't say that, and I don't think he said time didn't exist before that either. (This is reminding of someone!) I am reminding you of what was just said in this thread, and that I think by your comments, show you are misunderstanding what is being talked about some here.
You are mischaracterizing I think, Mishpat's views, and now I think maybe don't understand what he has said. Or as I have previously said, perhaps I don't know for sure yet.
My understanding of Mishpat's understanding, is that the 6 day affair could be how we know 6 24 hour days to be, OR be even less. I think he also has indicated on occasion, he doesn't know how much time passed prior to that. I take this from the posts talking about all agreeing on the day God rested, but not agreeing on when exactly God started the whole endeavor. Does this help?Let's have a look at what he said.
"Then there is time. We could say (and I believe) time as we count it began when man began to die, when they ate the fruit. But what was the measure of a day prior to the fall? 24 hours may or may not be correct. We assume the "evening and the morning" mean what we see today.
Things changed monumentally at the fall. What did flies and mosquitoes do during the time of innocence? Did roses have thorns?"
time as we count it began when man began to die, when they ate the fruit
Time as we count it? Well we count time many different ways, days, minutes, hours, years. A day is very specifically an evening and the morning. We are given that clue, he wants to stick to the word, except when it's problematic for him. You can continue defend him if you like, you can even attempt to interpret his meaning differently than he does himself. But we know that time did not just start a few years ago. There are plenty of evidence of animals eating each other going back millions of years. Death and pain has been part of existence from the beginning. One example of that would be fossil fuel. I'm not sure why you do this, it seems odd, your own words are brilliant and well thought out, but for some reason you try to defend a not so well thought out thought?It is that you and I both don't read his words to mean the same thing. I am not counting just that post. Thank you for your kind words. You take me to be defending something I am not though in this case.
So, we can wait for him. I am probably wrong on his view, that is very possible. I took his meaning to be that he takes time beginning, as we now count it, to be when they "fell". To me, it seems very obvious, he knows and we all do much happened before this.
At the moment, based on my studies, I am not a believer in a 6 thousand year earth, or anything like that. My attempt at clarifying what I thought Mishpat was saying, seems to be misunderstood. If you are going to critique his thought, I thought it fair to understand what he was saying. I didn't take what he said, as you did, by your one comment about about the billions of years, etc.
"We could say (and I believe) time as we count it began when man began to die, when they ate the fruit."
We could indeed say that. We can say anything we want to. We can believe anything we can convince ourselves of, and we can even call that belief a "theological fact".
Unfortunately, it doesn't mean much when there is no connection with reality. "Theological facts" like this just don't cut it when we make conclusions and statements without supporting evidence. It may keep us happy, it may reinforce our faith, it may extend our belief, but it doesn't produce verifiable truth.So we got off track a bit from the OP and moved into spiritual things, and you caught us. That is the hardest thing to do here is to keep the subject line. Still, it just feels good to discuss some things with folks about God and faith at times.
It is hard isn't it? Somehow we always seem to get off track, very definitely including me. I will forgive you (just this once, you understand!) if you will do the same when (soon, I'm sure) you catch me.
Well, you'd have to open the Bible and start with the very first page, which opens with "In the beginning God..." That's where the 6 days are described.
Some general thoughts to be considered or ignored, lol.
As a Christian, I am thankful that Jesus didn't force anyone to commit to any kind of particular interpretations and then inerrancy of the written by man, revealed word of God, in Genesis in particular.
I see forced interpretations and then humans demanding each other see it certain ways and agree 100% or I also see the opposite. Jesus, while he did allude to some of the tougher to believe sections of the OT, never really spoke on the 6 days thing. In particular, Jesus didn't say, "believe in a 6 days of creation, to enter the kingdom of God" or any such thing. We as humans, bring that on ourselves, and strongly apply what those verses must mean, instead of trying to understand more.
I know of very well meaning people that say this ought to be part of becoming a member of a church, the literal (as they MEAN literal) interpretation of the WHOLE bible. I don't think God errs...... I think we as humans can though.
Jesus ought to the be focus for so many reasons, but this is just one of many. Its not a life and death thing, not even eternal life or death thing. We know its not going to be easy on the narrow path. Why inject so many "oughts" onto the absolutes? I don't get that. I do trust God and Jesus.Dear brother @SirDent here's your question...Can God create everything in 6 days? I will state that everything could have been done in one day, 24 hour period, if He chose to do it that way. If the God you believe in is unable to do the same, maybe your god is not who you think he is.
Dear brother as per your question God created everything in 6 days this does not mean 24 hours a day,if you are thinking this concept in a normal way we cannot understand this concept.here's my way please listen..here it is 6 days,as per my opinion this is not the day that earth revolves round itself or revolves round the sun to make one day that is 24 hours a day and 365 days to revolve round the sun because earth was not created in the first three days.so this something else,if we think much deeper,we can understand that, for earth one day is 24 hours(this is the time for earth to rotate itself),but here if we understand the concept,earth is revolving around itself and its revolving round the sun and moon is is revolving round the sun and everything in sky(milky way ) is revolving,if it is 24 hours for earth to revolve around itself then how much time a single milky way would take to revolve round itself to make one milky way day,so if we think in the universe how many milky ways are there and all rotating round and for universe to rotate around itself how much time it would take some millions and billions of years a human brain cannot calculate,so here in the genesis chapter 1:God created universe in 6 days does not mean a single earth day ,but its one "UNIVERSAL DAY" and it may be some millions and billions of years,a human brain can not estimate as humans are still in the way of reaching all the nine planets.hope you understand the concept,by the way BIBLE is not a religious book, if you think the concepts in its a "GREAT BOOK OF WISDOM" not a book of general knowledge,hope you understand the difference between knowledge and wisdom.
Related Discussions
- 31
Do you take the Bible story to be 100 percent factual or do you some of it as an
by Marc Lee 8 years ago
Do you take the Bible story to be 100 percent factual or do you some of it as analogy?
- 3126
Why do Christians use the Bible as evidence in Theological discussion?
by Rabgix 11 years ago
Obviously if i'm an atheist and I don't believe in your God, why would I take your scriptures as evidence? That doesn't make any sense.Not to mention the bible has this nasty ideal that everything in it is true because God said its true.If it were that simple, everyone could publish a book and say...
- 65
How can anyone believe in the book of mormon since scripture warns against it?
by charlie 8 years ago
How can anyone believe in the book of mormon since scripture warns against it?Scripture warns against believing doctrine other than than what Paul preached-- even if an "angel from heaven" brings it. Yet thousands follow this cult in spite of scripture. With a specific...
- 63
CNN fact check: Trump makes 61 false claims in one week.
by Randy Godwin 5 years ago
Rather than Trump slowing down on making false statements, he's apparently doubling down on his lies according to a fact check by CNN. Last week he made 61 false claims, some against sitting congress members. Did anyone expect anything different?
- 93
Is Science truly A Religious Cult?
by Jes Mathias 13 years ago
...hear me out, before you throw out those snarky comments.A Cult is generally (mostly subjectively) defined as a minority or inept social group who gain excessive notoriety and power, through several methods of mind control, education, ritual practices leading to indoctrination.We often note these...
- 10
Do you believe in the story of Noah's Ark as fact?
by Kaniel Loughran 13 years ago
Do you believe in the story of Noah's Ark as fact?If so, how would you explain him being able to gather 10-30 million species from around the world and placing them in their selective ecosystems respectively after the flood subsided? It is mathematically estimated that he would have had to build an...