jump to last post 1-28 of 28 discussions (104 posts)

I believe in The Bible 100%? or just parts? what parts? or not at all?

  1. Shaul Stein profile image54
    Shaul Steinposted 8 years ago

    I believe in The Bible 100%? or just parts? what parts? or not at all?

    a) 100%  (do not doubt a word of it ~ ~ ~ state why)

    b) a lot of it  (pick some parts you don't accept ~ ~ ~ state them)

    c) not at all  (i would not take a single bit and use it ~ ~ ~ state why)

    d) can't stand most of it  (which parts do you like ~ ~ ~ state them)

    this is both to gather research information and to cause discussion. big_smile

    please do not toss rocks and bottles through the monitor as this will make you mad

    1. OtoyaCasanova profile image58
      OtoyaCasanovaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      a) 100%  (do not doubt a word of it ~ ~ ~ state why)

      Every verse from the Bible has it's purpose for many scenarios and such.
      From finding Life, solving problems and even giving inspiration to many
      people from the many Stories in the Bible.

      1. Shaul Stein profile image54
        Shaul Steinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        good answer thank you smile

    2. Make  Money profile image81
      Make Moneyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      A - 100%

      Because it is the Word of God written by the holy men of God who were inspired by the Holy Ghost as Peter says in 2 Peter 1:20-21 "Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost."

      Also one part of the Bible can be verified by another part that may have been written 2,000 years before.  The Old Testament is revealed in the New Testament.  There is a seamless transition from the Old Testament to the New Testament.

  2. David Bowman profile image59
    David Bowmanposted 8 years ago

    How about "some of it"? That choice is not included.

    Some things in the Bible have been verified as historically accurate. However, there are some inaccuracies in it's account of history. For example, in the Gospels it states that the reign of Quirinius, the governor of Syria, was concurrent with the reign Herod the Great, but this is false. In Luke's Gospel it states that a census was decreed by the emperor Augustus that required everyone to return to their cities of birth, but no such census ever took place. Many more examples of historical inaccuracies could be cited.

    Miracles are a big problem as well. What evidence is there that a man walked on water or rose from the dead? I see no reason to regard the miracle claims made in the Gospels, or any other book of the Bible, as having actually happened. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So, my answer is "some of it." But only the parts that have been verified by other sources.

    1. Shaul Stein profile image54
      Shaul Steinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      many a historian, believer and not, have verified the accuracy of the accounts written. and if an apparent discrepancy shows up, well i can say that our own history has them too.
      i look at someone like Josephus and cannot refute him.

      if you witnessed a miracle, would you believe that they happened?
      it seems that with a multitude of witnesses who were there and saw them and wrote them down would be evidence enough.
      we believe eye witness accounts from people about all kinds of things happening in our own history or at the ball park or from our grandparents.
      i think it is hard for us to believe anything we do not see. it does not even have to be a "miracle" and yet we still refuse to believe it just because the "all knowing we" were not present and 500 people cannot tell us a thing because "we" have to see it ourselves.
      if it was a court of law and 500 witnesses lined up and said they saw a miracle and they are not related, well who is going to discount that?

      answer is.
      anyone who was not there present. smile

      for me it is about believing in the teachings of The Savior. big_smile

      1. Fairbear profile image54
        Fairbearposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Maybe someone already pointed this out to you, I don't know. I didn't read all the posts and I'm coming into this late. But your statement is unsubstantiated. Multitudes of eye witnesses did not write about Jesus' purported miracles. If that were the case, there would be much less speculation about whether or not they happened. As it is, there are only a handful of accounts of Jesus' miracles and the earliest of these was written a full thirty years after his death! Why would you compare that to five hundred witnesses? You are talking about the Bible, right?

        1. Shaul Stein profile image54
          Shaul Steinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          A handful wrote like reporters about what others saw, just like today. smile
          And these reporters where part of a multitude.
          I should have worded it better.

          1 Corinthians 15:
          3  I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. 4 He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. 5 He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. 6 After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. 7 Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as though I had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him. 9 For I am the least of all the apostles. In fact, I’m not even worthy to be called an apostle after the way I persecuted God’s church.

          Acts 5:
           29 But Peter and the apostles replied, “We must obey God rather than any human authority. 30 The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead after you killed him by hanging him on a cross. 31 Then God put him in the place of honor at his right hand as Prince and Savior. He did this so the people of Israel would repent of their sins and be forgiven. 32 We are witnesses of these things and so is the Holy Spirit, who is given by God to those who obey him.”

          Acts 10:
           39 “And we apostles are witnesses of all he did throughout Judea and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a cross, 40 but God raised him to life on the third day. Then God allowed him to appear, 41 not to the general public, but to us whom God had chosen in advance to be his witnesses. We were those who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42 And he ordered us to preach everywhere and to testify that Jesus is the one appointed by God to be the judge of all—the living and the dead. 43 He is the one all the prophets testified about, saying that everyone who believes in him will have their sins forgiven through his name.”

          Acts 13:
           29 “When they had done all that the prophecies said about him, they took him down from the cross and placed him in a tomb. 30 But God raised him from the dead! 31 And over a period of many days he appeared to those who had gone with him from Galilee to Jerusalem. They are now his witnesses to the people of Israel.

          Acts 1:
           1 In my first book I told you, Theophilus, about everything Jesus began to do and teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven after giving his chosen apostles further instructions through the Holy Spirit. 3 During the forty days after his crucifixion, he appeared to the apostles from time to time, and he proved to them in many ways that he was actually alive. And he talked to them about the Kingdom of God.

          My point is how many witnesses does one need in court? 12 or 500? smile
          If someone does NOT want to believe, they will not, no matter if millions testify.

          I am curious as to why YOU do not know about the 500 mentioned? smile

          1. Fairbear profile image54
            Fairbearposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Since you're using the court system as an example, I'll underline my point by the same means. You made reference not to five hundred people's testimony, but to that of only two -- the writers of the books, Acts and 1 Corinthians. And only one of those writers mentions the five hundred. That claim would amount to precisely nothing at all in a court of law. Not unless it was corroborated by the five hundred witnesses themselves. The same thing goes for the claims made by the writer of Acts. Furthermore, what you have produced is what a court of law would call "hearsay." That is, the testimony of one person about the testimony of another. And hearsay does not hold up in the judicial system. You can't even call it an eye witness account, because it's not.

            If I told you that me and five hundred others witnessed an elephant fly, would you believe me? You'd probably ask to speak to the other five hundred witnesses, wouldn't you? Or would you just take my word for it?

            1. Shaul Stein profile image54
              Shaul Steinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve.
              But Peter and the apostles replied,...We are witnesses of these things.
              we apostles are witnesses of all he did throughout Judea and in Jerusalem.
              Jesus was first seen by the two Marys. Mt.28:1,8,9.
              Jesus was first seen by Mary Magdalene. Mk.16:9; Jn.20:1,14,15.
              The two Marys and Salome went to the tomb. Mk.16:1.
              Eleven disciples saw Jesus. Thomas was not there. Mt.28:16,17; Jn.20:19-25. Later Thomas came and saw and believed too.

              Is that enough?

              1. Fairbear profile image54
                Fairbearposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Peter did not write his testimony, if indeed he even had one. Nor did the Twelve write anything. Nor did Mary Magdeline write anything. There are only four writers of the New Testament Gospels, none of whom can be known for sure. Anything that they claim they heard from someone else is hearsay. Are you suggesting that those four individuals were incapable of lying? Out of all the people who ever lived, only those four were incapable of fabricating a false truth? I'm sorry, but that wouldn't hold a drop of water in the American Judicial System. Get it right. You're only talking about four people, five if you count Paul.

                1. Shaul Stein profile image54
                  Shaul Steinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  So none of the apostles are listed here and they did not write anything?
                  and they all died for they faith and yet were lying about it all?
                  Hummmm...NOT !!!........and none of these are witnesses?

                  James
                  Galatians
                  1 & 2 Thessalonians
                  Mark
                  Matthew
                  1 Corinthians
                  2 Corinthians
                  Romans
                  Luke
                  Acts
                  Colossians, Ephesians
                  Philippians, Philemon
                  1 Peter
                  1 Timothy
                  Titus
                  Hebrews
                  2 Peter
                  2 Timothy
                  Jude
                  John
                  1, 2, 3 John
                  Revelation

    2. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
      Vladimir Uhriposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Hitler, Soviets, American rewritten history. Many historians  are bias.
      One cannot trust historian outside the Bible. But Word of God never changes. I believe in Bible 100% but one must understand it. Wisdom is the principal thing Solomon said.

      1. Shaul Stein profile image54
        Shaul Steinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        WELL SAID big_smile

      2. David Bowman profile image59
        David Bowmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        How do you know it is the word of God? How do you know that the writers of the Bible were not biased? Just because something never changes that doesn't mean that it is correct. Actually, the Bible has changed over the centuries. Archaeologists have found many different versions of the Gospels. New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman gave an excellent lecture about this topic at Stanford University. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JalAycnT … re=related

    3. BJC profile image67
      BJCposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Do you see the wind blow?  Do you see the air we breathe?  Did you see the person who made your vehicle?    These are miracles.  If you can come up with a definite yes to all of the above then your argument would be valid.  We see the rsults of the wind and the result of the air we breathe, we ride in a vehicle that was made by someone we don't know (now, that takes faith)  Bottom line, believe what you want because one day we will all stand before the Father and know the truth.

      1. Shaul Stein profile image54
        Shaul Steinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        big_smile i like that~~~~~ "the Father and know the truth"

      2. David Bowman profile image59
        David Bowmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Those are all ridiculous comparisons. I can see the effects of the wind blowing, so I know there is some type of substance not visible to our eyes and its force can affect objects causing them to move. Air (the gas that is comprised of oxygen and nitrogen molecules) has been examined in the lab, but I would not have taken its existence on faith before such observations were possible. We know automobiles are put together in factories by human workers; it is not claimed that they are magically conjured into existence out of thin air. Riding in a vehicle made by someone you don't know hardly classifies as faith. Common experience informs us about probability and reliability. There is nothing supernatural or miraculous about any of the above.

        On the other hand, I have yet to witness anyone able to perform feats that fly in the face of reality. I see no reason to take stories that claim that such things occured at face value. You are welcome to do so if you wish. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. I was just offering my opinion to the OP.

        1. BJC profile image67
          BJCposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          One day, you will find out the THE truth.  Hope you're on the right side.

          Science is proving that biblical events did happen.

          1. David Bowman profile image59
            David Bowmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I would like to see some of that science that supposedly proves the biblical events. You would be the very first to ever show me such evidence.

      3. Make  Money profile image81
        Make Moneyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        David the Census of Quirinius was "in AD 6/7 during the reign of the Roman Emperor Augustus, when Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria ... An account of the census was given by the first century historian Josephus, who associated it with the beginning of a resistance movement that he called the Zealots."

        Yes Herod I or Herod the Great died in 4 BC before the Census.  But "He is often confused with his son Herod Antipas, also of the Herodian dynasty, who was ruler of Galilee (4 BC - 39 AD) during the time of John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth. Herod is known for his colossal building projects in Jerusalem and other parts of the ancient world, including the rebuilding of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, sometimes referred to as Herod's Temple. Some details of his biography can be gleaned from the works of the 1st century AD Roman-Jewish historian Josephus Flavius."

        Also Herod Antipas "(before 20 BC – after 39 AD) was a first century AD ruler of Galilee and Perea, who bore the title of tetrarch ("ruler of a quarter"). He is best known today for his purported role in the events that led to the executions of John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth ... After inheriting his territories when the kingdom of his father Herod the Great was divided upon his death in 4 BC, Antipas ruled them as a client state of the Roman Empire."

        The Bible mentions Herod the Tetrarch but it does not mention Herod the Great, at least mine doesn't.

        “Herod” is a family name like Smith or Johnson. The Herods governed Israel from about 37 BC to AD 66. This family came from Edom, where the descendents of the line of Esau lived (the Israelites were descendents of Jacob, Esau’s brother)."

        The Bible mentions Edom 85 times, sometimes not very flattering.

        I guess this was why Jesus said "thou art blasphemed by them that say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan" twice in Revalation 2:9 and Revalation 3:9.

  3. Jerami profile image74
    Jeramiposted 8 years ago

    I believe absolutely the written words that Jesus is being quoted. I do not believe interpretations of scripture when they discredit the words of Christ.

    1. Shaul Stein profile image54
      Shaul Steinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      so is that an A answer or a B ? the Bible is far more than Jesus' words.

      interpretations aside as they were not part of the question sir.

      1. Jerami profile image74
        Jeramiposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        A... I would say that I believe it all, but I do not believe that the bible is all that there is.

        1. profile image0
          Madame Xposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Excellent point.

        2. Shaul Stein profile image54
          Shaul Steinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          please elaborate on that sir. smile

          i know a lot of other things have been written, so if one write a book and yet denies Messiah, is this a good thing?

          1. Jerami profile image74
            Jeramiposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            It is my understanding that there were other letters such as was included in ou bible that were written by all of the diciples that were not included in our bible. These and other writers as well that were alive then and had much to say. Our bible does not contain all of the truth that exists.  I apologise for for my late answer, just saw the Question

  4. AEvans profile image78
    AEvansposted 8 years ago

    My answer is (A) why do we not question the air that we breathe? We know we need it to surivive? So why do we question the word of God? For some it is for better understanding, for others it is hard to understand but for everyone so long as the Bible exists so many will question the word of God. What are your beliefs Shaul? Why do you ask so many questions? Do you believe or not believe? If you believe why? If you do not believe please explain. smile

    1. Shaul Stein profile image54
      Shaul Steinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      i ask a lot of questions to gather the mindset of peoples. smile
      to know what is being taught and or interpreted.

      my Teacher has taught me to ask a lot of questions, like He did.
      not because He did not know the answers, but that people need to think about what they believe so they can tell it to others.

      i think if you look at my posts you can tell what i believe. big_smile
      i believe Messiah called the scriptures what they are when He said...

      "you search the scriptures because you think you have life in them, but I tell you that they all speak of Me"

      that is all i need to know, cannot get a better witness about it. big_smile
      He made no correction to any of them either.
      Blessed be His glorious name.
      Amen.

      it's hard to argue with someone who comes to visit you and call Himself the truth. wink

      1. AEvans profile image78
        AEvansposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Now that is the truth and keep on asking seek and you shall find. smile

  5. profile image43
    badcompany99posted 8 years ago

    (B) and I cant be arsed naming bits !

  6. profile image0
    \Brenda Scullyposted 8 years ago

    i absolutely believe A.... glad i have a faith these days, don't know how people survive without one, even though of course hub pages does help

    1. James Agbogun profile image60
      James Agbogunposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      This forum contains Epistemology and philosophy of religion. And that involves discussion on voodoo, Islam, etc. I wonder why you decided to point fingers at hubpages. I do not know why the majority tends to assume religion to mean thier own belief. They are easily angered when questions are asked. They tend to preach acceptance first and morals later. But the preacher himself emphasised more on morals.

  7. BJC profile image67
    BJCposted 8 years ago

    If someone is only going to believe parts of the Bible, what part are you going to believe - the ones you like the best.  Think about it.  ....

    1. profile image0
      Madame Xposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Yes. I believe Jesus' own words. All the rest is suspect.

      1. Shaul Stein profile image54
        Shaul Steinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        broad statement, like what is suspect?

        Messiah called them "The Scriptures" and said nothing about any of it being in error or "suspect.

        so i will take His word over mankind's any day. smile

        1. profile image0
          Madame Xposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          The Buddha said, "Do not believe anything that is said, even if I have said it, unless it resonates with your own understanding."

          Jesus' words resonate with my own understanding - the rest does not. Besides, I'm not asking you to "take my word for it". You wanted to know what people thought for research purposes. Well, add this to your research.

          1. Shaul Stein profile image54
            Shaul Steinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            i am adding it all to my research.
            so based on your logic, you siad that the words of Jesus resonated with your understanding.
            He said "the scriptures speak of Him" and those scriptures He said He came to fulfill.
            so if He said the scriptures speak of Him, those are His words, His words resonate with you, yet you say the scriptures are suspect.
            this line of logic does not seem to be a straight line.
            Messiah did not correct any of the scriptures in Israel.

            so if you believe Him and His words, how do you deny the scriptures He said spoke of Him and that He fulfilled as well?

            by the way, "our understanding" is limited, so i will take the understanding of God over my own.

            the scriptures say most emphatically to NOT lean on your own understanding. wink
            Proverbs 3:5

            5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart;
                  do not depend on your own understanding.

            1. profile image0
              Madame Xposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Deciding when to rely on yourself and when not to requires spiritual maturity. I didn't say I was "all-knowing". And I am not here to argue scripture with you. You asked for my opinion in your original question. I gave it to you. So why argue with me about it? If you don't agree, or find fault, that is your prerogative.

              1. Shaul Stein profile image54
                Shaul Steinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                ok, i was not arguing to be clear on that matter.
                i was just taking your line of reasoning to the logical conclusion. smile

                1. profile image0
                  Madame Xposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Your conclusion is not necessarily logical. Yes, Jesus said that scriptures "speak of Him". But that is different than Him speaking Himself. Others speaking of Him don't always ring true to me.

        2. Marisa Wright profile image99
          Marisa Wrightposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          When Messiah said "The Scriptures" he was referring to the Jewish scriptures.  He couldn't have been referring to the New Testament because it hadn't been written yet.

          1. Shaul Stein profile image54
            Shaul Steinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            right, that is what i was saying, the whole of the "Old Testament" was speaking of the Messiah.
            so when someone says they believe "His words" but NOT the OT, i do not think they understand what they are really saying. smile

            the term "Old Testament" is completely a "Christian term"

            it is actually as a whole called The T a N a K (or Tanakh) an acronym.
            T = Torah   (1st 5 books)
            N = Nevi'im (all the prophets)
            K = Ketuvim (all the writings)

      2. BJC profile image67
        BJCposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        So what makes you think only Jesus words are true?

        1. profile image0
          Madame Xposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Your judgement is premature. Just because I stated Jesus in this particular post does not preclude my belief in the words of other saints.

      3. James Agbogun profile image60
        James Agbogunposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        You believe what i believe. It is a surprise that there is a second person with this opinion.

        1. profile image0
          Madame Xposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          I think there are a lot of people who are sick of the manipulative aspects of "preachers" - and therefore are only willing to accept the word of God from the source.

          1. Shaul Stein profile image54
            Shaul Steinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            what is the source?

            1. profile image0
              Madame Xposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Oh for heaven's sake (no pun intended) THE GOSPEL! Where Jesus Himself speaks. That source.

    2. Shaul Stein profile image54
      Shaul Steinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      yeah the whole silly arse " s e e k e r  f r i e n d l y " thing today is a joke.
      pick up you execution stake (cross) deny yourself and follow Me"

      does NOT sound friendly to me. lol

      although it is best for you, but things that are best for us are often not perceived as "friendly"...perception is often an illusion.

      1. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
        Vladimir Uhriposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Take a cross meaning is take a discipline of WORD, which flesh does not like. Believing is also one.

        1. Shaul Stein profile image54
          Shaul Steinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          WELL SAID again !!!

          we all love to have "many ways", this make us feel comfortable, making a hard choice about "One Way" is something we all hate.
          His ways are not like ours at all. smile
          we like "the broad way"
          He says His way is narrow.

  8. Hunting Videos profile image60
    Hunting Videosposted 8 years ago

    It has to be (A). How else can you decide which parts are true and which ones are false. You may not understand all portions of the Bible, however, you must live by faith that what is said is truth.
    The parts I don't understand now I'll wait until I'm in heaven to find the answers.

    1. Shaul Stein profile image54
      Shaul Steinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      well, no need to wait until you get to heaven when we are told to search the scriptures to gain wisdom, understanding and knowledge on earth.

      cannot just give up and say, i will wait and see. we must dig as we are told to do.

      James said "if any man lack wisdom on a matter, let him ask of God"
      not wait till he gets to heaven. smile

      1. Hunting Videos profile image60
        Hunting Videosposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        So true. I do beleive that man will not know all the answers while we are on earth. If we did, we will be God. I do agree we should seek wisdom every day and the Holy Spirit give guidence and spiritual knowledge.

  9. goodfriendiam profile image56
    goodfriendiamposted 8 years ago

    B) don't believe fear is a part of love (God)

    1. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
      Vladimir Uhriposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Who said that fear is part of love? Faith works through love. The fear is opposite of faith.

      1. Shaul Stein profile image54
        Shaul Steinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        the opposite of love is fear, then that leads to no faith, but the fear of The Lord is needed for wisdom, understanding and knowledge.

        fear of man is useless.

        perfect love cast out all fear, not perfect faith casts out all fear, it takes perfect love to do this, faith is a result of perfect love, one can have all faith and not love and that is useless says the scriptures.

    2. Shaul Stein profile image54
      Shaul Steinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      ok, thanks for your input.
      i wonder about this verse though.

      Proverbs 15:33
      The fear of the LORD is the instruction of wisdom; and before honor is humility.

      fear of men is wrong, perfect love cast out that kind of fear.

      1. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
        Vladimir Uhriposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        We must understand that word "fear" means reverence in particular sense.

        1. Shaul Stein profile image54
          Shaul Steinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          in Hebrew
          yir'ah

          definition:
          1) fear, terror, fearing

          a) fear, terror

          b) awesome or terrifying thing (object causing fear)

          c) fear (of God), respect, reverence, piety

          d) revered

          it means that and more my friend.

          in Greek Jesus used this word when He said this in: Luke 12:5
          "But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him."

          phobeō

          1) to put to flight by terrifying (to scare away)

          a) to put to flight, to flee

          b) to fear, be afraid

          1) to be struck with fear, to be seized with alarm

          a) of those startled by strange sights or occurrences

          b) of those struck with amazement

          2) to fear, be afraid of one

          3) to fear (i.e. hesitate) to do something (for fear of harm)

          c) to reverence, venerate, to treat with deference or reverential obedience

          1. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
            Vladimir Uhriposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Yea, I like it.

      2. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
        Vladimir Uhriposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        We may say: We fear to sin. But we do not fear the devil since we have now authority over him.

        1. tantrum profile image60
          tantrumposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            If you fear to sin, and sin occasionaly ,as every  christian human being does, you don't have any authority over the devil. It's  all the way around! Thinking is not a sin and is good for your mind.

          1. Shaul Stein profile image54
            Shaul Steinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            a judge who has authority over you can chose NOT to exercise that authority over you, but it does NOT mean that he does NOT have it in the first place.
            just like a policeman who does not do his job and allows evil to go on that you do,
            it does not remove the fact that he has authority.
            many who have authority do not do the right thing with it at times.
            it takes a great deal to lose ones authority.
            people who abuse their authority answer for it. smile

        2. Shaul Stein profile image54
          Shaul Steinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          yes, the fear of God leads one away from evil.
          the fear of God gives one authority to put evil and it's lord under ones foot. big_smile
          perfect love casting out all fear of men and evil and devils.

          the awesome reverence for God is what gives one the ability to conquer evil, wrongdoing and injustice. this leads to love, mercy and peace. smile

  10. Tom Cornett profile image78
    Tom Cornettposted 8 years ago

    God....66% (if it is good it is of God)
    Lucifer....33%(took 1/3 of heaven...you know gold thrones, yes boy angels and crap)
    Shakespeare....1%
    Man's interpretations....97% ego driven, self serving, hate mongering, self righteous blab.  smile

  11. Colebabie profile image59
    Colebabieposted 8 years ago

    B-
    (maybe a D+?)
    there has to be a middle ground

    1. Shaul Stein profile image54
      Shaul Steinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      dare i ask why?
      you do not have to answer that obviously. smile

      what would that be for you?

      1. Colebabie profile image59
        Colebabieposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        I don't know. That the bible is a book of stories meant to teach lessons.  So could some of them have happened... maybe. But it is all up to interpretation. And some take that interpretation quite literally and exact, and some take it more loosely. So there are a lot of questions to ask. Does one believe the events in the Bible occurred? Does one believe everything in the Bible is the word of God? Does one agree with everything the Bible says (it's teachings)?

        One may believe all of the above, and yet not follow it at all.

  12. Lisa HW profile image80
    Lisa HWposted 8 years ago

    I believe it's a bunch of stories written to teach lessons and try to share wisdom.  I can see how people who believe in God and believe that He's everywhere (including in the hearts/minds of human beings) could believe that efforts to teach lessons and share wisdom in a pretty uncivilized time could be said to be God's messages sent through the words of human beings.

    I believe that just as writers on HubPages use different approaches in their Hubs (some write fiction, some write non-fiction, etc. etc.) the same is most likely true of stories in the Bible.  Some of the things believed to miracles and super-natural happenings at the time have since been explained by science (now that we live in a time when natural phenomena are better understood).  In other words, while I think there is some wisdom to the some of what's in the Bible, I don't believe it's what a lot of people believe it is.  (Bring on the lightning strike now!!  smile  )

  13. Colebabie profile image59
    Colebabieposted 8 years ago

    I agree Lisa. smile

  14. White Teeth profile image58
    White Teethposted 8 years ago

    It is rather pointless unless you believe it all...but it is rather absurd to believe it all...thus it fails...

    Unless it all true...then it is just parables, allegory, and symbolism...nothing special...just philosophy...not Holy...

    Thomas Jefferson re-wrote the bible to remove the parts he thought absurd...including the resurrection...a huge percentage of Americans choose to ignore the bits about the devil...what's the point?...unless the bible is literal...it is "make up your own religion" time...

    And if it is literal...we are pawns of a God who created us to worship him...and who will torment us unmercifully unless we obey...obedience and blind worship is key...god is kind of a bastard...Lucifer chose a different path, as most free will kind of people would...

    ...so...None of the above...

    1. Mireille G profile image70
      Mireille Gposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Nothing special you say, but several thousand years after the first book was ever found we are still talking about it. We still talk about the Iliad and Homer but just a few people who are studying it are really talking about it, how many millions of people talk about the Bible today? Have you seen any other book that has accomplished that. I'd say it's pretty special.

      1. Shaul Stein profile image54
        Shaul Steinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        big_smile

      2. White Teeth profile image58
        White Teethposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        the book may be special in the minds of humans…millions have been slaughtered because of it…but...if it is not literal…then millions slaughtered because of fables?….is someone’s personal satisfaction,  mental well being, and/or self-righteous indignation more important than a human life?…only if God commands…but where is God?…if the bible is not literal, then God is a parable…

        is it a testament to God...or supreme evidence of human failing...

  15. Shaul Stein profile image54
    Shaul Steinposted 8 years ago

    big_smile

  16. Mireille G profile image70
    Mireille Gposted 8 years ago

    Someone stated that the miracle was a bit of a problem. But miracles are in the eyes of the beholder so to speak. First let me say that I am not a Christian so that I cannot be accused of speaking from one point of view that of christianity.

    Now I was saying about the eyes of the beholder: One night around 2 in the morning I was driving in a snow storm because no hotels had space and I thought I could make it to the next town and find shelter. I had been driving a long time and several hours in the storm. I was very tired. At one point I was forced off my lane by an 18 wheeler. I was unsure of what was going on. All I know is that somehow I stopped the car (or I did not but the car stopped in a deep snow drift) and had it not the next minute would have been fatal.
    When that happened I had two choices, thank God for giving me a miracle, or choose to say something like luck was on my side, or coincidence. I chose the words, thank you God for this miracle. It's a miracle if you choose it to be, but when it happens to you there is some comfort in it.

  17. Valerie F profile image60
    Valerie Fposted 8 years ago

    We have actually more evidence for the Bible's reliability than we do that Homer composed the Iliad.

    Anyway, I believe that the Bible is 100% the inspired word of God, although I by no means adhere to a literalist interpretation.

  18. James S. Thornton profile image58
    James S. Thorntonposted 8 years ago

    I only believe Luke 14:26 and Matthew 10:34.

    1. tantrum profile image60
      tantrumposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting. It looks  as if it's true !

      1. James Agbogun profile image60
        James Agbogunposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        With those quotations, i think it is difficult to find a christian.

    2. Shaul Stein profile image54
      Shaul Steinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      what is your understanding of these verses?
      what do you think they mean?

  19. Song-Bird profile image83
    Song-Birdposted 8 years ago

    A - I absolutely believe it all.  We can't pick and choose to serve our purposes.

    1. Shaul Stein profile image54
      Shaul Steinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      yes and amen smile

      .......that would lead to anarchy, chaos, and mayhem.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image61
        Mark Knowlesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Otherwise known as reality. wink

        And probably an improvement on the wars and killing you guys encourage?

        1. nicomp profile image71
          nicompposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Notice he didn't answer the question. Just trollin' again.

          1. Shaul Stein profile image54
            Shaul Steinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            why answer a question like that?
            no place have i written i condone wars and killing. smile

  20. waynet profile image77
    waynetposted 8 years ago

    Yawn! .........What was the question again!?

  21. Shaul Stein profile image54
    Shaul Steinposted 8 years ago

    Great observation Mike smile

  22. Shaul Stein profile image54
    Shaul Steinposted 8 years ago

    @ David Bowman: i replied to you with this and i am not sure if you saw it sir. we believe a lot of things from documented eye witness accounts, religious or not. but esp. the secular accounts.

    many a historian, believer and not, have verified the accuracy of the accounts written. and if an apparent discrepancy shows up, well i can say that our own history has them too.
    i look at someone like Josephus and cannot refute him.

    if you witnessed a miracle, would you believe that they happened?
    it seems that with a multitude of witnesses who were there and saw them and wrote them down would be evidence enough.
    we believe eye witness accounts from people about all kinds of things happening in our own history or at the ball park or from our grandparents.
    i think it is hard for us to believe anything we do not see. it does not even have to be a "miracle" and yet we still refuse to believe it just because the "all knowing we" were not present and 500 people cannot tell us a thing because "we" have to see it ourselves.
    if it was a court of law and 500 witnesses lined up and said they saw a miracle and they are not related, well who is going to discount that?

    answer is.
    anyone who was not there present. smile

    for me it is about believing in the teachings of The Savior. big_smile

    1. David Bowman profile image59
      David Bowmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      What secular accounts would those be? If you are referring to Josephus, it is thought by most scholars that the Testamonium Flavianum is a Christian interpolation or possibly a complete forgery. Also important to consider is the fact that Josephus could not have been a contemporary of Christ as he was born in 37 A.D.; well after the supposed death of Christ. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

      I am skeptical of anything or anyone that claims to have witnessed something that turned reality on its head. I think that is reasonable.

  23. David Bowman profile image59
    David Bowmanposted 8 years ago

    Pulling out some of the ole' copy and paste apologetics huh?

    The census may have taken place, but the requirement for the residents of Judea to return to their cities of birth is not attested to historically. Such a requirement makes absolutely no sense and has never been a common practice for census taking in any era to my knowledge.

    As far as it being Herod the Great, I think Matthew clearly attests to this:

    2:15 And was there until the DEATH OF HEROD: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. (Referring to the holy family returning from Egypt after Herod's death.)

    Which places Jesus' birth before 4 b.c., the date of Herod's death, which your apologetic material also attests to.

    Luke states:

    Luke 2:1
    And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius [or Quirinius in other versions of the Bible] was governor of Syria.)

    Quirinius became governer of Syria in 6 CE, ten years after king Herod's death. An unmistakable error.

    1. Make  Money profile image81
      Make Moneyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      No Dave the above was not a copy and paste from apologetic material.  I looked it up this afternoon.  Which is the reason why some of it is wrong.

      This is interesting.  As you pointed out from Matthew 2:15 the Holy Family returned from Egypt after Herod's death.  So the Herod spoken about in Matthew 2:15 has to be Herod the Great, not Herod Antipas his son.

      Yeah my Bible calls Quirinius, Cyrenius too.

      From the Catholic Encyclopedia we see proof that there was a census before 6 AD in the time of Herod the Great and that the birth of Jesus Christ could have happened as far back as 7 BC which puts it in the time of Herod the Great.
      http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03731a.htm
      (Scroll down to the Date of the nativity of Jesus Christ)


      To corroborate I found this non-Catholic source that shows that Quirinius or Cyrenius was in charge as the assessor of property in Judea during the first census and they were to return to their cities of birth.
      http://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/quirinius.htm
      (A list of sources can be found at the bottom of the web page.)


      So in reality seeing the birth of Jesus Christ was in 7 BC or 6 BC this year should be 2002 or 2003 AD (Anno Domini or In the Year of Our Lord).

      Sorry David, I should have known better than to use wikipedia as my source material for the first 3 links in my previous post.  Seeing anyone can post to wikipedia it is often proven wrong.  Another inaccuracy of the wikipedias above is that it makes it sound like Herod Antipas rebuilt the Second Temple in Jerusalem but it was more likely Herod the Great that renovated the Second Temple around 19 BC.  It's believed that the construction of the Second Temple was started around 536 BC.   

      But thank you very much for giving me the iniciative to look this up and prove the Bible correct again.  This just goes to show that if enough research is done we can always disprove those critics that try to show that the Bible is not 100% accurate.  Maybe not immediately but always eventually.

      Mike

      1. David Bowman profile image59
        David Bowmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Yes, I have heard all of this before. A lot of fudging of numbers and claims of prior administrations are assumed to fix the errors. But, wait! What happens when we factor in the death of John the baptist? We get, yet again, another error. John the Baptist died in 30 C.E. (if you know your Bible, Jesus began his ministry after the death of John the Baptist), and Luke states that Jesus began his ministry "around the age of thirty":

        Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

        We know John's death had to be around the year thirty since Luke clearly states that he began his ministry "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" (A.D. 14-37):

        Luke 3:1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,

        3:2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
         
        3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

        So, if Jesus was born before 4 B.C., he would have been well over thirty years of age at the time of John the Baptists' death. How can this be reconciled?

        1. Make  Money profile image81
          Make Moneyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Easy, if our calender is off by 6 or 7 years for the birth of Jesus Christ then it is also off for John the Baptists and all the contemporaries.

          We know from Luke 1 that Mary was pregnant with Jesus when she visited her cousin Elizabeth who was also pregnant with John the Baptists at the same time.  In fact John leaped for joy in Elizabeth's womb when Elizabeth heard Mary's salutation.

          Luke 1:41-42 "41 And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42 And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb."

          And we know from previous posts that Herod Antipas the tetrarch took part in the executions of both John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth.

  24. Valerie F profile image60
    Valerie Fposted 8 years ago

    I recall once that secular historians insisted there were no such people as Hittites, and therefore mention of them in the Bible had to be an error.

    The Romans being rather nitpicky about keeping records, I don't know how likely it would be to find some archeological evidence that challenges too much of what we know about the Roman Empire in those days, but an open minded, equal opportunity skeptic should not rule out the possibility. After all, archeology has dispelled previously held notions on the past before.

    Still, to dismiss the Bible because of a minor detail of who was governor when is, in my opinion, missing the forest for the trees. Even in my own lifetime, I have observed people have trouble remembering who was President 35 years ago. The Bible is supposed to be a Divinely inspired anthology of many various kinds of literature, very little of which is even intended to serve specifically and literally as historical record. It's not in and of itself a history book.

  25. Shaul Stein profile image54
    Shaul Steinposted 8 years ago

    @ David Bowman
    do you think any of it is true at all?

    do you think any of what Messiah said is true?
    it has been proven that He was a real person.
    i hope you know that at least.

    1. David Bowman profile image59
      David Bowmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      As I have already stated, only the parts of the Bible that have been corroborated by other reliable sources.

      Jesus may or may not have been a real person. Doesn't really matter to me. I believe Buddha and Muhammad were likely real individuals, but I don't think Buddha was born speaking, as it is stated in the Buddhist tradition, nor do I believe that Muhammad split the moon in two as it is stated in the Islamic tradition. I regard the claims of the Bible in the same light. Does this answer your question?

      1. Shaul Stein profile image54
        Shaul Steinposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        if you can, please just reply to Mike and not include the entire gigantic long references too....it kills thread. thanks smile

  26. David Bowman profile image59
    David Bowmanposted 8 years ago

     

    If you could show that there were only 30 years from the Death of Herod to the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius you might have a point. Do you have any sources that can confirm this?   

    Make Money, if you want to discuss biblical contradictions, I'm more than willing. If you wish, you can start a thread on that topic and I will participate, otherwise, this post will be my last word on that particular subject on this thread. I don't wish to derail it further with our back and forth exchanges.

    1. Make  Money profile image81
      Make Moneyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I don't know if that is even possible Dave cause if it is recorded that Herod the Great died in 4 BC but the Nativity of Jesus was actually in 6 or 7 BC then in reality Herod the Great's death was actually in 2 or 3 BC.  No if we consider the year 0 that would be 1 or 2 BC.  Oh man, see how confusing this is already. smile

      I'll try.  Anyway this site on Tiberius (yikes, another wikipedia smile) says Tiberius "was the second Roman Emperor, from the death of Augustus in AD 14".
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius 

      If we take 6 or 7 years off 14 AD we come to 7 or 8 AD.  Then add the 15 years of reign for Tiberius we come to 22 or 23 AD.

      If Jesus was born in 6 or 7 BC then this would put Jesus at the age of 28 or 29 if He was born in 6 BC.  Or 29 or 30 if He was born in 7 BC.  No we still have to take in the year 0 so that could possibly put Jesus at the age of 30 or 31 during the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius with these figures.

      I know what you are getting at Dave, Luke 3:1-2.  Luke 3 mentions Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist.  Which also started Jesus' 3 and a half year mission when He was 30.

      Luke 3:1-2 "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and Philip his brother tetrarch of Iturea, and the country of Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilina; 2 Under the high priests Annas and Caiphas; the word of the Lord was made unto John, the son of Zachary, in the desert."

      So this does equate.  Cool.

      Nope.  You wanted me to show that there were only 30 years from the Death of Herod to the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius.  With the figures above there were less than 30 years from the Death of Herod to the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius.  So I guess I don't know what you are getting at Dave.  That still may prove what you want, I don't know?  It just mentions Tiberius this one time in my Bible.   

      Yeah sorry folks for derailing this thread but I hope we are all taking something from it.

      Dave if you want to start a thread to discuss biblical contradictions I will try to contribute.  But it is difficult.  Yesterday I forgot to eat until after 7:00 PM.  Consider it fasting, I could lose some weight anyway. smile

  27. Luciendasky profile image73
    Luciendaskyposted 8 years ago

    I am going to say secret answer E. Some of it... and the jury is still out on the rest of it...

  28. Shaul Stein profile image54
    Shaul Steinposted 8 years ago

    why is anyone "HUNG UP ON" the whole thing about testimony being written down 30 years after something happened?

    I know I can remember in great detail things that happened to me, to my friends, to my family, on TV, while on vacation 30 years ago and blah blah blah....
    no big deal.

    And how much better when you go to say a 30th high school reunion and talk to everyone? They remember stuff like it was yesterday.

    So let's NOT use this for an argument, it does NOT fly, much less land. big_smile

 
working