# Is the Bible 100% truth?



## shesulsa

We've all heard that saying ... "Either it all applies or none of it applies."

What say you?


----------



## Jonathan Randall

shesulsa said:
			
		

> We've all heard that saying ... "Either it all applies or none of it applies."
> 
> What say you?


 
I think your poll needs a third option instead of just an either/or. In other words, it asks you to choose between either true, even in its symbolism, or "fabrication". For me it is neither - rather it is between those two extremes. Truth, with some symbolism to be taken figuratively, not literally, yet not a fabrication or total distortion. Good question you pose - just needs one more option. Not sure doesn't work for me because I AM sure - of _my_position.


----------



## lenatoi

I DO beleive it 100%. It sounds to me like you are about to get a few people a bit stirred up. Which of the answers do you choose?


----------



## shesulsa

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> I think your poll needs a third option instead of just an either/or. In other words, it asks you to choose between either true, even in its symbolism, or "fabrication". For me it is neither - rather it is between those two extremes. Truth, with some symbolism to be taken figuratively, not literally, yet not a fabrication or total distortion. Good question you pose - just needs one more option. Not sure doesn't work for me because I AM sure - of _my_position.



Option 3 is "Not Sure" - you could pick that.


----------



## Jonathan Randall

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Option 3 is "Not Sure" - you could pick that.


 
But I AM sure...


----------



## Jenna

Please forgive me if I am reading it all wrong but that sounds quite a loaded question and though I currently claim no particular religious affiliations I really would hope and yeah, trust! the intention of this poll was honest rather than to be a platform to encourage further polarisation between those who are in the Christian faith and those who are not. 

We are ALL searching for the SAME THING on this small world with WAY too many divisions already  

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------



## Gemini

If I remember correctly, The Bible is made up of 66 separate books, each written from a personal pov. Therefore, because we all see things from our own angle, it cannot be 100% accurate. I mean, I'm sure it's a 100% accurate to each individual that contributed, but sometimes what we see, hear or believe isn't true anywhere but in our own mind. It was no different back then. Yet, though it's full of personal observations, metaphores and parables, I still believe that its intent is 100% accurate, if for no other reason than I choose to.


----------



## Kreth

Gemini said:
			
		

> If I remember correctly, The Bible is made up of 66 separate books, each written from a personal pov. Therefore, because we all see things from our own angle, it cannot be 100% accurate.


Also keep in mind that many books were dropped from the Bible. Why, because of contradictory accounts? The fact that early translations of the Bible were done by the ruling class doesn't vouch well for its accuracy either.


----------



## fightingfat

Kreth said:
			
		

> Why, because of contradictory accounts?


 
Well that's a bit simplistic don't you think?
I think you may have mis-framed your question here. Would it have been more accurate to say 'do you believe the Bible is the infallible word of God?' because as Gemini said, you can't really apply the term 'truth' to a collection of historical writings in this way.

For me, the Bible is divinely inspired, a collection of writings, by men. But what is important is the story and the message. Remember Bible means library- it is a collection of books and cannot be taken at face value. You need a key to unlock it's secrets.


----------



## BrandiJo

wo 50 50 so far i voted 100% true but i was born and raised that way


----------



## mrhnau

BrandiJo said:
			
		

> wo 50 50 so far i voted 100% true but i was born and raised that way



I'm not so suprised at those results, just at the 0% unsure. that is a bit suprising.... at least so far its 0%


----------



## Makalakumu

I do not believe in the ultimate veracity of the Bible.  It is a work of humans who have given subjective interpretations of things that may or may not have occured.  And then, one must deal with the fact that there are literally hundreds (I've held 17 different ones myself) of different versions of the Bible.  And they all say different things to one varying degree or another.  So which one of those are true?  They all can't be true or the word "truth" would lose any meaning at all.  So, in a nutshell, this is why I do not think the Bible is true in any sense of the word.  Does this mean that it is useless?  Of course not.  Meaningless?  Of course not.


----------



## fightingfat

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> And then, one must deal with the fact that there are literally hundreds (I've held 17 different ones myself) of different versions of the Bible. And they all say different things to one varying degree or another. So which one of those are true?


 
Translations- there are different scholarly interpretations of what was intended in the original text (Hebrew or Greek). These aren't different versions. Also, this is part of the fun of the Bible, understanding what is said in it's original language and how it can be translated in a historical and political context. There's only one different 'version' that I'm aware of and that's the Jehovah's Witnesses 'New World translation'.

The Catholic Bible contains more books than the Protestant one too.


----------



## terryl965

shesulsa said:
			
		

> We've all heard that saying ... "Either it all applies or none of it applies."
> 
> What say you?


 
Can I ask a question? why is the poll only for the Bible what about the Book Of God and are you talking new or old version?

Sorry now on to the question No I do not believe the Bible is 100% actualic, people wrote and other interpeted what they believed it to be. But the Book of God is for me and my beliefs. As for my wife the new testiment is right for her and that is fine by me. For my mother it is the old testiment and that is great for her. I believe everybody beliefs 100% of which version they use so can it 100% accuate by the statement above that would means no!
Terry


----------



## fightingfat

Isn't 'The Book of God' simply the Bible written as a novel by Walter Wangerin Jr?



> From Publishers Weekly
> "This is not the Bible," Wangerin (The Book of the Dun Cow; Miz Lil and the Chronicles of Grace; etc.) says of this newest work. But it is a novel featuring many of the Bible's most dramatic characters.


----------



## shesulsa

In reply to some questions:


			
				Jenna said:
			
		

> I really would hope and yeah, trust! the intention of this poll was honest rather than to be a platform to encourage further polarisation between those who are in the Christian faith and those who are not.


Of course it was honest.  I do not wish to increase the gap between faiths, though I do feel that some people who call themselves 'Christians' might need to examine some things more closely.


			
				Kreth said:
			
		

> Also keep in mind that many books were dropped from the Bible. Why, because of contradictory accounts? The fact that early translations of the Bible were done by the ruling class doesn't vouch well for its accuracy either.


Thank you, Captain Future Conversation. :boing1:


			
				fightingfat said:
			
		

> I think you may have mis-framed your question here. Would it have been more accurate to say 'do you believe the Bible is the infallible word of God?' because as Gemini said, you can't really apply the term 'truth' to a collection of historical writings in this way.


No, I didnt' misframe my question, I asked it in the format it was for a reason.  This question is later in a series of polls I will post.  Thanks.


			
				terryl965 said:
			
		

> Can I ask a question? why is the poll only for the Bible what about the Book Of God and are you talking new or old version?


Because right now this is what I wanted to post the poll on and I did word it according to how I want people to answer the question.


			
				lenatoi said:
			
		

> Which of the answers do you choose?


I choose no.


----------



## terryl965

Because right now this is what I wanted to post the poll on and I did word it according to how I want people to answer the question.

Thanks for the response I hope I did not offend your post Shesulsa, I have always respected you and your threads. I will had off until you get around to the other polls you mention. Good luck with this one.
Terry


----------



## Makalakumu

fightingfat said:
			
		

> Translations- there are different scholarly interpretations of what was intended in the original text (Hebrew or Greek). These aren't different versions. Also, this is part of the fun of the Bible, understanding what is said in it's original language and how it can be translated in a historical and political context. There's only one different 'version' that I'm aware of and that's the Jehovah's Witnesses 'New World translation'.
> 
> The Catholic Bible contains more books than the Protestant one too.


 
These are more then just translations.  They are diffferent versions.  Some have completely different books.


----------



## shesulsa

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> These are more then just translations.  They are diffferent versions.  Some have completely different books.


That's interesting - I've never seen a Bible with different books included as the officially published Old or New Testament.  

The versions I've spent time perusing are the King James Version, American Standard Version, New World Version, and the New International Version.  Then also there was a publication in the 70's called 'The Good News' which was a current-day language version of The New Testament.  All these versions had the same books.

Which published version has other books?



			
				terryl965 said:
			
		

> I hope I did not offend your post Shesulsa



Not at all, Terry.


----------



## fightingfat

There aren't. There is a Canon of approved books, an old and a New Testament. The Catholic Bible includes a number of OT books not included in the Protestant version, these are called 'The Deuterocanonicals', other than that the contents do not vary.


----------



## mrhnau

shesulsa said:
			
		

> That's interesting - I've never seen a Bible with different books included as the officially published Old or New Testament.



The Apocrypha has a few additional books. Alot of Catholic published bibles have those in there. Those are the only popular ones I'm aware of. Here is a link to a few books

hope this helps...


----------



## fightingfat

The Deuterocanonicals are not Apocraphal, they are seven books&#8212;1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith.

The books that comprise Scripture were not canonised until centuries after Christ. Even when that list was established in A.D. 382, the writings were not collected into a single book until after the printing press came into existence. Even Guttenburg&#8217;s Bible was published in more than one volume.

Besides, the Greek word here for "book" is more accurately translated as "scroll." The book of Revelation likely was written on a scroll, but it would have been impossible for the entire Bible to be.


----------



## jazkiljok

most religious writings are 100 per cent truth... and 2 per cent fact.


----------



## heretic888

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Which published version has other books?


 
The Protestant and Catholic versions of the Christian Bible contain different books, most notably the inclusion (or absence) of the Apocrypha.

The Jewish Bible also has a few different books than either the Protestant or Catholic versions of the so-called "Old Testament".

Upnorthkyosa is right, of course, in that the various manuscripts concerning some of the early Christian texts differ substantially in some areas. It is not, as fightingfat erroneously holds, to be a "translation issue".

For example, all early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark (the earliest of the canonical gospels) end the story with the women witnessing the empty tomb. The so-called "Long Ending" --- involving the resurrected Jesus appearing before the disciples and giving them a final "mission statement" --- is an addition to the text after the original author had long been dead. Some Bibles actually point out (in an endnote, usually) that these chapters are later additions to Mark.

I have made it quite clear in the Jewish Contributions thread as to why I do not believe the Bible to be factually accurate in a literal sense. I do believe that many books of the Bible have spiritual or theological value (I deny the existence of the historical Jesus but not the existence of the Christ), but that they are also interspersed with Bronze Age mythology and political propaganda.

Laterz.


----------



## mantis

I voted no.  

Even the vatican admits there is not bible that is 100% correct, in fact last year they released a publication saying that the bible is an "unreliable" source for catholicsm and christianity!


----------



## fightingfat

Did they? Got a link?


----------



## mantis

fightingfat said:
			
		

> Did they? Got a link?



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html


----------



## fightingfat

mantis said:
			
		

> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html


 
Once again the Times publishes a sensationalist piece hoping to provoke people into thinking the Catholic Church has changed its mind, which of course, she has not. Particularly striking is the comment that Galileo was condemned for defending Copernicus' system which is not true. Galileo was condmened partly because of it but mostly because he claimed the book of Joshua was wrong. Copernicus was a monk of the Catholic Church after all, and the Church didn't say Galileo couldn't hold to his view as a hypothesis. What she said was that if he wanted to assert it Galileo had to prove it. Unfortunately Galileo couldn't. Indeed, it would be left to Sir Issac Newton to provide the mathematical formulae based upon elipitical orbits to do that.

Equally amusing is the idea that belief in 'intelligent design' means one is a fundamentalist. How exactly does Darwinism disprove belief in God? Even Darwin himself was uncertain of what the implications of his theory and Alfred Russell Wallace who published 'On the origin of species' with Darwin and in whose work it was that the term 'natural selection' was initially found believed in God and that he had interceded thrice in temporal affairs: 1) in the creation of matter 2)in the introduction of consciousness in higher beings and 3) in the generation of man's higher facultires. The two men who founded Darwinism disagreed on its conclusions this should make people e.g. journalists who write for the Times, realise that Darwinism is science not philosophy. In science you dont prove negative statements you simply try to establish what the evidence suggests is the most logical explanation of how something has occured. The why is left to others.

This is precisely what Proffessor Keith Ward at Oxford states in his book "God, Chance and Neccessity". Darwinism doesn't state anything about belief or disbelief in God, rather Darwinism is a scientific theory fought over by metaphysical philosophers e.g. Materialists on one side and Theists on the other. Thus, just as with Darwin and Wallace, it is possible to find two biologists in the same faculty at Oxford, Proffessors' Richard Dawkins and Alisdair McGrath, the former who writes books on how science makes theism implausible the latter on how science makes theism more plausible e.g. 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Dawkins and 'Dawkins' God' by McGrath.

Lastly, of course, there is nothing to this at all for Catholics since this is nothing new. The Bible has never been promoted as being literally true in every single sense. If you dont believe me pick up some 3rd century works by an exegete known as Origen of Alexandria (albeit some of Origen's propositions were condemned but his influence is present in a variety of Church Fathers like Sts Athanasius, Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Hilary of Poiters and particularly St Jerome whose Latin vulgate translation of the Bible acted as the official text of the Roman Catholic Church for almost 2,000 years with revisions every so often of course). 

Fundamentalism is a 19th century phenomena it is not the tradition of the Catholic Church, which has always held that scripture must be taken literally but defines literal as what the text is supposed to have originally intended to mean. Often their views were coloured by the science of the day but St Augustine factors this into consideration in his primer on Biblical interpretation 'On Christian Doctrine' stating:

"For if he takes up rashly a meaning which the author whom he is reading did not intend, he often falls in with other statements which he cannot harmonize with this meaning. And if he admits that these statements are true and certain, then it follows that the meaning he had put upon the former passage cannot be the true one: and so it comes to pass, one can hardly tell how, that, out of love for his own opinion, he begins to feel more angry with Scripture than he is with himself."--St Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book 1 Chapter 37. 

The Catholic Church does not base its authority on the Bible because the Bible a testament to the tradition of the Church. 'Biblos' is Greek for Books, books that weren't always together in one collection but were canonised by the Church by verification of their content against the teaching of the Apostles as all doctrine is (St Irenaeus of Lyon 'Against Heresies' Book 3 c.180 AD). Because the Bible is an authentic witness of truth's held by the Church it is referenced by her but the canon of Scripture stands and rests upon her authority. Anyone in any doubt about these things should just pick up the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is a condensed version of the central tenents of the Catholic faith. All the issues supposedly provoked by this move by the English Bishops to simply restate Catholic teaching have been comprehensively dealt with long ago.


----------



## mantis

fightingfat said:
			
		

> Once again the Times publishes a sensationalist piece hoping to provoke people into thinking the Catholic Church has changed its mind, which of course, she has not.



well at that time i found the news on multiple sources.  I just happened to find this one easily on google. 

I mean, im not going to argue against or with your argument especially my rep's get all red every time i enter a thread like this.  But just google the vatican or the bible and see how many headings there are about changes in the bible.  Is the bible still 100% true after all these changes? is it 100% true before the change AND after the change?


----------



## Andrew Green

A true representation of the basis of Christiainity?  Yes.

A true representation of Historical facts?  No, not even close.

Can a metaphor be "true"?  Not really, but it can express something which is true.

As a non-Christian I don't believe the bible to be any more significant to my life then the Myths and stories of any other culture, but when asking for the truth of a story I think the question is a tricky one as the story can be completely made up, but the message of the story still true.


----------



## fightingfat

mantis said:
			
		

> well at that time i found the news on multiple sources. I just happened to find this one easily on google.
> 
> I mean, im not going to argue against or with your argument especially my rep's get all red every time i enter a thread like this.


 
LOL!!  



			
				mantis said:
			
		

> But just google the vatican or the bible and see how many headings there are about changes in the bible. Is the bible still 100% true after all these changes? is it 100% true before the change AND after the change?


 
Truth is relative. :supcool: 

One of the main criticisms leveled at Christianity from Islam is that the Qur'an is faithfull to it's original text, in it's original language, where as the Bible has been altered over the centuries.
I would say that if anything, the modern translations are more true than anything we have had before. A good check on this was the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which, when cross references showed that modern translations were pretty much spot on with these texts- the oldest we have ever come across. That's pretty impressive!
Now, the global nature of Christianity has changed a great deal since the first days after the assumption, but consider if you will the Christian Church. It remains one of the facts of our time, and a fact which no intelligent observer of the contemporary scene will wish to ignore. The Church is made up of a living fabric of events from a contemporary society whose dependednce on it's founder is a permanent feature of it's continuing existence.
In this respect, it is not like studying an extinct organism, or an archaeologist digging up the remains of a forgotten civilisation. The flow is held in living memories, the remembrance gors back in a living chain. At every service there are present elderly people who, 50 or 60 years ago heard certain words spoken by, or in the presence of, men old enough to be their grandparents; there are young people who, it may be, will repeat them in the hearing of their grandchildren. And so the endless chain goes on. For 20 centuries there has not been one single week in which this act of remembrance was not made, one generation reminding another:

The Lord Jesus, on the night of his arrest, took bread, and after giving thanks to God, broke it and said: 'This is my body, which is for you; do this as a memorial of me.' In the same way he took the cup after supper and said, 'This cup is the new covenant sealed with my blood. Whenever you drink it, do this as a memorial of me.'

Or words such as these.

One of the best illustrations of this continuity of memory within the Church for me is that around and about 200 AD there died at Lyon in France the Bishop of that city, Irenaeus by name, one of the outstanding Christian leaders of his time. It happens that a letter of his has come down to us, addressed to an old fellow student named Florinus from whom he had been seperated for many years. The letter brings up reminiscences of their student days together at the city of Smyrna in Asia Minor. In particular he recalls how they used to attend lectures by Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who died about 155 AD at the age of at least 86. He must have been getting on in years when Irenaeus and Florinus heard him. Irenaeus reminds his old companion- and there would have been no point in it if Florinus could not confirm his recollections- how Polycarp used to tell them stories about 'John, the disciple of the Lord', whom he had known personally many years before. Iraneaus, then, in France shortly before 200 AD was able to recall at only one remove, a man who had known Jesus intimately. When the Bishop of Lyons brooke bread with his little congregation as a memorial of the death of Jesus, he was not thinking of something he had found (where Kipling's Tomlinson found his God) 'in a printed book', but of something that he had been told by his old teacher, whose friend had been there and knew. That is what the memory of the Church is like. A corporate memory handed down from generation to generation become what we call a tradition. Our knowledge of about the origins of the church and about its Founder, rests primarily on a living tradition, which had its beginnings in the actual memories of those who had witnessed the events and had personal dealings with the principle Actor in them.


----------



## mantis

i guess we  have to agree on what you mean by 'true'.  it could be correct in context, but that does not make it the words of God or Jesus. so it's like a math book.

If the changes make it 'true' then it started off not being true which by itself should be a big deal!

being global should not affect the religion.  You are looking at the issue kind of backwards.  Theoritically and simply religion comes from God to humans to tell them the do's and donts.  In your argument you are saying humans tell God the do's and donts over time!

IMHO the problem is humans are in charge of 'improving', 'changing', 'keeping', and 'preserving' the holy book.  If this bible was never changed since it was revealed/written maybe it would have been true.

My personal opinion is the Bible is not completely true, and not completely false.  It may have accurate passages, or 'true' ideas and it may have false ones too.


----------



## Andrew Green

mantis said:
			
		

> If the changes make it 'true' then it started off not being true which by itself should be a big deal!



Depends, if the stories are not literally true, but instead express truth perhaps they have to change as the rest of the culture does in order to remain "true."


----------



## fightingfat

What I am trying to illustrate is that the first Christians did not have a Bible, but they still followed Christ. Do you understand?


----------



## Andrew Green

fightingfat said:
			
		

> What I am trying to illustrate is that the first Christians did not have a Bible, but they still followed Christ. Do you understand?



Sure they did, The old testiment was around before Christianity 

The New was being taught orally by the followers of Jesus until someone realised it was good stuff and should be written down


----------



## mantis

fightingfat said:
			
		

> What I am trying to illustrate is that the first Christians did not have a Bible, but they still followed Christ. Do you understand?



Understood. But that by itself should explain why the Bible is not a reliable source to base a religion off of it.


----------



## Andrew Green

mantis said:
			
		

> Understood. But that by itself should explain why the Bible is not a reliable source to base a religion off of it.



No, I disagree (And I'm not even Christian  )

I think Oral history, legends, myths, etc are very important to culture, and have always been.  Ancient Greek religion survives, even if not followed, through it's stories and legends.

Stories are there too teach us, to explain things in a abstract way in order to teach us something.  Kid's love them, and this is how they think.

Yet something in our culture has gone funny as of late.  Stories are no longer important, facts are.  "Stories" try to imitate reality now and the disconnect is not longer there.

The old "Once upon a time in a land far away" model is lost to trying to create modern stories in modern settings.  

But just about any "traditional" culture is full of stories, legends, myths, and other such things.  They shape the culture, teach the young morals and important lessons.  And this goes for anywhere in the world.  Europe had them, Asia does, North American Natives do. 

Perhaps there is an importance to this type of story, not as a literal truth, but as a lesson in truth that has been largely forgotten?


----------



## Touch Of Death

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Sure they did, The old testiment was around before Christianity
> 
> The New was being taught orally by the followers of Jesus until someone realised it was good stuff and should be written down


Actualy there was a lot more word of mouth than what made it in the bible. There were at least four or five people beside Mathew Mark Luke and John that witnessed Christ's teachings. We were allowed a truth not the truth.
Sean


----------



## Xue Sheng

Sorry, late again. I will interject this and go away.

I once had a professor in a College Philosophy of Religion class (many moons ago) that when asked if he thought any of the world religions were true and if so why he responded with If he had to make this choice he would have to say Christianity.

Seriously, this is the reason he gave: No one would make something up with so many contradictions and holes in it. If you were going to design a religion you would do all you could to make it perfect.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Sorry, late again. I will interject this and go away.
> 
> I once had a professor in a College Philosophy of Religion class (many moons ago) that when asked if he thought any of the world religions were true and if so why he responded with If he had to make this choice he would have to say Christianity.
> 
> Seriously, this is the reason he gave: No one would make something up with so many contradictions and holes in it. If you were going to design a religion you would do all you could to make it perfect.


maybe the designers thought of that too. 
Sean


----------



## mantis

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> No, I disagree (And I'm not even Christian  )
> 
> I think Oral history, legends, myths, etc are very important to culture, and have always been. Ancient Greek religion survives, even if not followed, through it's stories and legends.
> 
> Stories are there too teach us, to explain things in a abstract way in order to teach us something. Kid's love them, and this is how they think.
> 
> Yet something in our culture has gone funny as of late. Stories are no longer important, facts are. "Stories" try to imitate reality now and the disconnect is not longer there.
> 
> The old "Once upon a time in a land far away" model is lost to trying to create modern stories in modern settings.
> 
> But just about any "traditional" culture is full of stories, legends, myths, and other such things. They shape the culture, teach the young morals and important lessons. And this goes for anywhere in the world. Europe had them, Asia does, North American Natives do.
> 
> Perhaps there is an importance to this type of story, not as a literal truth, but as a lesson in truth that has been largely forgotten?



What's left NOW is stories and tales.  What has been LOST is probably more than that. Unless you can prove that the entire Bible is all stories.

It's like you're telling me any ancient book that has good stories qualifies to be a source for a religion.


----------



## Andrew Green

mantis said:
			
		

> What's left NOW is stories and tales.  What has been LOST is probably more than that. Unless you can prove that the entire Bible is all stories.



Good point, and it can't be done.  All we have is what is left, not what was lost 

But, I think that goes beyonf the Bible, all we have left from many religions is stories, what was lost we will never know.


----------



## mantis

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Good point, and it can't be done.  All we have is what is left, not what was lost
> 
> But, I think that goes beyonf the Bible, all we have left from many religions is stories, what was lost we will never know.


Except Islam which has a preserved holy book and preserved 'sunnah' which is a record of what the prophet said/did.


----------



## Andrew Green

mantis said:
			
		

> Except Islam which has a preserved holy book and preserved 'sunnah' which is a record of what the prophet said/did.



Which is a interesting example, because even though all of this has been preserved, there are still many branches and interpretations of what it all actually means.

So if even a solid record of a Holy Book can lead to many interpretations of what it actually means, how does literal "truth" fit into all of this?

Perhaps the truth of a story, even a well documented one, is also based on the frame it is set in and what you personally take out of it?


----------



## Touch Of Death

mantis said:
			
		

> Except Islam which has a preserved holy book and preserved 'sunnah' which is a record of what the prophet said/did.


Thats not true the quar' an is a masculanization of a goddess religion. (symbol of moon and goddesses name used for the title of their bible)


----------



## mantis

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Which is a interesting example, because even though all of this has been preserved, there are still many branches and interpretations of what it all actually means.
> 
> So if even a solid record of a Holy Book can lead to many interpretations of what it actually means, how does literal "truth" fit into all of this?
> 
> Perhaps the truth of a story, even a well documented one, is also based on the frame it is set in and what you personally take out of it?



Well there's the text, and there's the 'sunnah'.  The 'sunnah' is an application of the text.  So if you follow both then you will not fall into the interpretation problem.
The other thing is you make it sound there are different interpretations people follow.  That's not accurate.  If you look at the major 2 sects of islam (sunnis and Shiis(sp)) you will realize that they both follow the same text of both sources, but shii's have different 'political' view.  Their view simply says any leader of muslims should be from the prophet's offspring or at least related.

So there is not more than one interpretation.  However, there are translations that are different.  Which is okay as long as they say they are 'translations'.  Translation is not considered the holy book.


----------



## mantis

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Thats not true the quar' an is a masculanization of a goddess religion. (symbol of moon and goddesses name used for the title of their bible)


I have no idea where that came from.

Please elaborate.


----------



## Ray

fightingfat said:
			
		

> One of the main criticisms leveled at Christianity from Islam is that the Qur'an is faithfull to it's original text, in it's original language, where as the Bible has been altered over the centuries.


They can only say this because all variants were collected, destroyed and a particular one was made "the right one." The particular language of the Koran has also been fixed...that is, translations of the Koran are not of equal weight of the arabic Koran. {This is just how I understand it to be}

I've heard it said that some Muslims believe that if the Bible were perserved perfectly then it would, in fact, be the same as the text of the Koran.

But, as far as the Bible goes, since the question asks if even in the symbolism whether the Bible is 100% correct, I must answer "yes" (because I get to define what is symbolism and what is not). However, the account of the swine running of the cliff is off a little, they trolliped more than ran.


----------



## mantis

Ray said:
			
		

> They can only say this because all variants were collected, destroyed and a particular one was made "the right one." The particular language of the Koran has also been fixed...that is, translations of the Koran are not of equal weight of the arabic Koran. {This is just how I understand it to be}
> 
> I've heard it said that some Muslims believe that if the Bible were perserved perfectly then it would, in fact, be the same as the text of the Koran.
> 
> But, as far as the Bible goes, since the question asks if even in the symbolism whether the Bible is 100% correct, I must answer "yes" (because I get to define what is symbolism and what is not). However, the account of the swine running of the cliff is off a little, they trolliped more than ran.


okay, i'll pretend to be the defender of islam/muslims in this thread for a little while.

The story goes to before the destruction of the versions.  
The story starts when the prophet's companions started getting killed in battles.  So the khalif was afraid that the Koran would be lost because there was no compiled record of it.  It was only compiled in poeple's brains.  

So what they did is the khalif asked people from different regions in asian, and africa to send written copies of what they had.  So people already knew the koran and memorized it before it was recorded.  Then they got all of these copies and burned them so it's not scattered all over the place and they kept compiled copies in books.  So instead of verses written here and there, they burned those and put all of  them in a new book to be in one place.  

Has it been fixed? sure not.  It was only compiled in a single book.  How do I know it has not been fixed? because the memorizers have already travelled to afraica and asia and they already taught students.  If you compare the koran  recited by 2 people one from china, and one from south africa they would be reciting the exact same thing with not difference.
The muslims believe that if the Bible was preserved it would have 'agreed' with the koran, and it would not be the same.  Islam's core faith is that Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad are three prophets with  the same main message but different details to fit their eras.  so it would agree but it would not be the same.


----------



## Xue Sheng

OK I lied I didn't go away, but I will after this.

How can the bible be 100% true when it contradicts itself?


----------



## 7starmantis

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> OK I lied I didn't go away, but I will after this.
> 
> How can the bible be 100% true when it contradicts itself?



We've been down that path before, do a search for threads.

7sm


----------



## heretic888

It has always struck me as interesting the great gulf that exists between "believers" and scholars that actually study Biblical History in detail. Certain cherished ideas like Jewish Monotheism, a World Flood, a Jewish exodus from Egypt, and a Davidic Empire are widely held, for example, but have received practically no evidence from the archeological record.

Even on this very thread somebody tried to pass off "apostolic ascension" as historical fact by citing Irenaeus (now _there's_ a reputable source!). Next thing you know, people will be trying to claim, alongside church propagandist Eusebius, that the Alexandrian Therapeutae of Philo were the first "followers of Christ". Hey, maybe somebody well even claim Moses taught Pythagoras!!

Heh, go figure.


----------



## bushi jon

We must remember the bible was GOD inspired and written by man. Mean man is only an animal and GOD is the inlightenment


----------



## Ray

mantis said:
			
		

> okay, i'll pretend to be the defender of islam/muslims in this thread for a little while.


Why pretend?  Is this playtime or are you looking for deep truth?



			
				mantis said:
			
		

> The muslims believe that if the Bible was preserved it would have 'agreed' with the koran, and it would not be the same.


You may be absolutely correct...I will have to go through my papers and find from which source I said that "if the Bible were correctly translated, that it would be the Koran."  



			
				mantis said:
			
		

> Islam's core faith is that Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad are three prophets with the same main message but different details to fit their eras. so it would agree but it would not be the same.


I wonder if it could be said from the Muslim perspective "if humanity had but listened to any one of those earlier prophets and recorded the doctrine correctly then would there have been any need for a later prophet?" or not.


----------



## heretic888

bushi jon said:
			
		

> We must remember the bible was GOD inspired and written by man. Mean man is only an animal and GOD is the inlightenment


 
I am suddenly reminded of G. A. Wells' introduction in his _Who Was Jesus?_, in which he pointed out the Vatican position that divine inspiration does not ensure historical accuracy.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

Oh, and for the record, I do not buy the Muslim myth of "apostolic ascension" (as defended by mantis) any more than I buy the Christian myth of "apostolic ascension" (as defended by fightingfat).

In both cases, we get the illusion that the "original teaching" of the respective faith was somehow monolithic and uniform in nature, with the modern adherents faithfully carrying on these original teachings. 

This, of course, is complete bunk. 

The primitive forms of these faiths were characterized by diversity and pluralism (usually on the local level), not uniformity and monolithism. It was only later, when one group gained a measure of power and control, that there were retroactive attempts to "harmonize" the faith (usually by burning the books of and killing everybody else that disagreed with the new One Vision). 

In the case of Christianity, we get later Catholic redactors forging texts like the pseudo-Pauline "Pastoral Epistles" and the "Acts of the Apostles" sometime between the mid-to-late 2nd century to paint the illusion that Paul and Peter were not at odds in their own lifetimes, something that Paul attests to in his (mostly) authentic epistles like Galatians and Corinthians. In fact, I believe "axe-wielding circumcisionaries" was the term he used, suggesting the Petrine Christians should go all the way and "make eunuchs of themselves".

Like I said in the "Religion in the MA" thread, these religion-type thingies aren't just "intelligently designed" by clever individuals with a unitary vision and message. They evolve gradually over several generations and have their roots in the practices and mores of the culture they find themselves in. 

Stuff isn't created, it "just happens". 

Laterz.


----------



## scottcatchot

I do believe the Bible is 100 percent accurate. All things will come about to prove it to be true in time.


----------



## mantis

scottcatchot said:
			
		

> I do believe the Bible is 100 percent accurate. All things will come about to prove it to be true in time.


except that it keeps changing.
IMHO it has the chance to be proven true if it is constant, but if it changes with time then this argument is not too valid anymore, right?


----------



## fightingfat

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Oh, and for the record, I do not buy the Muslim myth of "apostolic ascension" (as defended by mantis) any more than I buy the Christian myth of "apostolic ascension" (as defended by fightingfat).


 
I don't even know what apostolic ascension is! Do you mean apostolic succession?



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> This, of course, is complete bunk.


 
You speak with some authority? And what is your proof for this?


----------



## OnlyAnEgg

I selected 'Not Sure'.

It's so hard to say, factually, that the Bible is either accurate or inaccurate.  I was -1961 when the New Testament got going, after all.  I feel that the early Old Testament is part myth, part account and a lot of the NT is, as was earlierly mentioned, accurate to a particular POV.

Do I think that the noted aspects (which usually draw fire) are exacting?
Was the universe created in 6 days? No definition of 'day' exists for this time period.

Did everything pop up just as it is? Fossil evidence suggests no.  Who's to say God didn't create evolution?

Did Jesus live and was He the Son of God?  Yes, he lived.  What many people fail to understand is that we are all children of God.

I am not enough of a dogmatic to say 'The Bible sez it; therefor, it's true'.  I have felt far too much in my spiritual journey to say 'It's all bunk.'  'Not Sure' was the only viable choice to me.


----------



## fightingfat

heretic888 said:
			
		

> In fact, I believe "axe-wielding circumcisionaries" was the term he used, suggesting the Petrine Christians should go all the way and "make eunuchs of themselves".


 
The phrase "axe-wielding circumcisionaries" comes from 

Chapter Summaries of The Jesus Mysteries
http://www.egodeath.com/jesusmysterieschapsumm.htm




> *Axe-Wielding Circumcisionaries! *&#8211; 171
> 
> The anti-Gnostic letters of Paul have been found to be forgeries, even though his other letters still oppose other people within the early Christian church. These others in the early church are the ones who insist on maintaining the old Jewish laws. He attacks the practice of circumcision, saying that it will do no good with Christ and it would be better going all the way to becoming eunuchs.
> 
> Paul places no importance on the externals and maintains the importance of the spiritual. Likewise, the Jesus of the Gnostics tells us: "If it were beneficial, their father would beget them already circumcised from their mother. Rather the true circumcision in spirit has become completely profitable."


----------



## Jenna

I do not believe there is any possibility that the bible is 100% fact. And I could care less about that. I read Great Expectations or Animal Farm as works of fiction based upon the reality at those times and I read Anna Karenina as a work of fiction based upon plausibly real characters and I read Brave New World or 1984 as fiction based upon a prophetic vision of the future and my point if there is one is that none of these great works claim to be factual to any degree but all have cutting meaning through past present and future and all engender DEEPER thinking in the reader.

Did the bible ever set itself as a great work of fact? Maybe somewhere along the way it was made out that way. I don't know. For those who believe, it is the word of God.  Yes it is full of contradiction presumably proofreading was not such a sought after skill back then. Does it matter whether the earth really flooded or whether Noah's mates had taken half a day sticking 600 candles on his big cake at the time? Does it matter that nowhere in the bible did anyone consider the possibility of fossilised remains buried under the ash from 60 million years before and what of the origin of Cain and Abel's wives? These things matter a great deal to the sceptics and critics and those still seeking and those subconsciously angry not to have found. To the faithful these contradictions fallacies and omissions do not matter and if you do not have the faith that is ok. Keep searching or at least keep an open mind. Everyone is different. Some have it. Some do not. Some do not believe at all and some desire only to disprove. There is room for everyone I am certain.

What I believe is that the bible is a great work of meaning and philosophy for life. The discrepancies are there and obvious. And so what? If I had any faith left in me I would not read it with the mind of a scholar or scientist but as an open-minded searcher for a way to live my life.

Oh, I also read Kerrang, LOL 

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------



## heretic888

scottcatchot said:
			
		

> I do believe the Bible is 100 percent accurate. All things will come about to prove it to be true in time.


 
You mean like physically impossible acts such as a person being born in _both_ 4 BCE _and_ 6 CE?? Or, how about non-factual claims such as "the Jews" having an annual tradition of releasing convicted criminals or requiring that the layperson always wash his or her hands before eating?? How about some pretty basic confusion as to where the Resurrection scenes take place: Galilee or Jerusalem??

Sorry, but if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck --- it probably ain't a friggin' platypus.


----------



## heretic888

fightingfat said:
			
		

> I don't even know what apostolic ascension is! Do you mean apostolic succession?


 
Meh, same thing. 



			
				fightingfat said:
			
		

> You speak with some authority? And what is your proof for this?



I don't know what "speak with some authority" is supposed to mean, but I have read up on New Testament Scholarship well enough to know what we do and do not have "proof" for.

Seeing as how it is exceedingly unlikely that a "Historical Jesus" even existed in the first place (and please, no more appeals to authority, I've had enough of those), it's a hard sell to pass off the myth of Apostolic Succession with any degree of credulity. But, even if we axiomatically assume Jesus really did exist, the incredible diversity and pluralism of Primitive Christianity attests against any claim for a monolithic succession.

This is evident even as early as Paul's time, when he is having disputes with some of the Christian leaders in Jerusalem (which 2nd century Acts text tries to wash over), namely James and Peter/Cephas.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

fightingfat said:
			
		

> The phrase "axe-wielding circumcisionaries" comes from
> 
> Chapter Summaries of The Jesus Mysteries
> http://www.egodeath.com/jesusmysterieschapsumm.htm


 
Well, in the NIV Bible in my home, that same passage (Phillipians 3:2) reads:

"Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh."

("Flesh" in this context actually refers to the penis and "mutilation" refers to circumcision).

Also, in Galatians 5:12:

"As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!"

The translation differs somewhat from Freke and Gandy's, but the message is pretty much the same. In any event, this goes shoes the conflict in Primitive Christianity between the Pauline groups (who felt the Jewish law and customs to be superfluous) and the Jamesian-Petrine groups (who felt Christians should continue practicing Jewish law).

In no way was Primitive Christianity some kind of monolithic or uniform entity. Peter and James clearly didn't have some kind of "apostolic" authority, or Paul wouldn't so vehemently oppose their teachings.

Laterz.


----------



## Kacey

I chose "not sure" because it was the option that came closest to my opinion... which is that "divinely inspired" and "fact" are not synonomous.  A quote which expresses my opinion may help"



> "I remember a time some year ago, on Earth," Sarek said, "when I was invited to attend a religious gathering as part of a cultural exchange program.  The people at the gathering were professing their belief in one of your people's holy books, and stating that the only way to be saved - I am still unclear as to what they felt they needed saving from: we never go as far as an explanation - the only way to be 'saved' was to follow the book's directions implicitly, to the letter.  Now that book is a  notable one, in my opinion, and filled with wise advices for those who will read them and act on them wisely.  But some of the advices have less bearing on the present times that others: at least, so it seemed to me.  I asked these people whether they felt that _all_ the book must be obeyed, and they said yes.  Then asked them whether each of them then did indeed, as the book said they must, take a wooden paddle, when they need to evacuate their bowels, and go out the prescribed distance from the city where they lived and dig a hole with the paddle, and relieve themselves into the hole and over it up again?  They were rather annoyed with me.  And I said to them that it seemed to me that one had no right to insist that others keep all of the law unless one keeps it all himself.  I am afraid," Sarek said, mildly, "that they became more annoyed yet."


from Spock's World, by Diane Duane

I guess I am trying to make a couple of points:  one, that things change with time - even divinely inspired things - and two, that even those who claim to follow the Bible in all things are still picking and choosing the "real", "important" parts from the rest.  Do I think that the individual books of the Bible represent the truth as perceived by the writer(s) of each book?  Yes, I do.  Do I think that represents _truth_ in the absolute sense?  No.  Therefore, "not sure" was the only option available to me on this poll.


----------



## heretic888

I think Pseudo-Dionysius put it best:

"Don't suppose that the outward form of these contrived symbols exists for its own sake. It is a protective clothing, which prevents the common multitude from understanding the Ineffable and Invisible. Only real lovers of holiness know how to stop the workings of the childish imagination regarding the sacred symbols. They alone have the simplicity of mind and the receptive power of contemplation to cross over to the simple, marvellous, transcendent Truth the symbols represent."

Laterz.


----------



## michaeledward

Jenna said:
			
		

> Did the bible ever set itself as a great work of fact?


 
The book did indeed, never 'set itself as a great work of fact', or take an action of any kind. And of course, you know that. I'm sure others have pointed out, that there are those who treat the book as fact; the true word of God.

I mention this only because, today, on a popular radio talk show program, 'Fresh Air, with Terry Gross', the host interviewed one, Michael Farris. 

Mr. Farris is the founder of Patrick Henry College. This college has a mandatory 'Statement of Faith', that all students, faculty, and trustees must profess the following.



> The College is, and shall always remain, a Christian institution dedicated to bringing honor and glory to the Lord Jesus Christ in all of its activities. Each Trustee, officer, faculty member and student of the College, as well as such other employees and agents of the College as may be specified by resolution of the Board of Trustees, shall fully and enthusiastically subscribe to the following Statement of Faith:
> 
> There is one God, eternally existent in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
> God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth.
> Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, is God come in the flesh.
> *The Bible* in its entirety (all 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) *is* the inspired word of God, *inerrant* in its original autographs, and *the only infallible and sufficient authority *for faith and Christian living.
> Man is by nature sinful and is inherently in need of salvation, which is exclusively found by faith alone in Jesus Christ and His shed blood.
> Christ's death provides substitutionary atonement for our sins.
> Personal salvation comes to mankind by grace through faith.
> Jesus Christ literally rose bodily from the dead.
> Jesus Christ literally will come to earth again in the Second Advent.
> Satan exists as a personal, malevolent being who acts as tempter and accuser, for whom Hell, the place of eternal punishment, was prepared, where all who die outside of Christ shall be confined in conscious torment for eternity.


There are some other items of interest on the schools website.

http://www.phc.edu/

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5427797

The foundation of this college is to set the Bible as 100% fact. And to take those who believe this and move them into the halls of power.


----------



## heretic888

Personally, I think the author of the Gospel of Mark saw what he was doing as creative religious literature, not history. I have no idea if the author believed in a "Historical Jesus" or not. It is readily apparent, however, that the author's work in its entirety is basically a series of _midrash_ on Old Testament passages set within the overall context of the Pauline dying-and-rising Christos.

Mark's author knew well what he was doing. Old Testament sources were deliberately used to construct the storyboard for his Jesus Christ character. That the Gospel is essentially written in a similar form as a play (hurried scenes, several monologues, dramatic conclusion, etc.) is testament that the author didn't think what he was doing was actual "history".

Mark, by the way, is the earliest of the canonical Gospels. Matthew, Luke, and John all copied from and are thus dependent on Mark, a hypothesis known as Markan Priority in Biblical scholarship. I don't know if their authors believed in a "Historical Jesus", either, or if they thought what they were writing was "history".

Laterz.


----------



## Swordlady

Okay...I haven't read through all the posts yet, though I have a feeling there has been a good bit of lively debate.  

I was raised Catholic, and left that church during my freshman year in college for a nondenominational Christian church.  It was during my tenure in that church when I became fairly knowledgeable of the bible.  I've read through two different English translations: the New International Version (which was what the great majority of members in my old church used), and the New Living Translation (which is essentially a paraphrased translation, not necessarily the most "accurate" English version).

From what I understand, one of the reasons why the Catholic church accepts the Apocrypha in its canon is because a number of passages in those books supports that church's teaching (the one passage in Maccabees about "praying for the dead" comes immediately to mind).

Most of the Protestant churches do not accept the Apocrypha is because they determined that there are historical discrepencies between some of the books of the Apocrypha and the accepted canon of books.  For example, the book of Judith had King Nebuchadnezzar ruling in the wrong country and the wrong time period.

As a Christian, I've been taught that the bible is 100% accurate, no questions asked.  For myself and many other Christians, this assertion is more based on faith than empirical evidence.  After all, we have faith in other things we cannot see - like gravity - but we don't doubt its existence for a moment.

So what kind of unequivocable proof can I offer about the bible's accuracy?  Some Christians talk about how the bible "flows" together, and how Jesus and others in the New Testament constantly refer to passages in the Old Testament.  But that is a rather circular argument, isn't it?  Proving the validity of a collection of books (which what the bible essentially is) by quoting different passages within that same set of books.  Others bring up the Dead Sea scrolls, and how it contained sections of every single book (except Esther) in what is known as the Protestant canon.  But these people neglect to mention (or they simply may not know) that there were also _other_ letters and teachings that are _not_ in the widely-accepted canon.

This is where *faith* comes in.  The book of Hebrews says that faith is "belief in the unseen".  If you can _see_ something in front of you, then there is no need for faith, right?  Faith is the driving force not just for Christianity, but for any kind of deity worship.  Ask a Muslim about the origin of the Qu'ran, and he will tell you that Allah himself spoke directly to the prophet Mohammed.  Would the Muslim be able to produce _physical_ evidence of such an encounter between Allah and Mohammed?  Probably not.

Do I believe the bible is 100% accurate?  I still do, but with some caveats.  One, I do not think it is a good thing to be too narrow-minded and flatly reject anyone who questions my beliefs about the bible's accuracy.  I also do _not_ think that the bible is exhaustive by any stretch.  Yes, it is a good starting point for a Christian to build his/her faith, but I also don't think it is good for a Christian to solely depend on the bible for all of his/her answers.  It is okay for a Christian - or any other believer - to question his/her own faith, and also the validity of the teachings s/he is following.  Especially because there is also a certain danger in "blind faith" (i.e., just following along with the majority, regardless of how right or wrong that group may be).  I think we all can readily point out examples of blind faith, and how it can go wrong...


----------



## Carol

I don't know if the Bible is 100% truth or not.   Don't want to know, to be honest.  Who the heck am I to say?  I'm just a mortal and not a particularly good one at that.  

What I do know is that the Bible is important to those that love Jesus as their Lord Almighty and that's enough for me.

It's not my place to tell anyone whether their scriptures are truth or not. Personally, I do not want that responsibility...nor do I deserve it.


----------



## Ray

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Mark, by the way, is the earliest of the canonical Gospels. Matthew, Luke, and John all copied from and are thus dependent on Mark, a hypothesis known as Markan Priority in Biblical scholarship.


Sure, sure.  It is a hypothesis [or some contrived notion] that someone who didn't know the author just figured out 1600 to 1900 years after the book was written.

And then he checked his swag by getting together with like-minded people and bouncing the idea off their heads.  Boing.


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> I don't know if their authors believed in a "Historical Jesus", either, or if they thought what they were writing was "history".


Well why don't you just ask the scholar who told you all about the author of Mark?


----------



## Jenna

michaeledward said:
			
		

> http://www.phc.edu/
> 
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5427797
> 
> The foundation of this college is to set the Bible as 100% fact. And to take those who believe this and move them into the halls of power.


Hey Michael 

This is very interesting thank you. Personally I think what these sort of dictates just make a hard thing harder. Faith in itself requires objectivity and common sense in interpretation but yeah there is an element in ANY faith of blind acceptance and that is very much the nature of what faith is, yeah? If I am allowed to widen that out .... say you were on the starting blocks with one hundred metres of track in front of you and seven other competitive athletes by your side scientifically you may win due your superior strength andgreater technique and you may also believe that if you have a modicum of faith in winning that will help you to run your race better and I do not mean faith in your ABILITY to win but instead faith in your ACTUAL winning and this requires some amount of blind acceptance of your winning as FACT coupled with the dismissal of other rational arguments against your winning namely the other competitors

What I am trying not so well to say is that faith in ANYTHING needs some irrationality enforced openness or yeah blind acceptance to a concept. And through relentless questioning and testing we transform some faiths into science -- like astronomy post Galileo Galilei but bible-based christianity is not really set that way. I would say for those who cannot relinquish this questioning or suspend their scepticism even momentarily a true faith in ANYTHING be it religion or winning a fight will NEVER be forthcoming

So if I can remember what I am talking about then it is while a level of acceptance of the irrational or contradictory is almost prerequisite to true faith maybe to found a college on the basis of the bible as 100% FACT necessitates a disproportionately GREATER blind acceptance and a greater and more dogmatic dismissal of other interpretations than christians have to engage and siphon through already. Seems like not only is it making life difficult for students but to set itself this sort of mandate is maybe to flirt with or embrace cultishness???

Anyway, I am sorry if this is tangential to the discussion but you started it, LOL 

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------



## heretic888

Ray said:
			
		

> Sure, sure. It is a hypothesis [or some contrived notion] that someone who didn't know the author just figured out 1600 to 1900 years after the book was written.
> 
> And then he checked his swag by getting together with like-minded people and bouncing the idea off their heads. Boing.


 
If you ever get tired of making fallacious Appeals To Belief, Ray, I invite you to review the evidence and reasoning behind this hypothesis yourself:

The Priority of Mark, Part One

The Priority of Mark, Part Two

The following is a scholarly work which shows exactly where the Markan author mined the Old Testament for his storyboard:

Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Well why don't you just ask the scholar who told you all about the author of Mark?


 
Scholar*s*, Ray. Markan Priority is the most well-established hypothesis of Biblical Scholarship since the 20th century, with the overwhelming majority of scholars (even those that accept a Historical Jesus) supporting it. 

Arguing against it is like arguing against the cell theory in biology.

Laterz.


----------



## CanuckMA

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Or, how about non-factual claims such as "the Jews" having an annual tradition of releasing convicted criminals


 
Not true. Although I thought the text implied that the Romans had that tradition (also not true)



> or requiring that the layperson always wash his or her hands before eating??


 
True. Still practiced today.




> How about some pretty basic confusion as to where the Resurrection scenes take place: Galilee or Jerusalem??


 
Or the entire episode around the Last Supper. Of all the Jewish festivals, Pesach is the one that is most celebrated with family. Comes from the imperative in Wxodus that we should teach it to aour children. What were te Apostles doing NOY with their families?

And then, no Jewish court would have sat that night, or following morning. The first and last days of Pesach are prohibited from work.


----------



## kamishinkan

This is a very interesting thread! As for the questions to the validity of the NT texts, I have noted this argument (several times) on other posts. For the most part these questions have been addressed (several times I believe). 
As for the last post of the Pesach, If I am not mistaken the Passover meal as noted in the NT with Yeshua and his disciples broke from tradition as far as the day celebrated. Why this happened I am not sure, maybe BECAUSE they were not with there families but with the Messiah. Most people would balk at this but if the Messiah was here today and asked me to go and minister with Him I would go (my wife would gladly take care of the house while I was gone!). I also realize that according to tradition (not the Torah) the Passover has turned into the whole week which is actually Unleavened Bread and Firstfruits (all three seperate feasts).

 As far as answering the thread, I believe the Bible (Tanakh and New Testament) to be inspired by God and SPIRITUALLY accurate (not necessarily accurate of the history of the day). This is OK since the Bible is a Spiritual book not a history book. I also believe the truth of the bible is dependant on CORRECT TRANSLATION. I have seen several discrepancies in the texts but have all been proven to be incorrect translations. Thank God for modern computer translation devices .


----------



## CanuckMA

7 days of Pesach is in Torah, Exodus 12:19 - 

*19* Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses; for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a sojourner, or one that is born in the land. *20* Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread.'


----------



## heretic888

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> Not true. Although I thought the text implied that the Romans had that tradition (also not true)



The following passages are from the New International Version (NIV) translation:

"Now it was the governor's custom at the Feast to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd" (Matthew 27:15). 

"Now it was the custom at the Feast to release a prisoner whom the people requested" (Mark 15:6).

The "Feast" in question, of course, is Passover.

"'What is truth?' Pilate asked. With this he sent out again to the Jews and said, 'I find no basis for a charge against him. But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover'" (John 18:38-39).

These are all in contrast to the version in Luke, which makes no reference at all to such a custom.



			
				CanuckMA said:
			
		

> True. Still practiced today.



But not in the first century.

Perhaps a little clarification is in order here. With the desctruction of the Temple in 70 CE by the Romans, the sect known as the Pharisees basically established unilateral dominance among the Jewish populace, with other sects such as the Essenes and Sadducees apparently dying out. Modern Judaism, as it is typically known, is an outgrowth of this post-Temple Pharisaic Judaism (which itself was radically changed during the Age of Reason in the West).

The Pharisees had a custom whereby their priests and scribes had to wash their hands before eating a meal. Later, after they took control, this rule extended to the whole of the Jewish populace. However, there was no such "universal" custom at the time that "Jesus Christ" is supposed to have lived. 

It would make perfect sense, however, if the narrative account was written by Hellenized Jew _after_ the Temple destruction in 70 CE. He (or she) would simply be commenting on the common practice during his time (but not during the time Jesus would have lived).



			
				CanuckMA said:
			
		

> Or the entire episode around the Last Supper. Of all the Jewish festivals, Pesach is the one that is most celebrated with family. Comes from the imperative in Wxodus that we should teach it to aour children. What were te Apostles doing NOY with their families?
> 
> And then, no Jewish court would have sat that night, or following morning. The first and last days of Pesach are prohibited from work.



Agreed.

Hayyim ben Yehoshua's The Myth of the Historical Jesus gives a good summary of some of the fudge-ups the Gospel narratives make concerning Jewish history and custom:

"The New Testament story confuses so many historical periods that there is no way of reconciling it with history. The traditional year of Jesus's birth is 1 C.E. Jesus was supposed to be not more than two years old when Herod ordered the slaughter of the innocents. However, Herod died before April 12, 4 B.C.E. This has led some Christians to redate the birth of Jesus in 6 - 4 B.C.E. However, Jesus was also supposed have been born during the census of Quirinius. This census took place after Archelaus was deposed in 6 C.E., ten years after Herod's death. Jesus was supposed to have been baptized by John soon after John had started baptizing and preaching in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias, i.e. 28-29 C.E., when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaea i.e. 26-36 C.E. According to the New Testament, this also happened when Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene and Annas and Caiaphas were high priests. But Lysanias ruled Abilene from c. 40 B.C.E until he was executed in 36 B.C.E by Mark Antony, about 60 years before the date for Tiberias and about 30 years before the supposed birth of Jesus! Also, there were never two joint high priests, in particular, Annas was not a joint high priest with Caiaphas. Annas was removed from the office of high priest in 15 C.E after holding office for some nine years. Caiaphas only became high priest in c. 18 C.E, about three years after Annas. (He held this office for about eighteen years, so his dates are consistent with Tiberias and Pontius Pilate, but not with Annas or Lysanias.) Although the book of Acts presents Yehuda of Galilee, Theudas and Jesus as three different people, it incorrectly places Theudas (crucified 44 C.E.) before Yehuda who it correctly mentions as being crucified during the census (6 C.E.). Many of these chronological absurdities seem to be based on misreadings and misunderstandings of Josephus's book _Jewish Antiquities_, which was used as reference by the author of _Luke_ and _Acts_. 

The story of Jesus's trial is also highly suspicious. It clearly tries to placate the Romans while defaming the Jews. The historical Pontius Pilate was arrogant and despotic. He hated the Jews and never delegated any authority to them. However, in Christian mythology, he is portrayed as a concerned ruler who distanced himself from the accusations against Jesus and who was coerced into obeying the demands of the Jews. According to Christian mythology, every Passover, the Jews would ask Pilate to free any one criminal they chose. This is of course a blatant lie. Jews never had a custom of freeing guilty criminals at Passover or any other time of the year. According the myth, Pilate gave the Jews the choice of freeing Jesus the Christ or a murderer named Jesus Barabbas. The Jews are alleged to have enthusiastically chosen Jesus Barabbas. This story is a vicious antisemitic lie, one of many such lies found in the New Testament (largely written by antisemites). What is particularly disgusting about this rubbish story is that it is apparently a distortion of an earlier story which claimed that the Jews demanded that Jesus Christ be set free. The name 'Barabbas' is simply the Greek form of the Aramaic 'bar Abba' which means 'son of the Father.' Thus 'Jesus Barabbas' originally meant 'Jesus the son of the Father,' in other words, the usual Christian Jesus. When the earlier story claimed that the Jews wanted Jesus Barabbas to be set free it was referring to the usual Jesus. Somebody distorted the story by claiming that Jesus Barabbas was a different person to Jesus Christ and this fooled the Roman and Greek Christians who did not know the meaning of the name 'Barabbas.'"

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

kamishinkan said:
			
		

> This is a very interesting thread! As for the questions to the validity of the NT texts, I have noted this argument (several times) on other posts. For the most part these questions have been addressed (several times I believe).


 
Yes, but never satisfactorily.



			
				kamishinkan said:
			
		

> As for the last post of the Pesach, If I am not mistaken the Passover meal as noted in the NT with Yeshua and his disciples broke from tradition as far as the day celebrated.



It isn't just the meal in question. It is also the fact that the Sanhedrin held a "secret" trial during Passover (apparently pulling their "witnesses" away from their families and festivities in the middle of night) and that a large crowd of Jews appeared before Pilate (again, during Passover) to decide to crucify Jesus. That a criminal (of any sort) would be executed on Passover is the final straw.

The entire account is absurd from a historical point of view and, as ben Yehoshua pointed out, riddled with anti-Semitism.



			
				kamishinkan said:
			
		

> As far as answering the thread, I believe the Bible (Tanakh and New Testament) to be inspired by God and SPIRITUALLY accurate (not necessarily accurate of the history of the day). This is OK since the Bible is a Spiritual book not a history book.



On this, I would agree completely.

Laterz.


----------



## Brother John

SheSulsa-
I'm unclear on the question:
Are you wanting to know if we feel/believe that the Bible is all True
OR
That we feel/believe that the Bible is to be Literally interpreted??

They are very different.

Thanks

Your Brother
John


----------



## Jenna

Brother John said:
			
		

> SheSulsa-
> I'm unclear on the question:
> Are you wanting to know if we feel/believe that the Bible is all True
> OR
> That we feel/believe that the Bible is to be Literally interpreted??
> 
> They are very different.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Your Brother
> John


Hey John  This is interesting would you be in a position please to explain why belief in the words as fact differs from taking a literal interpretation of those words... Thank you 

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------



## shesulsa

Brother John said:
			
		

> SheSulsa-
> I'm unclear on the question:
> Are you wanting to know if we feel/believe that the Bible is all True
> OR
> That we feel/believe that the Bible is to be Literally interpreted??
> 
> They are very different.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Your Brother
> John



John, I'd like to know if you feel/believe that the Bible is all true.


----------



## Brother John

Yes, I believe that the Bible is True.

Do I believe that every event explained in it actually happened? No. Many, but not all.

I believe that the story of creation relates, in allegory and through a veil, that God did create everything. Do I believe that it took 6 days? I believe that the meaning and depth contained in the Holy scriptures is deeper than that and that many things point to truths and put them forth in allegory and metaphor. Those things that are most important (such as the means of salvation, etc.) are pretty plain. I do believe that the majority of the things related in the Bible actually happened; but not all. 

Does that make sense?
I don't believe that every single story (such as Job) is "Literal" but that doesn't keep it's message that it contains from being "True". 

During the last two centuries (maybe 3) much of the impact of the old 'mystery religions' and their means of imparting truths, dissipated under the intolerance and 'literal' scrutiny of the fundamentalist movement. Mind you...I think that fundamentalism (Meaning a strong adherance to the foundational paradigm of a movement) is great! But what that fundamentalism became.........reaks of human ego and failure. 
It's not the fault of God, or the scriptures.....but of humans that needed reassure themselves that they are CORRECT; so much so that they then had the burden of CORRECTING all who didn't believe as they did.
They lost sight of the first gift, after the gift of life, that God gave mankind...
free-will.

SO: I do believe that the Bible is "True", but I don't believe that all of the stories that it relates are real historical accounts.

does that make better sense?

Your Brother
John


----------



## Ray

heretic888 said:
			
		

> If you ever get tired of making fallacious Appeals To Belief, Ray, I invite you to review the evidence and reasoning behind this hypothesis yourself:
> 
> The Priority of Mark, Part One
> 
> The Priority of Mark, Part Two
> 
> The following is a scholarly work which shows exactly where the Markan author mined the Old Testament for his storyboard:
> 
> Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Scholar*s*, Ray. Markan Priority is the most well-established hypothesis of Biblical Scholarship since the 20th century, with the overwhelming majority of scholars (even those that accept a Historical Jesus) supporting it.
> 
> Arguing against it is like arguing against the cell theory in biology.
> 
> Laterz.


Okay, great.  Somebody "discovered" a "problem" with the gospels and decided that they were sources for each other.  I see no evidence of equal to the equivalence of true science.


----------



## hong kong fooey

The bible and it's truths depends on your faith . in christanity you belive thatr everything in the bible is true and you have faith in the bible. im not sure about the other religions though


----------



## heretic888

Brother John said:
			
		

> During the last two centuries (maybe 3) much of the impact of the old 'mystery religions' and their means of imparting truths, dissipated under the intolerance and 'literal' scrutiny of the fundamentalist movement. Mind you...I think that fundamentalism (Meaning a strong adherance to the foundational paradigm of a movement) is great! But what that fundamentalism became.........reaks of human ego and failure.
> It's not the fault of God, or the scriptures.....but of humans that needed reassure themselves that they are CORRECT; so much so that they then had the burden of CORRECTING all who didn't believe as they did.


 
Personally, I think "fundamentalism" and "literalism" simply correspond with certain levels of personal development. Please see my discussion of James Fowler's Faith-Development Theory.

In general, though, I would agree with the assessment that the Bible is (mostly) "true", albeit not factually accurate.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

Ray said:
			
		

> I see no evidence of equal to the equivalence of true science.


 
This is basically akin to someone refusing to do geometry and therefore saying, "I see no evidence for the Pythagorean theorem. Somebody just made it up!"

To be perfectly blunt, Ray, your vision is not what's in question here so what you do and do not "see" is irrelevant. What _is_ in question is the hypothesis of Markan Priority and the logic and evidence underlying it. You have yet to engage in a discussion of this data.

Your rebuttal is a non-argument. You have not provided any refutations to the logic or evidence that Markan Prioritists have advanced. Rather, as in your last post, all you have done is make Appeals To Belief: "I believe it, therefore it is true."

Of course, I'm sure such "arguments" sound great in Sunday school, but they ain't gonna cut the muster with somebody that is actually well-versed with the methodologies and scholarship in question.

You pipe about "true science" (whatever that's supposed to mean), but you are apparently clueless about the fact that all _good_ science begins with methodology. Unless you can evince a _methodological_ problem with Markan Priority (as opposed to an _axiomatic_ problem), then your arguments are meaningless.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

hong kong fooey said:
			
		

> The bible and it's truths depends on your faith . in christanity you belive thatr everything in the bible is true and you have faith in the bible. im not sure about the other religions though


 
That depends on your definition of "truths", really.

If you are referring to moral, allegorical, or spiritual "truths" (which is precisely the hierarchial order of sciptural exegesis in Jewish mysticism), then I'm inclined to agree with you. That largely does depend on one's faith context. Once again, I find myself quoting Pseudo-Dionysius:

"Don't suppose that the outward form of these contrived symbols exists for its own sake. It is a protective clothing, which prevents the common multitude from understanding the Ineffable and Invisible. Only real lovers of holiness know how to stop the workings of the childish imagination regarding the sacred symbols. They alone have the simplicity of mind and the receptive power of contemplation to cross over to the simple, marvellous, transcendent Truth the symbols represent."

However, if you are referring to the "truths" of empirical science and historical study (which, in my opinion, are more appropriately termed "facts"), then that is where cultural relativism falls apart. No historical person could have been physically born during the reign of Herod (who died in 4 BCE) _and_ during the Quirinus census (in 6 CE), no matter what one's "faith" says about the text. The aforementioned points about Passover customs, as well, cannot be historically factual --- regardless of what one's faith, pastor, or church says about them.

This is not to say the text is therefore spiritually bankrupt, by no means at all. However, simply because a text is spiritually authentic does not mean it therefore assures historical accuracy.

All this means, of course, is that the Bible remains a source of inspiration and transformation to the believer --- but is utterly unreliable as a source of history. It is important to keep that in mind.

Laterz.


----------



## Brother John

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Personally, I think "fundamentalism" and "literalism" simply correspond with certain levels of personal development. Please see my discussion of James Fowler's Faith-Development Theory.
> 
> In general, though, I would agree with the assessment that the Bible is (mostly) "true", albeit not factually accurate.
> 
> Laterz.


hhhmmm.....I'd never thought about it like that. Good point about Fowler's theory. 

Personally I feel that most of those things that aren't 100% "Historically accurate" are contained in what Christianity would call "The Old Testament", whereas I feel that the "New Testament" ((with the exception of Revelation.....which is not meant to relate an historical event in the first place, but rather a 'vision')) IS "True" in a literal and 'spiritual' sense.

I suppose Iv'e said enough on this to make myself understood.
Thanks

Your Brother
John


----------



## heretic888

Brother John said:
			
		

> hhhmmm.....I'd never thought about it like that. Good point about Fowler's theory.



Thanks.  



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> Personally I feel that most of those things that aren't 100% "Historically accurate" are contained in what Christianity would call "The Old Testament", whereas I feel that the "New Testament" ((with the exception of Revelation.....which is not meant to relate an historical event in the first place, but rather a 'vision')) IS "True" in a literal and 'spiritual' sense.



Given that I am skeptical of a Historical Jesus in the first place, I am inclined to disagree. 

The truth is that (with the notable exception of the seven or so authentic Pauline epistles), the Old Testament probably contains more "history" than the New Testament. Texts like the Acts of the Apostles, 2 Thessalonians, and the "Pastoral Letters" are little more than 2nd century pseudipigraphica authored to advance orthodox propaganda. As for the Revelation of John, this is in all likelihood a Christian recension of a previously Jewish intertestamental text. The canonical Gospels themselves not only contradict one another, but are clearly non-factual on many points (such as _when_ Jesus could have been born as well as the silliness of a full grown man being crucified by having his palms "nailed" horizontally outward).

I think some of the Pauline epistles might contain historically valid information, but almost everything else in the New Testament is pure myth and propaganda.

Laterz.


----------



## Brother John

OK.

to each their own.

I'm not here to argue, but to state what I think and feel about it. 
Done that.

Have a good Memorial Day.

Your Brother
John


----------



## heretic888

Brother John said:
			
		

> Have a good Memorial Day.


 
Likewise.


----------



## Ray

heretic888 said:
			
		

> This is basically akin to someone refusing to do geometry and therefore saying, "I see no evidence for the Pythagorean theorem. Somebody just made it up!"


The pythagorean theorem has probably more proofs than any other mathematical theorem. It's well proven.


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> To be perfectly blunt, Ray, your vision is not what's in question here so what you do and do not "see" is irrelevant. What _is_ in question is the hypothesis of Markan Priority and the logic and evidence underlying it. You have yet to engage in a discussion of this data.


To be perfectly blunt, you've made an assertion; it's up to you to provide demonstrable evidence that supports your claim.


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Your rebuttal is a non-argument. You have not provided any refutations to the logic or evidence that Markan Prioritists have advanced. Rather, as in your last post, all you have done is make Appeals To Belief: "I believe it, therefore it is true."


That is completely false. I never I said "because I believe it, it is true." All i said was show some decent evidence that what you assert is true.


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Of course, I'm sure such "arguments" sound great in Sunday school,


That isn't sunday school and I never offered such an "argument." 


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Unless you can evince a _methodological_ problem with Markan Priority (as opposed to an _axiomatic_ problem), then your arguments are meaningless.


You, or someone, decided that the gospels were copied from one or more of the same sources. That is an assertion, now show some good evidence of it.


----------



## heretic888

Ray said:
			
		

> You, or someone, decided that the gospels were copied from one or more of the same sources. That is an assertion, now show some good evidence of it.


 
I provided you two links detailing the evidence and reasoning for Markan Priority and one link detailing the Old Testamental sources for Mark.

Your wave-of-the-hand trick isn't going to work here. Your refusal to engage the evidence that has been presented does not mean it does not exist. It just means, once again, that you are resting your assertions on appeals to faith and belief, not logic.

Laterz.


----------



## pstarr

It would seem that many people don't have absolute faith in the Bible because of their assertion that it was written by people, and people can see different things in different ways.

     Were that the case the Bible wouldn't have much more validity than any other book on theology or philosophy.

     However, Christians believe that the Bible is the _inspired_ word of God, that the authors of the Old Testament were "moved" (for want of a better term) by the Almighty to write as and what they did.

     The argument about whether or not this is true goes on and on.  What it comes down to is a matter of faith.

     As for me and my house, we believe.


----------



## heretic888

pstarr said:
			
		

> It would seem that many people don't have absolute faith in the Bible because of their assertion that it was written by people, and people can see different things in different ways.
> 
> Were that the case the Bible wouldn't have much more validity than any other book on theology or philosophy.
> 
> However, Christians believe that the Bible is the _inspired_ word of God, that the authors of the Old Testament were "moved" (for want of a better term) by the Almighty to write as and what they did.
> 
> The argument about whether or not this is true goes on and on. What it comes down to is a matter of faith.
> 
> As for me and my house, we believe.


 
I'm not sure if anyone on this thread has actually suggested the Bible lacks theological or spiritual validity, pstarr.

The issues that I (and a few others) have brought up revolve around specific historical and cultural claims derived from a _literal_ reading of the New Testament (the Old Testament has its faults, too, but it's not my area of expertise). These are empirical issues, not philosophical ones.

No amount of "faith" is going to reconcile having a person born during the reign of Herod (who died in 4 BCE) _and_ during the census of Quirinus (in 6 CE). Nor can "faith" reconcile having Pontius Pilate portrayed as a benevolent ruler reluctant to execute criminals. Nor can "faith" resolve the fact that if a man were crucified the way Jesus was supposed to have been, his palms would have been unable to support his body weight (meaning his hands would have simply ripped through the nails). Nor can can "faith" deal with the glaring errors made in the description of Jewish customs. Nor can "faith" overcome the computer and textual analyses that suggest only seven of the thirteen Pauline epistles are "authentic".

That doesn't impact the spiritual value of the text, in my opinion, but suggesting that the above issues are just a matter of "faith" is like suggesting the world being flat is just a matter of "faith". It's not.

Laterz.


----------



## Carol

Had the good fortune of fulfilling a dream a few years back...working on a project for NASA that flew on the Space Shuttle  

I've seen the earth from space, instrumentally speaking.  Given that my laptop panel was 2 dimensional display, I can offer proof that not only is the world flat, but the sun also revolves around it.  

Now, someone can say the earth is round until they are blue in the face.  It still doesn't make my laptop panel show the earth in 3D.  The instruments on the shuttle show that this is the earth.  But, it is still flat on my screen.

I don't really think it says the earth is flat.  

I think the limitations of the medium can make it look flat.  

Does it bother me that the medium makes the earth look flat?  No, because staying fixated on the limitations of the medium detracts from the reaon why it is there in the first place.

By comparison...my scriptures are...like seeing the earth from the Space Station.  Newer, and in many ways, unrelated.  But still not all that different.  

Focusing too much on the limitations takes away the opporunity to see something precious.  Focusing too much on differences takes away to share the wonder with another person that may be seeing the same thing...only through software written by a different person.  It may have a slightly different user interface but the end result is staggeringly similar.  And beautiful :asian:

Just my thoughts though.


----------



## heretic888

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> Focusing too much on the limitations takes away the opporunity to see something precious. Focusing too much on differences takes away to share the wonder with another person that may be seeing the same thing...only through software written by a different person. It may have a slightly different user interface but the end result is staggeringly similar. And beautiful :asian:



I'm inclined to agree, Carol.

However, the issue at hand here revolves a _literal_ reading and interpretation of the text. In my experience, this is by far the more common methodology in religious circle than, say, an ethical, allegorical, or mystical interpretation. By the way, that order of interpretation --- 1) literal or historical, 2) ethical or moral, 3) allegorical or metaphorical, and 4) spiritual or mystical --- is precisely the hierarchy of scriptural exegesis in traditional Jewish _midrash_ and Muslim _tawil_. A similar methodology is also alluded to often in Paul's authentic letters (i.e., "letter" vs "spirit" or "psychic" vs "pneumatic").

The issue is that we live in a society where, for example, a large segment of the population believes the world was _literally_ created in six days some 6,000 years ago _for no other reason_ than "the Bible tells me so". And, of course, if you disagree with them on this (or anything else that they hold "comes from" the Bible), then you're going to burn in hell. For these people, there is no understanding of allegory and metaphor in the text, or a recognition of the socio-historical context of the text. The precepts that condemn homosexuality are not understood as a social construction of a patriarchal-agrarian society, but as "eternal truths" handed down by "God".

By any other name, this is literalism and fundamentalism. And this is why we have to deal with nonsense such as forcing creationism and intelligent design in our science classrooms, attempted constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, and the erecting of religious monuments (i.e., the Ten Commandments) on the property of federal courthouses. All of the aforementioned movements are derived precisely from an _intolerant_ and very _literal_ reading of the Biblical text.

The actual "spiritual" interpretation of the text that you are alluding to, of course, has very little to do with any of the "history" or "moral laws" that have been handed down in the Bible. The Christian mystics are very clear on the point that the "spiritual message" of Scipture is simply the Death and Resurrection. That there may not have been a Historical Jesus is irrelevant, since it is the mystical Christ that is being invoked here. 

Paul repeatedly points out that the Death and Resurrection of the Christ is the Death and Resurrection of the Christian. They are one and the same. And neither have anything to do with something that may or may not have happened in history. In the work of those such as Pseudo-Dionysius, St. Bonaventure, or St. John of the Cross, this culminates in Divine Union with the ineffable Godhead, what is commonly referred to as apophatic mysticism.

To sum up, the "spirituality" of the Bible and the "history" of the Bible are two completely different levels of interpreation. One has little to do with the other.

Laterz.


----------



## pstarr

The census which was conducted just prior to the birth of Jesus has not been firmly established, so far as I know.  It doesn't look to me as thought Pontius Pilate is described as being reluctant to execute criminals (his wife had had a dream about this one, though and she expressed some concern about it).
     It is generally agreed that the spikes were driven into Christ's wrist rather than his palms, although one scientist actually did find a method by which the could have been driven into the palms and still support the weight of the body.
     And a good friend of mine who is Jewish (born and raised in Israel) sees no "glaring errors" in Jewish custom of the day as depicted in the New Testament.  In fact, he and his rabbi spotted several interesting customs that we, as gentiles, generally miss.


----------



## heretic888

pstarr said:
			
		

> The census which was conducted just prior to the birth of Jesus has not been firmly established, so far as I know.


 
Actually, the Gospel of Luke (NIV) says:

"In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinus was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to his own town to register." (2:1-3)

Of course, there is absolutely no mention of Herod, the "slaughter of the innocents", the magi, or the escape to Egypt in Luke's account. As for Mark and John, they don't even talk about Jesus's birth and begin the story when he is an adult.

So, who should we believe?? Luke or Matthew?? If taken as historical accounts, only one of them can be right.



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> It doesn't look to me as thought Pontius Pilate is described as being reluctant to execute criminals (his wife had had a dream about this one, though and she expressed some concern about it).



He is reluctant to even punish Jesus (who was tried and convicted by the Sanhedrin court) and wants to let him go. The accounts are clearly designed to cast Pilate in a positive light and cast all the blame on "the Jews" (who release a convicted murderer, Jesus Barabbas, instead of Jesus Christ).

As ben Yehoshua pointed out, the entire depiction is historically absurd and reaks of anti-Semitism.



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> It is generally agreed that the spikes were driven into Christ's wrist rather than his palms. . .



Really? The author of the Gospel of John (NIV) would disagree with you:

"But he said to them, 'Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.'

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, 'Peace be with you!' Then he said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.'" (20:25-27)

I didn't see any mention of "wrists" there.



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> although one scientist actually did find a method by which the could have been driven into the palms and still support the weight of the body.



Ah, the appeal to an anonymous authority. How convenient.



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> And a good friend of mine who is Jewish (born and raised in Israel) sees no "glaring errors" in Jewish custom of the day as depicted in the New Testament.



Another appeal to anonymous authorities. Delightful.

Regardless of your friend's ethnicity and nationality (which have absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter), the Gospel authors do fudge up on first century Judean geography, customs, and historical facts quite a bit.

From The Myth of the Historical Jesus:

"The New Testament story confuses so many historical periods that there is no way of reconciling it with history. The traditional year of Jesus's birth is 1 C.E. Jesus was supposed to be not more than two years old when Herod ordered the slaughter of the innocents. However, Herod died before April 12, 4 B.C.E. This has led some Christians to redate the birth of Jesus in 6 - 4 B.C.E. However, Jesus was also supposed have been born during the census of Quirinius. This census took place after Archelaus was deposed in 6 C.E., ten years after Herod's death. Jesus was supposed to have been baptized by John soon after John had started baptizing and preaching in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias, i.e. 28-29 C.E., when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaea i.e. 26-36 C.E. According to the New Testament, this also happened when Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene and Annas and Caiaphas were high priests. But Lysanias ruled Abilene from c. 40 B.C.E until he was executed in 36 B.C.E by Mark Antony, about 60 years before the date for Tiberias and about 30 years before the supposed birth of Jesus! Also, there were never two joint high priests, in particular, Annas was not a joint high priest with Caiaphas. Annas was removed from the office of high priest in 15 C.E after holding office for some nine years. Caiaphas only became high priest in c. 18 C.E, about three years after Annas. (He held this office for about eighteen years, so his dates are consistent with Tiberias and Pontius Pilate, but not with Annas or Lysanias.) Although the book of Acts presents Yehuda of Galilee, Theudas and Jesus as three different people, it incorrectly places Theudas (crucified 44 C.E.) before Yehuda who it correctly mentions as being crucified during the census (6 C.E.). Many of these chronological absurdities seem to be based on misreadings and misunderstandings of Josephus's book _Jewish Antiquities_, which was used as reference by the author of _Luke_ and _Acts_. 

The story of Jesus's trial is also highly suspicious. It clearly tries to placate the Romans while defaming the Jews. The historical Pontius Pilate was arrogant and despotic. He hated the Jews and never delegated any authority to them. However, in Christian mythology, he is portrayed as a concerned ruler who distanced himself from the accusations against Jesus and who was coerced into obeying the demands of the Jews. According to Christian mythology, every Passover, the Jews would ask Pilate to free any one criminal they chose. This is of course a blatant lie. Jews never had a custom of freeing guilty criminals at Passover or any other time of the year. According the myth, Pilate gave the Jews the choice of freeing Jesus the Christ or a murderer named Jesus Barabbas. The Jews are alleged to have enthusiastically chosen Jesus Barabbas. This story is a vicious antisemitic lie, one of many such lies found in the New Testament (largely written by antisemites). What is particularly disgusting about this rubbish story is that it is apparently a distortion of an earlier story which claimed that the Jews demanded that Jesus Christ be set free. The name 'Barabbas' is simply the Greek form of the Aramaic 'bar Abba' which means 'son of the Father.' Thus 'Jesus Barabbas' originally meant 'Jesus the son of the Father,' in other words, the usual Christian Jesus. When the earlier story claimed that the Jews wanted Jesus Barabbas to be set free it was referring to the usual Jesus. Somebody distorted the story by claiming that Jesus Barabbas was a different person to Jesus Christ and this fooled the Roman and Greek Christians who did not know the meaning of the name 'Barabbas.'"

The author of the Gospel of Mark exhibits what I. Wilson (p. 36) calls "a lamentable ignorance of Palestinian geography":

"In the seventh chapter, for instance, Jesus is reported as going through Sidon on his way from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. Not only is Sidon in the opposite direction, but there was in fact no road from Sidon to the Sea of Galilee in the first century CE, only one from Tyre. Similarly the fifth chapter refers to the Sea of Galilee's eatern shore as the country of the Gerasenes, yet Gerasa, today Jerash, is more than thirty miles to the southeast, too far away for a story whose setting requires a nearby city with a steep slope down to the sea. Aside from geography, Mark represented Jesus as saying 'If a women divorces her husband and marries another she is guilty of adultery' (Mark 10:12), a precept which would have been meaningless in the Jewish world, where women had no rights of divorce."

According to C. Waite (_History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred_, 1992):

"There are also many errors [in the Gospel of John] in reference to the geography of the country. The author speaks of Aenon, near to Salim, in Judea; also of Bethany, beyond Jordan, and of a 'city of Samaria, called Sychar.' If there were any such places, they were strangely unknown to other writers. The learned Dr. Bretschneider points out such mistakes and errors of geography, chronology, history and statistics of Judea, as no person who had ever resides in that country, or had been by birth a Jew, could possibly have committed." (pp. 397-398)

In addition, B. Keeler (_A Short History of the Bible_, 1965) states:

"The Gospel of John says that Bethsaida was in Galilee. There is no such town in that district, and there never was. Bethsaida was on the east side of the sea of Tiberias, whereas Galilee was on the west side. St. John was born at Bethsaida, and the probability is that he would know the geographical location of his own birthplace." (p. 16)

Also please see the comments CanuckMA and I made concerning Passover earlier in the thread.

Laterz.


----------



## Carol

Great discussion, Heretic :asian:



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> The issue is that we live in a society where, for example, a large segment of the population believes the world was _literally_ created in six days some 6,000 years ago _for no other reason_ than "the Bible tells me so". And, of course, if you disagree with them on this (or anything else that they hold "comes from" the Bible), then you're going to burn in hell. For these people, there is no understanding of allegory and metaphor in the text, or a recognition of the socio-historical context of the text. The precepts that condemn homosexuality are not understood as a social construction of a patriarchal-agrarian society, but as "eternal truths" handed down by "God".
> By any other name, this is literalism and fundamentalism. And this is why we have to deal with nonsense such as forcing creationism and intelligent design in our science classrooms, attempted constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, and the erecting of religious monuments (i.e., the Ten Commandments) on the property of federal courthouses. All of the aforementioned movements are derived precisely from an _intolerant_ and very _literal_ reading of the Biblical text.



Make no mistake, I am not a supporter of fundamentalist behaviour....but I don't support intolerance that is pro-fundamentalist or intolerance that is anti-fundamentalist.

This strikes me as being a bit intolerant on the anti-fundamentalist side.   

Fundamentalist Christians are not to solely at fault for persecution of gay people and other social misdeeds.

Gay people have been struggling for basic civil rights in all faiths.  Had they not, Massachusetts and Canada wouldn't be making news with the issue.  Of particular interest is that the Canadian parliament has MPs that are of a wider ethnoreligious background than our Congressmen are...and this has brought the debate in to many decidedly non-Christian religious enclaves...including non-dogmatic, non-Abrahamic faiths.

It is rigidity and intolerance that builds these walls.  It takes an open mind, a warm heart...and sometimes a strong stomach to tear these walls done, but it can be done.  

To me it seems that intolerant people are often angry about something.  Angry people usually aren't very happy.  But...when an angry person is around another angry person...the anger often intensifies.

When an angry person is around a peaceful, loving person, the anger often subsides...even when that angry person is a fundamentalist Christian....or an angry anti-fundamentalist Christian.

For tolerance to truly be tolerance, one must tolerate what one doesn't like.


----------



## Stealth

I said no since it is not 100% truth.  But there is much symbolism.  Also we must take into consideration that it was written by men thousands of years ago who did not have the understanding of the world that we have today.  There should be no battle between religion and science. If God created everything, he did it through scientific methods.


----------



## heretic888

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> Great discussion, Heretic :asian:


 
Thanks much. :asian:



			
				Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> Make no mistake, I am not a supporter of fundamentalist behaviour....but I don't support intolerance that is pro-fundamentalist or intolerance that is anti-fundamentalist.
> 
> This strikes me as being a bit intolerant on the anti-fundamentalist side.



I tend to use "fundamentalism" in a rather broad sense as generally referring to ethnocentrism or sociocentrism. Also, I don't necessarily see this as "bad" as opposed to being a stage of personal development. Please see the reference to Fowler's Faith-Development Theory that I made on the 'Follower or Fundamentalist' thread.

In my opinion, so-called "anti-fundamentalists" are just fundamentalists of a different variety. There is still the same rigid "us vs them" mentality and invocation of epistemological and moral absolutisms. 



			
				Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> Fundamentalist Christians are not to solely at fault for persecution of gay people and other social misdeeds.



I never claimed that they were. One need not look farther than the histories of communist Russa, Cuba, and China to see how "secular fundamentalism" can appear. 

However, in the United States, it was the so-called "Religious Right" that has attempted to invoke a movement to constitutionally ban gay marriage (a gesture that has zero hope of passing in Congress, but still). In many ways, these particular fundamentalists seem to be advocating a sort of quasi-theocracy in the United States.



			
				Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> It is rigidity and intolerance that builds these walls. It takes an open mind, a warm heart...and sometimes a strong stomach to tear these walls done, but it can be done.



Sure. 



			
				Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> For tolerance to truly be tolerance, one must tolerate what one doesn't like.



Well, "tolerance" is an interesting one. I try to give everyone their fair hearing in my relations, so I suppose I'm "tolerant" in that sense. 

However, "tolerance" in my opinion does not mean passively nodding your head or turning the other way when somebody makes an absurd or illogical claim. Everybody is welcome to logical discourse and communal discussion. But, that doesn't mean you're not going to be called on it when say something illogical or absurd.

That's my philosophy, anyway.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

Stealth said:
			
		

> I said no since it is not 100% truth. But there is much symbolism. Also we must take into consideration that it was written by men thousands of years ago who did not have the understanding of the world that we have today. There should be no battle between religion and science. If God created everything, he did it through scientific methods.


 
One is reminded of the words of St. John of the Cross:

"Although God may answer [requests for signs, visions, and extraordinary experiencies], this method is not good, neither is it pleasing to God, but rather it is displeasing to Him. The reason for this is that _it is lawful for no creature to pass beyond the limits which God has ordained for his governance in the order of nature. In His governance of man He has laid down rational and natural limits_ wherefore the desire to pass beyond them is not lawful."

Also:

"With respect to divine visions and revelations and locutions God is not wont to reveal them, for _He is ever desirous that men should make use of their own reason as is possible_."

This is a *mystic* saying these words, mind you. Kinda makes you wonder about all the modern "Christians" that thumb their nose at the findings of science.

Laterz.


----------



## Stealth

heretic888 said:
			
		

> One is reminded of the words of St. John of the Cross:
> 
> "Although God may answer [requests for signs, visions, and extraordinary experiencies], this method is not good, neither is it pleasing to God, but rather it is displeasing to Him. The reason for this is that _it is lawful for no creature to pass beyond the limits which God has ordained for his governance in the order of nature. In His governance of man He has laid down rational and natural limits_ wherefore the desire to pass beyond them is not lawful."
> 
> Also:
> 
> "With respect to divine visions and revelations and locutions God is not wont to reveal them, for _He is ever desirous that men should make use of their own reason as is possible_."
> 
> This is a *mystic* saying these words, mind you. Kinda makes you wonder about all the modern "Christians" that thumb their nose at the findings of science.
> 
> Laterz.


 
Great read!


----------



## Beowulf

There are a lot of strong opinions on this subject. And there is also a lot of bad information out there. But the amount of proof for the Bible is quite overwhelming if one cares to look at it with an open mind.

Also, a word about "fundamentalists" in the news:

Originally, if I'm not mistaken, "fundamentalist" meant "one who takes the sacred writings of their religion seriously." Simple. As Martin Luther said when making a stand, "Sola Scriptura". Scripture Alone. Not a power hungry church, but scripture will guide me.

But in our time period it appears that "fundamentalist" has become a word for ranting, yelling, uneducated wackos on the news (they do manage to make the news since bad news sells-I did some journalism) who spread hate and believe they are doing God's work. They also seem to think God wants to kill everyone. 

Ever notice the apostles in the bible never acted this way?
Alot of times its just one psycho and his family members (like the guys who go to all the soldier funeral's with their lunacy). They really shouldn't be representative of Christianity, but would you bother to watch news about a good example? Come on, how exciting is it to watch news about a guy who reads the bible every morning and is nice to everybody?

Some misinformed "Christians" do everything they can to condemn and force one commandment in the bible on everyone who is not a Christian, and in doing so they often are breaking every other commandment.

Maybe if they read their bibles they would know better.
Remember the words St. John regarding the reason for Christ: "...not to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved"

Respects!


----------



## heretic888

Beowulf said:
			
		

> There are a lot of strong opinions on this subject. And there is also a lot of bad information out there. But the amount of proof for the Bible is quite overwhelming if one cares to look at it with an open mind.



The mount of proof that the moon is made of cheese is also quite overwhelming if one cares to look at it with an open mind. . .

See how sweeping assertions like this work?? You can claim virtually _anything_ without having to bother to deal with the Burden of Proof. After all, if somebody disagrees with you it's obviously because they don't have an "open mind". I mean, God forbid your "proof" (which you yet have to present) isn't what it's all cracked up to be.

As for me, methinks I'll stick with an actual logical argument and point out the Burden of Proof is on you. Sweeping generalizations and thinly-veiled ad hominems ain't gonna work here.

I'm also slightly amused by the mention of "bad information". Exactly which part of my arguments did you find "bad"?? The objective reporting of Palestinian geography?? The accurate description of typical Passover customs?? Or the pointing out of a contradiction concerning the dates??



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> Originally, if I'm not mistaken, "fundamentalist" meant "one who takes the sacred writings of their religion seriously." Simple. As Martin Luther said when making a stand, "Sola Scriptura". Scripture Alone. Not a power hungry church, but scripture will guide me.



In modern terminology, a "fundamentalist" is someone who interprets a _literal_ reading of their group's text to be factually true in its entirety. This is a manifestation of the sociocentrism that I mentioned earlier and "fundamentalism" (whether religious or secular) is always characterized with an intensified in-group bias and "us versus them" dualistic thinking. 

Sometimes, this leads to violence. Martin Luther is a perfect example of "fundamentalism", as he was extremely intolerant of other individual's interpretations of Scripture (including other Protestants) and incited his followers to physical violence against their perceived "enemies".

Laterz.


----------



## Brother John

heretic888 said:
			
		

> The mount of proof that the moon is made of cheese is
> 
> God forbid your "proof" (which you yet have to present) isn't what it's all cracked up to be.
> 
> As for me, methinks I'll stick with an actual logical argument and point out the Burden of Proof is on you..



I understand where you are coming from "H", and you have some interesting points..
I'd just like to point out that there's more to life than "logic" and not everything, infact many very Important things, can be "proved".
Just something to think about....


Your Brother
John


----------



## Beowulf

Well Heretic, (interesting name by the way, could there be any personal vendetta involved here?) you seem to be angry that the bible could be true. Why would you have a problem with that? 

There is usually a deeper reason for choosing to disbelieve it, and its usually not intellectual. I wonder...

By the way, the reason the proof is "overwhelming" is that it would probably take all day for me to write it out for you here. What if I asked you to prove to me that Goerge Washington was ever our president. There is plenty of evidence for it (none that can be observed) would you spend all day on your computer writing it, or would you tell me perhaps I could look into it myself. Then I would just reply with the moon is made of cheese argument. What kind of proof are you attempting to dismiss? 

Historical: As far as historical accuracy, find me something that is not historical in the Bible. I'm sure you'll find things that are impossible to disprove. But since you seem to take the idea of the bible being true very personally, I'm sure you'll do your best.

By the way, do you have a religion?


----------



## pstarr

I remember not too many years ago that the whole notion of "Hittites", as mentioned in the Bible was poo-pooed because no one could find any evidence that they'd ever existed.

     Then some archeologist found the remains of a Hittite city.  

     As my Jewish friend is fond of pointing out, not a single archeolical dig in Israel (and surrounding areas) has ever shown the Bible to be false or inaccurate.  In fact, the evidence over there has done just the opposite - validated names, place, civilizations, and so forth.

     Beowulf is right; to write out all that has been validated would take up too much space.


----------



## Laeticia

A wonderful discussion, thank you to all the participants. :asian:

I definitely have to dig up my bible when I get back home and revise the New Testament... As a non-christian student of japanese religions I tend to give lower priorities to anything that's "mainstream" or geographically too "close", but given that I haven't read bible after my confirmation in 1998 it's about time. 

Interested in (all) religions/religious thoughts = lots of reading

Yours truly,
Laeticia


----------



## heretic888

Brother John said:
			
		

> I understand where you are coming from "H", and you have some interesting points..
> I'd just like to point out that there's more to life than "logic" and not everything, infact many very Important things, can be "proved".


 
Sure. I never said otherwise.

However, I'm not sure what that little qualifier exactly has to do with the discussion at hand. At least three times on this thread I have already pointed out that the "historical" claims and the "spiritual" truths of Scipture are unrelated to one another. Do I really have to do so again??

Something tells me you're just preaching to the choir here.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

Beowulf said:
			
		

> Well Heretic, (interesting name by the way, could there be any personal vendetta involved here?) you seem to be angry that the bible could be true. Why would you have a problem with that?
> 
> There is usually a deeper reason for choosing to disbelieve it, and its usually not intellectual. I wonder...


 
Ah, yes. Apologetic Strategy 101: Attack the character of everybody that disagrees with you. After all, that's what Christ would do, right?

When you first entered this thread, it was everybody that didn't see what you see didn't have an "open mind". Now, everybody that disagrees with your perspective has some kind of deep-seated emotional issues ("there is usually a deeper reason for choosing to disbelieve, and it's usually not intellectual"). 

Delightful! Just keep laying on the ad hominems! It makes your position look all the more absurd to casual onlookers.

Look, Beowulf. I'm a psychology major. The study of the human mind is both my academic responsibility and my hobby. This feeble attempt at psychoanalysis that you're attempting is a complete joke. There is, to be perfectly blunt, nowhere near enough information to determine _anything_ about a person's personality characteristics from a handful of posts you read on an online forum.

And, for the sake of argument, let's assume I _do_ have some type of "deep" problems that prevent me from having an "open mind" about the subject. If then, so what?? It doesn't mean I'm wrong or that my arguments are faulty. In fact, is has _absolutely no bearing_ on the discussion whatsoever.

Try to Poison The Well all you want, Beowulf. But I'll call you on your non-sequiters each and every time. 



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> By the way, the reason the proof is "overwhelming" is that it would probably take all day for me to write it out for you here.


 
Likewise, the reason that the proof for the moon being composed of cheese is "overwhelming" is that it would take me all day for me to write it our for you here. And, of course, if you disagree with my proof it's simply because you're close-minded and have deep-seated emotional problems with the cheese industry!!

Sorry, but no dice. I would suggest familiarizing yourself with the Burden of Proof, Beowulf.

Furthermore, you have just invoked another lesson from Apologetic Strategy 101: Oversaturation trumps logical arguments. You can list a thousand faulty arguments and fallacious "proofs", but it doesn't change the fact that they're faulty and fallacious.

It's about quality, not quantity.



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> What if I asked you to prove to me that Goerge Washington was ever our president. There is plenty of evidence for it (none that can be observed) would you spend all day on your computer writing it, or would you tell me perhaps I could look into it myself.


 
Uh, no. I wouldn't do that precisely because it is intellectually dishonest.

I would either cite my sources or keep my mouth shut. But, then again, I've had ideas like academic integrity ingrained into me, so go figure.



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> Then I would just reply with the moon is made of cheese argument. What kind of proof are you attempting to dismiss?


 
In case you haven't figured it out by now, my "moon is cheese" argument was tongue-in-cheek. I was illustrating the logical fallacies of your claims.



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> Historical: As far as historical accuracy, find me something that is not historical in the Bible. I'm sure you'll find things that are impossible to disprove.


 
Well, this is a tricky area. A text can be entirely accurate in nine of its claims, but that doesn't demonstrate that it will be accurate in its tenth claim.

I'm not saying there is no historical facts in the Bible whatsoever. Pontius Pilate was definitely governor of Judea at this time and there were definitely Jews living in Judea at this time. That's about as factual as you get.

But as for the fudging of other facts, I (and others) have already pretty much laid this stuff out throughout the thread. I suppose we could begin with Matthew's Jesus being born during the reign of Herod (who died in 4 BCE) versus Luke's Jesus being born during the census of Quirinus (in 6 CE). Or the geographical anamolies that Mark and John make. Or the absurdity of the trial and crucifixion taking place on Passover. Or the meaninglessness of Jesus telling Jewish women not to divorce their husbands. So on and so on.

Just look over my previous posts. It's all there.



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> By the way, do you have a religion?


 
Ah, yes. The invocation of religious belief. Because that is _so_ relevant in regards to the historical accuracy of the Bible.

Not only is your question very much off-topic, but I already answered it in the "What Do You Believe?" thread at the top of the forum.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

pstarr said:
			
		

> I remember not too many years ago that the whole notion of "Hittites", as mentioned in the Bible was poo-pooed because no one could find any evidence that they'd ever existed.
> 
> Then some archeologist found the remains of a Hittite city.


 
Oh, joy. Another appeal to anonymous authorities, with no details mentioned. 

Imagine my surprise. 



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> As my Jewish friend is fond of pointing out, not a single archeolical dig in Israel (and surrounding areas) has ever shown the Bible to be false or inaccurate.


 
Ah, yes. The anonymous Jewish friend, whose ethnicity and nationality _proves_ he can't be wrong about archaelogy or Biblical scholarship.

Non-sequiter, I stab at thee! 



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> In fact, the evidence over there has done just the opposite - validated names, place, civilizations, and so forth.


 
Then you won't have any problems with citing this "evidence" --- complete with citation to an academic journal entry and a brief description of the methodology used to acquire said evidence. After all, "evidence" does not exist in a vacuum, just waiting for us to come along and pick it up. It is created via a methodology.

I'll give you an easy one. What evidence is there that the Jewish "Davidic Empire" ever existed??



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> Beowulf is right; to write out all that has been validated would take up too much space.


 
In other words, oversaturation trumps logical proofs. Gotchah.

Also, once again: Burden Of Proof.

Seriously, you guys are starting to crack me up. The absurdity of your arguments is sheer comedy.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

I found this is article in my online wanderings. It delves right into the meat of what passes for "New Testament Scholarship" these days:

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/intensity/turtondefense.pdf

*Introduction*

Recent events in the world of bloggers and internet discussion groups marked a climax of the growing tension between conservative scholars who have trapped themselves tightly around the mantle of New Testament Scholarship on one hand and the ever-improving, pervasive group of amateurs who progressively engage the works published by the mainstream scholars in the academia. It was a clash of two worlds, and the heat that the impact generated boiled off the boundary between these worlds and forced a confrontation that unmasked the conservatives. Observers afforded a glimpse of the terrified and insecure intellectual weakling that lurks behind the scholastic mien that conservatives adorn.

In May 2006, a well-instructed amateur ruthlessly debunked a freshly-published book by a respected scholar in the field and left it to waste even before impressionable crowds of lay Christian readers could eagerly line up to purchase the book. This review predictably embarrassed the scholar and his privileged friends in the academia.

In the past, amateur reviews of "magisterial" works by scholars were met with smug indifference. But the review in question, which we discuss below, instantly shattered the mask of smug indifference and elicited intellectually hollow denunciations, instead of a crushing blow-by-blow logical refutation from them.

The review in question was written by Michael Turton, a language lecturer at the university and a keen discussant and writer on New Testament issues. Turton has written critical reviews of more than a dozen books on NT scholarship and debated with various New Testament scholars at lists like XTalk. He maintained a very active blog called The Sword in which he discussed contemporary issues in New Testament scholarship. One of Michael's recent works has been his The Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark - hereafter HCGM. In that work, Michael's central thesis is that a literary analysis of the Gospel of Mark demonstrates that it is a fictional product from the writer of the gospel. In HCGM, Michael employs literary criticism, narrative criticism, rhetorical and historical criticism and draws from the techniques used by German scholar Hermann Gunkel, arguably the father of form criticism, and other scholars like John Dart and Ann Tolbert. From his detailed study of Mark, Michael concluded that the character of Jesus in Mark is not a historical person but a fictional construction by the author of the gospel.

Turton's tenor in the dozens of discussions that he has been engaged in has recently entailed a strict adherence to rigorous methodology and a strong antipathy for arguments that rely on unproven assumptions. In a field that has pastors and other individuals with confessional interests as the vanguards, Michael inevitably rubbed most of them the wrong way. He quickly got the attention of conservative scholars who manage most of the discussion lists on the net who developed a habit of deleting Michael's posts.
This merely strengthened Michael's convictions that he had stumbled upon a field mobbed by honest but grossly incompetent "scholars" with a fixed idea, many of who were qualified but employed sham reasoning in their work devoid of a methodology to help them separate facts from fiction in the NT texts.

One such "scholar" is Dr. James Tabor. Tabor chairs the department of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He has a Ph.D. in biblical studies from the University of Chicago and is an expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian origins.

*Tabor in the Neck of the Woods*

Now, James Tabor recently wrote and published The Jesus Dynasty. Tabor regarded the book as his ultimate contribution to the New Testament Scholarship and saw it as the ticket to his place alongside the rank and file of other New Testament Scholars that have written books on the Historical Jesus. In his view, it was a culmination of several decades of teaching and research on the Historical Jesus. Pumped up with favorable reviews from conservative readers and eager to display his magisterial work to the world, Tabor registered in an ancient history list that examines historical questions surrounding Jesus.

The discussion list he joined is The JesusMysteries - hereafter called JM. In JM, the listers approached Tabor's work enthusiastically and in no time, Tabor was flooded with damaging questions and, predictably, howlers started emerging from him.

To cut a long story short, within minutes, Tabor found himself in a corner and everything he gave out was taken apart with relentless logic backed by historico-critical method. He was left with nothing to hold on to. As most people do when they find themselves in the neck of the woods, Tabor sought a quick exit.

James Tabor walked out of the JesusMysteries list, declaring that he was "utterly convinced that Jesus existed, as is every competent historian" at any major university in the Western world. This tendency by dogmatic scholars of imposing a narrow interpretation of the evidence and declaring it to be the only way was one Turton was all too familiar with. Indeed, this dogmatic assertion got Tabor locked on Turton's crosshairs and Turton promised to go through the book with a toothcomb.

One of the listers, Rod Green, remarked:

"Dr. Tabor's comments [are] a great reminder of the walls that still exist between academia in all disciplines and the rest of the intellectual world (and there is an intellectual world existing outside the walls of academia). I was most interested in his statement that every competent historian in the western world (that he knew of) asserted the historicity of Jesus. This statement would have been more impressive if it had asserted that 'every' or even 'most' historians in the western world agreed with Dr. Tabor's position (we'll set aside the regional geo-political bias in that statement), but of course, this would not have been an accurate statement. There are, of course, historians and academics of various stripes who have challenged the historicity of Jesus and certainly the Jesus of Dr. Tabor's imaginings, but they would thus not qualify in Dr. Tabor's eyes as 'competent.' Competence here means agreeing with the commentator's position. All others become, by definition, incompetent."

The walls between the conservative right and the liberal left in New Testament studies that Green comments on were further manifested when
Turton stuck a pin in the backside of Tabor's bloated work, and the vituperative reaction that ensued after the deflation.

In a week's time, as promised, Michael wrote a review of Tabor's The Jesus Dynasty. It was a scathing, hard-hitting review. Michael had no kind words for Tabor and it was clear from Michael's review and the ensuing discussions that Tabor's training and presumed familiarity with New Testament Scholarship had no bearing on the contents of the book. In short, it was a methodology-free, amateurish work written by a scholar. Turton stated that it constituted "an insult to the efforts of all the New Testament scholars" and was "an insult to his [Tabor's] lay readers whose minds he filled with pap, and whom he did not take the time to educate."

*No Patient Objections to the Ludicrous*

Patient objections to the ludicrous become ludicrous themselves, Roger Kimball observed in The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctnedd Sabotages Art. Kimball's sentiments resonated in Turton's review because Tabor's work relied on sham reasoning and exposed acute absence of critical scholarship. Indeed, as Turton observed, Tabor's work was no more supported by any credible methodology than any of the looney tooney fringe stuff like the Da Vinci Code. He further observed that, "The really ironic thing is that Tabor's work is being posited as an antidote to the Da Vinci Code when in fact it is exactly like it. The only difference is that its breathless secret reading of the text is orthodox, whereas Da Vinci Code's isn't.

But some of Tabor's conservative buddies were not pleased. They would not stand by and watch a "dilletante" use one of their own to mop the floor. In retrospect, Turton's review was the spark that made the smoldering embers between Turton and Jim West burst into flames that would burn off West's scholarly mask, to reveal the apologist that lurks beneath.

*Divine Science or Star Trek?*

Michael's review got a disparaging, emotive reaction from Dr. Jim West, titled Invincible Ignorance and Inept Reviewers. West's response was a poorly-written, choking kludge peppered with paradoxes like "mindless idea" and hyperbolic use of superlatives in expressions like "the worst, rudest, and most revolting", but devoid of substance. Dr. West was so furious that he became incapable of realizing that his position is contradictory. I have captured an image of West's response at the end of this write up lest West deletes it from his blog.

One reader notes regarding West's contradictory and vacuous response:

"The issue" according to Dr West is "the rightness or sensibleness of dilettantes delving into arena's in which they have no competence, ability, or training." When I read this blog entry I saw no defence of this issue. I saw no evidence regarding the competence of the dilettante he is haranguing. All I saw was the writer's anger, the writer's feeling of some affront caused by the dilettante somehow encroaching on his turf, turf for which he has a license to be on.

Dr West writes "Does free speech really mean any and every fool who has a stupid or mindless idea or opinion should befoul the airwaves with it?" However, we know by the fact that he took the trouble to read the review that he is not in fact dealing with a stupid person with mindless ideas, unless Dr West is a masochist who likes reading foolish rubbish despite himself. He actively sought out the review. He went to the site. He didn't have to.

West complains that Turton is "not a professionally trained exegete" and yet fails to provide readers of his blog with a link to Turton's review so that they can judge by themselves. He would rather limit the readers of his blog into relying on his own content-free, vituperative assessment of Turton's review.

Clearly angry, West questions "the rightness or sensibleness of dilettantes delving into arena's in which they have no competence, ability, or training."

West appears unfamiliar with the Russian, Harry Igor Ansoff, who was trained as an engineer and mathematician yet he became Professor of Strategic Management and is arguably the father of Corporate Strategy. He would otherwise not wonder why "a person who teaches one subject imagines himself an expert in another." Besides, Michael never claimed expertise: he simply debunked Tabor's work, which was, for all intents and purposes, pure bunk.

It is strange that Jim West thinks that one's abilities are limited to the training they have gained. Indeed, several fields in scholarship have been influenced remarkably by contributors from other fields. So much so that the expression "think outside the box" became a common phrase among people seeking solutions to problems or fresh perspectives. Any interested observer knows that the New Testament scholarship needs fresh perspectives, unchained by the confessional interests that have becalmed several scholars as they stand in stagnant hermeneutical waters, unperturbed by the choking
putrescence of their flatulent paradigms.

West's fulminating response completely failed to address anything substantive that Michael wrote and focused solely on Turton's credentials. His overwrought carping on Turton's alleged dilettantism was a smokescreen designed to hide the glaring defects of the work of Tabor. The bloated mentality of West's patronizing stance cannot make up for the numerous holes Turton punched in Tabor's work.

It is clear that West and like-minded critics of Turton are incapable of mustering a scholarly response that directly address the issues that Turton raises regarding Tabor's book. Since West's vaunted credentials fail to help West in any way to respond to Michael, and since his response is purely fuelled by bigoted anger and sectarian bias, West has failed to show exactly how his credentials make him better qualified to comment on the matter. Before we wrap our minds around West's reaction, we ought to understand who he is.

*Meeting Dr. Jim West  Divinity Doctor*

Who is Dr. Jim West? We encounter the following introduction in biblioblog:

Jim West is the pastor of the First Baptist Church in Petros, Tennesee. He received his MDiv and ThM from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and his ThD from Andersonville Baptist Seminary.

From this brief introduction, we learn that West is a pastor and a holder of a couple of cornflake certificates from Theological Seminaries. What is a doctorate in divinity worth? An observer has remarked that a doctorate in divinity is "as valuable as a doctorate in Star Trek". But more seriously, a Philosophy Doctor reminds us in the same page:

"a degree simply points to a person having an extensive knowledge about a field. It does not automatically make that knowledge truthful. People should not use the fact of their degrees in place of arguments for positions, whether the degrees are accredited or not. A degree does not guarantee truth or prevent one from being in error."

As a pastor, Jim West is a priest having spiritual charge over a congregation. This means that West presides over certain ceremonies where dogmatic assertions are made regarding Biblical texts: the very texts that critical scholarship demands that West studies objectively. The very same texts West considers sacrosanct. In Andersonville's "Doctrine" page, under The Scriptures, we find the following passage:

"We believe that the Bible is the Word of God and is the absolute authority in determining the faith and practice of God's people. We affirm that the sixty-six books of the Bible are inerrant, divinely and uniquely inspired, and are given to mankind written as they were inspired by the Spirit of God. These Scriptures are divinely intended for personal study through the guidance of the Holy Spirit."


*Objective Biblical Inerrantist?*

Clearly, West lumps with Biblical inerrantists. How much objectivity can we expect from a pastor who has committed himself to such dogmatic beliefs? Indeed, doesn't honesty demand that West and like-minded individuals, who are supposed to be objective, disqualify themselves on the grounds of lack of impartiality?

Let us consider the West's entire response is rational. In Why People Believe in Weird Things, Michael Shermer defines rationalism as the practice of arriving at conclusions based on evidence or logic and dogmatism as forming conclusions based on authority rather than logic and evidence. We thus clearly see that West's response was irrational.

West's substance-free put-down exposes his lack of impartiality and is an effort to suppress the free expression of ideas that are contrary to the doctrinaire historical Jesus axiom of which West is a strong believer. West is deluded if he thinks that anybody is naive enough to regard a pastor as capable of critical scholarship.

*The Theology Contagion*

To appreciate the extent to which theology has engulfed critical scholarship in NT studies, let us redirect a bit. Fifteen years ago, in The Historical Jesus, John Dominic Crossan wrote regarding the unstandardized nature of historical Jesus research: "the historical Jesus research is becoming something of a scholarly bad joke". Crossan added that because of this unscholarly, foggy nature "it is impossible to avoid the suspicion that historical Jesus research is a very safe place to do theology and call it history, to do autobiography and call it biography". However, J. P. Meier, believes that Crossan and like-minded scholars are deluded on this and he contends that HJ scholars are doing theology, whether they realize it or not.

Interestingly, Crossan received a doctorate of divinity from Maynooth College, Ireland, in 1959. JP Meier, his compatriot, and who is normally on the receiving end of his criticism, is a Catholic University scholar who believes that Jesus was both fully divine and fully human. He is a scholar who, among other things, has tried to bridge the gap created by Rudolph Bultmann's dichotomy, which sought to separate Christ from the historical Jesus. Meier holds a doctorate in sacred Scripture (1976) from the Biblical Institute in Rome. In 1968, he graduated from the theology program at Gregorian University and has served as a Catholic priest.

Meier thinks that "a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people claim they are doing a quest for the historical Jesus when de facto they're doing theology, albeit a theology that is indeed historically informed. Go all the way back to Reimarus, through Schleiermacher, all the way down the line through Bultmann, Kasemann, Bornkamm. These are basically people who are theologians, doing a more modern type of Christology". When asked about historicity of Jesus' miracles, he opines that "It's a matter of faith."

*We Are Only Going To Improve*

This matter-of-faith approach regarding the existence of a historical Jesus is what set off Turton. And since Turton dismembered Tabor's work, followed by Jim West's assault, a number of strange things have unfolded including Turton's public apology to Tabor and his deletion of the infamous review from the net.

As Jim and like-minded theologians celebrate Turton's withdrawal, I would like to remind them of Turton's recent observation:

"For the nonce their output, like my own, is that of dilettantes, people who have to study in their spare time. It is unruly -- uneven, polemical, enormously energetic, wildly erroneous, sometimes amazingly uninformed, sometimes staggeringly insightful. But whatever its faults it is only going to improve. And each year that the Christian Right digs at the foundations of the United States, the number of ahistoricists will grow, because it is the natural response of people like me who were once willing to live and let live Doherty himself is an excellent example of how these two ideas cross-fertilize, for not only does he work on ahistorical Jesus theories, he also works with groups that oppose the Christian Right. And as the number of ahistoricists grows, Jim, we're going to get better at it. Why? Because there is no historical Jesus, Jim. He's a legitimating construction of the early proto-orthodox Christian Church in its struggles with competing Christianities, evolving out of many roots."

We are only going to improve.


----------



## Beowulf

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Look, Beowulf. I'm a psychology major. The study of the human mind is both my academic responsibility and my hobby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, I knew it. Its okay, make people feel dumb because they aren't psychology majors, great tactic. Why would anyone dare go against someone who's taken all those psychology classes? You are not intimidating.
> I'm may only be business major, but I have the same chuckling English professors as you. Its easy for someone to convince you of something when they are giving you a grade. Not that they are experts on the bible, but they sure do their best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but no dice. I would suggest familiarizing yourself with the Burden of Proof, Beowulf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a source for you:
> *Evidence that Demands a Verdict *
> Josh McDowell
> 
> You did say quality not quantity right?
> 
> Like a mini encyclopedia, I lent my copy out. If I had to pick one source it would be this. Pick one up and find me all the holes in it and get back to me. Josh began as a student who wanted to write a book refuting the bible. He changed his mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would either cite my sources or keep my mouth shut. But, then again, I've had ideas like academic integrity ingrained into me, so go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm. Interesting sarcasm. Lets not pretend that we have more academic integrity ingrained in us than the next guy. Your not the only one who has ever had to sit in college classes and write papers. But even if someone weren't, are they less than you? Is this sort of pompous attitude necessary?
> 
> Here is another one:
> 
> *The Case for Christ*
> Lee Strobel
> 
> Journalistic approach. This one's good, easier than Josh McDowells, in a start to finish way.
> "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" is better for college papers.
> 
> Here is a great one on prophesy:
> 
> *The Search for Messiah*
> Mark Eastman, MD
> 
> Beliefs of the ancient rabbis and Christ's fullfillment. Excellent work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is a tricky area. A text can be entirely accurate in nine of its claims, but that doesn't demonstrate that it will be accurate in its tenth claim.
> 
> I'm not saying there is no historical facts in the Bible whatsoever. Pontius Pilate was definitely governor of Judea at this time and there were definitely Jews living in Judea at this time. That's about as factual as you get.
> 
> But as for the fudging of other facts, I (and others) have already pretty much laid this stuff out throughout the thread. I suppose we could begin with Matthew's Jesus being born during the reign of Herod (who died in 4 BCE) versus Luke's Jesus being born during the census of Quirinus (in 6 CE). Or the geographical anamolies that Mark and John make. Or the absurdity of the trial and crucifixion taking place on Passover. Or the meaninglessness of Jesus telling Jewish women not to divorce their husbands. So on and so on.
> 
> Just look over my previous posts. It's all there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the meantime you can look over the source books I cited.
> Its all there.
> 
> Oh, of course you'd rather I sat here for weeks and argued with you.
> 
> I'm afraid I'll just choose to dissapoint you.
> 
> Go ahead, take the last word.
> 
> Peace, love, recycle
Click to expand...


----------



## Beowulf

P.S.:
As far as the Herod's, there was more than one.

You might want to check this out:
*Thrones of Blood, *A History of the times of Jesus
Josephus Josephus

Don't hate man, its good to have people like you to test my faith against. But trying to make it out as a complicated war between conservatives and liberals is not going to do anything for me. More than anything its just chasing mice in your own head. You still haven't convinced me of anything. 

Sorry but you'd actually have to do a little better than that. Long, boring narratives about conservative leaders or Knitpicking little dates and historical names will do little. Thats the sort of thing that can easily be refuted,probably with a little research. Its never failed yet. 

The "I'm a really intelligent psychology major who is logically infallible" approach will do nothing to convince the educated, just makes you look ego-driven. 

You don't like some of the teachings in the bible. 

Great, but you still haven't convinced me sir. I may not have an answer right away (nor care) but it will come in time.

No offense but your arguments are incredibly long-winded by the way. Is this a tactic to cause people to eventually find you tiresome and let you have the last word?

You would learn well from a verse in ecclesiastes: "the more that is said the less it means; what good does this do anybody?"

No offense but its true.


If you want to send me messages and I'll gentlmanly research your various assertions against the bible I'd be cool with that. It would only strengthen my faith. Maybe its God's will.

"Seek and you shall find,
Ask and you shall recieve"


----------



## Ray

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Look, Beowulf. I'm a psychology major. The study of the human mind is both my academic responsibility and my hobby. This feeble attempt at psychoanalysis that you're attempting is a complete joke. There is, to be perfectly blunt, nowhere near enough information to determine _anything_ about a person's personality characteristics from a handful of posts you read on an online forum.


I can't quite figure out if that's an appeal to authority, straw man, anecdotal account or other fallacy.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Biblical Archeology is a very interesting topic and at times using the bible as a guide seems to work. On others it seems to work at pointing at a few different sites and then it is up to the archeologists to battle it out and find definitive proof.

But that is not why I am posting here, after reading this post I was hit by a quote form Douglas Adam's Hitchhikers guide to the Universe and I thought you might need a little levity at the moment. I know this will probably get me bludgeoned here but here goes.......

"Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence 
of God. The arguement goes something like this:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves 
you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic."

--THGTG


----------



## heretic888

Beowulf said:
			
		

> Ahh, I knew it. Its okay, make people feel dumb because they aren't psychology majors, great tactic. Why would anyone dare go against someone who's taken all those psychology classes? You are not intimidating.



Straw Man

Beowulf, taking what I said out of its original context does not somehow change my argument. What I _actually_ said in regards to the invocation of my major was:

"This feeble attempt at psychoanalysis that you're attempting is a complete joke. There is, to be perfectly blunt, nowhere near enough information to determine anything about a person's personality characteristics from a handful of posts you read on an online forum."

My point was simply that we can know very little about a person's personality characteristics or flaws from perusing a few posts they make on an online discussion board. I made no other claims regarding my knowledge of the social sciences beyond this. Your claim that I was using my academic background to invalidate your argument is, to be perfectly blunt, a Straw Man (see above).

Allow me to reiterate this point. . .

Oftentimes on online communities such as this, we see attemts to ascertain the personality characteristics or the underlying "logic" of the people behind the posts. As a psychology major, I am going to immediately come out and say that this is an exercise in folly. Even someone well-versed in the social sciences such as myself simply does not have enough information to go on to make informed evaluations of anybody here based solely on the handful of posts I may come across from them.

As such, I hold that we should take each others' posts at face value, analyzing the logic and evidence that they present for what it is. It is tempting to try to speculate on the personality traits or the personal history of our fellow posters, but it is just that: speculation.

You're the one that was going on about "open minds" and "deep issues", not me. Of course, the _only reason_ you did so in the first place was to discredit those that disagree with you without having to go through all the trouble of addressing their arguments. Non-sequiter.



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> Is this sort of pompous attitude necessary?



Yes, the invocation of intellectual dishonesty is perfectly valid when one makes claims such as "I have overwhelming evidence for my case, but I'm not going to present it because it's just so overwhelming!" To be blunt, this is a cop-out and is intellectualy dishonest (as well as condescending to one's opponents).

The invocation of intellectual dishonesty is further supported when one perpetually makes claims such as those that disagree with you have "deep issues" that prevent them from having an "open mind" about the subject, as well as the construction of Straw Men arguments that distort the claims of one's opponent.

So, yes, I think this strategy is both appropriate and necessary.



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> In the meantime you can look over the source books I cited.
> Its all there.



I didn't ask for a bibliography, I asked for evidence and logical proofs. If I so desired, I could also just start tossing names (without actually engaging in the arguments of my sources) that support my position. But, honestly, what would that prove other than I've read a few books??

But, since this is the game you want to play. . .



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> *Evidence that Demands a Verdict *
> Josh McDowell



The Great Propsterous
Robert Price

A Rejoinder to Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict: 'Jesus-- God's Son'
Robert Price



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> *The Case for Christ*
> Lee Strobel



Challenging The Verdict: A Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel's The Case For Christ
Earl Doherty



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> *The Search for Messiah*
> Mark Eastman, MD



Let's look to a book review on amazon.com:

"From reading the Forward and Prologue one has reason to expect this book to contain a WEALTH of evidence attesting to the historicity, Messiahship, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. The author(s) assure that 'the sceptic will be challenged'. As a matter of fact I was sadly disappointed as I went thru this 'gateway of discovery' on the 'grand adventure' that reportedly 'unveils a trove of treasure'. I found the 'evidence' to be weak, sparse, and confusingly presented. The book is obviously written for a Christian audience to provide some inspirational hype to bolster the faith of the believer. The author(s) appear to confuse hearsay with 'evidence'. This is most obvious in Ch.8 where reference is made to 'tens of thousands of witnesses' and numerous sources that should suffice to satisfy our need for indisputable 'evidence'of the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. The bible is presented as 'evidence' without informing the reader that only FOUR of its authors where in fact eyewitnesses to only SOME of these events of the life of Jesus. They inexplicably waited more than 20 years (and as many as 50-60 years) before recording these events. The author(s) don't attempt to differentiate between eye witness (all be it tardily recorded) accounts and hearsay recollections in the biblical record. This 'evidence' does not rise to the level claimed for it by the author(s) of the book. The 'ancient rabbinic literature' is also appealed to. No 'trove of treasure' here. I only found 2 applicable sources that were presented. Each lacked the specificity necessary to clearly identify a referrance to 'Jesus of Nazareth'. In fact contextual considerations would strongly resist such an interpretation. In the area of 'secular historical references' there are 7 listed and the author(s) make claim to: 'many other non-Christian historical sources for Jesus of Nazareth but since space is limited we will move on...'. I wish space wasn't 'limited' (I can't help suspecting the main limitation being a dearth of pertinent sources). They need more sources because out of the 7 presented only 2 actually MENTION Jesus!!! Those 2 are NOT eyewitnesses and are NOT even contemporary to Jesus. Josephus was 60 years after the fact and Tacticus was at least 80 years after Jesus. The Divinity and Messiahship of Jesus are primarily presented from the Biblical evidence. Numerous texts are used but confusingly organized and often gratuitous (having no bearing on the issue under consideration). The 2 strongest texts supporting the contention for a suffering/sacrificial Messiah, Psalms 22 and Isaiah 52-53 are well presented in part. What is lacking is an explanation of the contradictory passages which appear when one reads the entire prophecies. Ps.22 has the protagonist escaping death thru God's intervention due to his crying 'day and night'. Is.52-53 has a silent protagonist who is ultimately dispatched having 'opened not his mouth'. It seems to me that both passages cannot be talking about the same person. I feel the view of the author(s) that the 'ancient rabbinic literature' shows an expectation for a suffering/dying Messiah was poorly substantiated. Numerous passages are cited in the text and appendices; but one gets the feeling that there has always been a disparity of belief among the rabbis rather than a shift of position from 'ancient' beliefs to contemporary ones. I did email one of the authors (Mark Eastman) with a few of my questions. He was gracious enough to reply. He related that he was 'a big picture kind of guy'; and was mainly trying to show that rabbinic views have changed down thru the ages. His reply though did not give any further specific support for his position. I have no problem with the author(s) holding such beliefs. Being born and raised in a conservative Christian family myself; I too have enjoyed the belief that I have access to the knowledge of God and am therefore pretty well informed. I'm a little resentful (and frankly underwhelmed) though, when the author(s) start making grandiose claims of 'evidence' (that suck me into an examination of their argument); but only present the same inadequate (to me) material that I've seen and heard in the past."

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

Beowulf said:
			
		

> As far as the Herod's, there was more than one.



Sure, but it was Herod the Great (74 BCE - 4 BCE) that is referred to in the Gospel of Matthew, which specifically addresses the point I was making before.



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> Don't hate man, its good to have people like you to test my faith against. But trying to make it out as a complicated war between conservatives and liberals is not going to do anything for me. More than anything its just chasing mice in your own head. You still haven't convinced me of anything.



Three things:

1) I don't "hate" anything that has been brought up here. At most, I find it mildly annoying.

2) I never made this out as "a complicated war between conservatives and liberals". In my opinion, this about the inertia of tradition. Appeals to tradition are something both conservatives and liberals are guilty of. 

3) I'm not trying to "convince" you of anything. I generally assume that most people won't change their minds on topics such as these, regardless of what evidence or logic is presented. I am simply making a case for my own position.



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> Sorry but you'd actually have to do a little better than that. Long, boring narratives about conservative leaders or Knitpicking little dates and historical names will do little. Thats the sort of thing that can easily be refuted,probably with a little research. Its never failed yet.



Once again, please familiarize yourself with the Burden of Proof.

And, yes, when we're talking about the _historical accuracy_ of a literal reading of the Bible, then when names and dates are flat-out wrong then there are problems. 



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> The "I'm a really intelligent psychology major who is logically infallible" approach will do nothing to convince the educated, just makes you look ego-driven.



I already addressed this in my previous post. This is a straw man argument on your part. 



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> You don't like some of the teachings in the bible.



Actually, I don't have any more of a problem with the Bible than I do with any other work of Bronze Age religious literature. 

My issue is with irrational non-sequiters and intellectual dishonesty being passed off for actual discourse.



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> No offense but your arguments are incredibly long-winded by the way. Is this a tactic to cause people to eventually find you tiresome and let you have the last word?



Ah, yes. 

Once again, we see the tried-and-true attempt to use personal attacks to discredit the arguments of one's opponent. First I was close-minded, then I had deep-seated emotional issues, and now I'm using my intellect to fillibuster my opponent. I'm sure in another page or so I'll be accused of being a murderer or child molester at some point. Or, even worse, a lobbyist for the cheese industry.

Honestly, it never ceases to amaze me how often apologetics resort to these sorts of strategies in discussions such as this. They can't help but make it an issue of personal attacks. I remember the first Historical Jesus discussion I had on these forums I was actually asked why I "hate God". Heh, go figure.

What would Jesus do? Poison the well, I guess.

Laterz.


----------



## Beowulf

Hmm book reviews from amazon and google searches on people attempting to dismiss the sources.

Pat yourself on the back Heretic. You have not reviewed any of the evidence yourself. Your overwhelming evidence against consists of google searches on various arguments. There's always arguments, but you have not done anything. Congratulations. 

Did you just pass your first scantron multiple choice on logical fallacies in English 205 for freshman? You are certainly giddy about sharing the wealth you learned. Since I did it last year I'm not as excited as you.

At least I did some reading.


----------



## heretic888

Beowulf said:
			
		

> Hmm book reviews from amazon and google searches on people attempting to dismiss the sources.
> 
> Pat yourself on the back Heretic. You have not reviewed any of the evidence yourself. Your overwhelming evidence against consists of google searches on various arguments. There's always arguments, but you have not done anything. Congratulations.


 
What evidence? No evidence has been presented, only a list of books.

A bibliography does not constitute a logical argument. I can invoke my own bibliography if I so chose, but as I pointed out before, it doesn't prove anything other than I've read a few books. It's the same in your case, as well.

Unless you can engage in the methodologies and arguments provided by the aforementioned sources, then your "proof" is little more than claiming x must be true because y sources said so. In other words, an appeal to authority.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'm still waiting for the evidence, but I doubt I'll see any anytime soon. But, hey, feel free to toss around a few more names. I'm sure Bob has the bandwidth to spare.

Anyway, weren't you leaving the thread??

Laterz.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Actually, I don't have any more of a problem with the Bible than I do with any other work of Bronze Age religious literature.


 
lol...you slay me, heretic!

No, seriously:  you guys to try to tone it down a little.  I'm catching the first whiffs of the snipe in the middle distance.  This thread is good place for discussion of the validity, accuracy and implications of the Holy Bible.  Let's keep it to that, shall we, and not devolve into personal commentary?

Thank you,

OnlyAnEgg
MT Senior Moderator


----------



## heretic888

OnlyAnEgg said:
			
		

> lol...you slay me, heretic!


 
I aim's ta please.


----------



## Jonathan Randall

Heretic888, forgive me if I'm wrong, but you are coming across, to me at least, as a person with a vendetta against Christianity largely as a result of you experiences in the church as a young person. I can understand putting your views out, but, come on, this, IMO, is overdoing it. By focusing so much time and energy into "debunking" Christianity you are giving it continued power over you life. Just my unofficial, private member opinion.


----------



## heretic888

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> Heretic888, forgive me if I'm wrong, but you are coming across, to me at least, as a person with a vendetta against Christianity largely as a result of you experiences in the church as a young person. I can understand putting your views out, but, come on, this, IMO, is overdoing it. By focusing so much time and energy into "debunking" Christianity you are giving it continued power over you life. Just my unofficial, private member opinion.


 
I can understand how one could get the impression from reading a handful of my posts. However, as I said previously, psychoanalyzing on an online forum is an exercise in folly. We simply don't have enough information to deduce any psychological "facts" about one another.

That being said, the notion that I have a personal vendetta against Christianity is fairly absurd, given that I openly draw upon the work of various Christian mystics (such as Meister Eckhart or St. John of the Cross) in my own belief system. I have been accused of being an atheist here more than once, and it's a flat wrong assumption.

I'm a scientist and a philosopher at heart. I have to go where the evidence is. To do otherwise is, in my estimation, intellectually dishonest.

Laterz.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg

I have to chime in here.  I have agreed and disagreed with heretic on a few occasions and, though we are certainly from different camps, I have not witnessed any vendetta from the man regarding Christianity or any other religion, for that matter.

The angle from which he views things is not the same as mine; therefor, we will see things differently.  An apple is still an apple viewed from the outside or at the molecular level.

my 2 cents.


----------



## Carol

Heretic, where I differ from you is not so much in overall theological point of view but perhaps from the point of view of how we see others.

Personally I respect Christianity and the Holy Bible a lot.  I also respect Christians, and their path.  

There are some points of view to Christianity that I don't like.  The hardcore fundamentalism and the stand against gay marriage are two elements.  But, I can't bring myself to charge against the faith because...this is something that is precious to someone.  

And I say this knowing full well that there are some uber-fundamentalists that would probably want me dead simply because I call God by another name 

Personally, I am not bothered by someone believing that the world wa created in less time than it took for me to do my taxes.   I am more bothered by the large-scale infliction of such beliefs.   Personally I focus on the infliction as my point of departure, not the faith...but that's just my thougts. :asian:


----------



## celtic_crippler

I find it strange how much "religious" content there is on this Martial Art forum. 

The bible is a book written by men. So is the Koran, the Tora (spelling?), and every other theological book or text that ever existed. It's a known fact that the Catholic Church tampered with the bibles contents as well as King James. Books were left out....things were lost in the many, many translations. Man is flawed. 

So what is the point really? What really matters? 

All books teach the same basic ethics and ideas when you break them down to their base. Put simply...ACT RIGHT! Don't kill needlessly. Don't steal! Don't cheat! Treat your fellow human beings the way you want to be treated (BTW, this ideal was written down by Confucious way before the Golden Rule ever saw paper.) 

These are ideas! Ideas are wonderful things...but when you assign a "religion" to an idea....it gets nasty. People pervert it and the next thing you know you have a Jihad. People blow themselves up....or hang and burn women that don't agree with them. FACT: The Christian Reformation was the bloodiest century ever seen by man prior to WWII. Let me put that in perspective for you. We had a Nuclear bomb that was used in WWII, along with other convential weapons like bullets and bombs. During the Christian Reformation we pretty much used things like rope to hang, fire to burn, and swords to chop. ....oh yeah..and horses to "draw and quarter." They had to work a lot harder to kill people in those days. 

Religion has caused more suffering and death than any combination of things ever since man stood upright and stopped beating on rocks. Why not share an idea instead, keep an open mind, and spare a life or two? 

My 0.02


----------



## Beowulf

Good bye heretic.

Sorry I didn't feel like writing a research paper for you on this forum.

I guess that's a logical fallacy for in your book.

I'm sure we'll meet again.

I'm going to miss you.


----------



## Beowulf




----------



## heretic888

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> Heretic, where I differ from you is not so much in overall theological point of view but perhaps from the point of view of how we see others.
> 
> Personally I respect Christianity and the Holy Bible a lot. I also respect Christians, and their path.


 
I personally don't have anything against Christians or their Bible. 

I find fundamentalism (secular or religious) and sociocentrism to be mildly annoying and frustrating, but that's about it. However, this isn't a "Christian" thing, as these qualities correspond with deep features in the psychological development of all human beings (i.e., Kohlberg and Fowler).

Personally, I think true "Christians" are more akin to the theosis, kenosis, and apophatic mysticism of St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart, or Father Thomas Merton. The evangelicals just don't interest me that much.

However, history is history. No amount of "faith", "tolerance", "wish-fulfillment", or anything else is going to change that. I have great respect for Biblical mysticism (as represented best by St. John of the Cross) but have exceedingly little confidence in Biblical history. 



			
				Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> There are some points of view to Christianity that I don't like. The hardcore fundamentalism and the stand against gay marriage are two elements. But, I can't bring myself to charge against the faith because...this is something that is precious to someone.


 
Again, I don't have anything against the faith per se. Please see my comments above.

But, at the same time, I really don't have a problem with criticizing something that is "precious" to someone. That, in my opinion, is tantamount to ego-coddling or what Chogyam Trungpa called "idiot compassion".



			
				Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> Personally, I am not bothered by someone believing that the world wa created in less time than it took for me to do my taxes. I am more bothered by the large-scale infliction of such beliefs. Personally I focus on the infliction as my point of departure, not the faith...but that's just my thougts. :asian:


 
Can't disagree there.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

celtic_crippler said:
			
		

> I find it strange how much "religious" content there is on this Martial Art forum.


 
Um, well, the name of this forum is "Philosophy and Spirituality in the Arts". . . 



			
				celtic_crippler said:
			
		

> The bible is a book written by men. So is the Koran, the Tora (spelling?), and every other theological book or text that ever existed. It's a known fact that the Catholic Church tampered with the bibles contents as well as King James. Books were left out....things were lost in the many, many translations. Man is flawed.


 
Can't disagree with you there. 



			
				celtic_crippler said:
			
		

> So what is the point really? What really matters?


 
The points I have been trying to make for nine pages now are:

1) The Bible is unreliable as a documentation of historical accuracy.

2) The history of the Bible and the spirituality of the Bible are two different things. 



			
				celtic_crippler said:
			
		

> All books teach the same basic ethics and ideas when you break them down to their base. Put simply...ACT RIGHT! Don't kill needlessly. Don't steal! Don't cheat! Treat your fellow human beings the way you want to be treated (BTW, this ideal was written down by Confucious way before the Golden Rule ever saw paper.)


 
Trying to find some kind of "basic ethics and ideas" in such a fashion is, in my opinion, an exercise in folly. For every one ethical precept you find in common with other cultures, you will find three more that are unique to that particular faith tradition. The "Golden Rule" is perhaps universal, but "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me, for I am a jealous God" is not.

If you want to find commonality among the world's religions, it is through the practice of contemplation and mysticism. I would suggest Huston Smith's _The Forgotten Truth_ as an elucidation on this matter. 



			
				celtic_crippler said:
			
		

> Religion has caused more suffering and death than any combination of things ever since man stood upright and stopped beating on rocks. Why not share an idea instead, keep an open mind, and spare a life or two?


 
As I pointed out above, this has less to do with "religion" and more to do with the deep features of sociocentrism and fundamentalism (both secular and religious). One need not look any further than the Communist states of Cuba, Russia, and China to see just how brutal and viscious these same progroms can be in "secular" hands.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

Beowulf said:
			
		

> Good bye heretic.
> 
> Sorry I didn't feel like writing a research paper for you on this forum.
> 
> I guess that's a logical fallacy for in your book.


 
No, it's not.

I can perfectly understand the concept of not having the time or energy for the rigors of logical debate. I have no problem with that.

What I _do_ have a problem with is when somebody threatens to have "overwhelming evidence" for their position but either a) don't provide it or b) give you a bibliography instead. That, and I get a little miffed about personal attacks and ad hominems.

But, hey, to each his (or her) own.



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> I'm sure we'll meet again.
> 
> I'm going to miss you.


 
Have a good one.

Laterz.


----------



## celtic_crippler

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Trying to find some kind of "basic ethics and ideas" in such a fashion is, in my opinion, an exercise in folly. For every one ethical precept you find in common with other cultures, you will find three more that are unique to that particular faith tradition. The "Golden Rule" is perhaps universal, but "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me, for I am a jealous God" is not.


 
Of course different religions developed aspects that are unique unto themselves over the centuries, but my point was that underneath it all the same basic concepts are there: rules that govern behavior towards each other that is conducive to the survival of the entire Human Race and successful maintainence of a society. If we were to kill each other with reckless abandon, or act in ways that propmted the killing of others then we wouldn't last very long! LOL. 

BTW, here's something to think about: Since when was a "GOD" subject to human emotion? Is it not the height of human arrogance to assign our own short comings to a supreme being??? We think too much of ourselves. IMHO


----------



## MartialIntent

heretic888 said:
			
		

> The points I have been trying to make for nine pages now are:
> 
> 1) The Bible is unreliable as a documentation of historical accuracy.
> 
> 2) The history of the Bible and the spirituality of the Bible are two different things.


heretic888, you are plainly a very well-read and erudite member here. You have a faith in generally accepted historical inaccuracy of the bible - I won't attempt to argue against that at all. You've put a lot of interesting stuff down, I'm wondering why? Can I ask if you'd countenance the possiblity of your proofs _altering_ the beliefs of those who take the bible as their de facto standard document? I mean, does the possibility exist for overwhelming proof to overcome overwhelming faith [or vice versa]? 

Respects!


----------



## heretic888

celtic_crippler said:
			
		

> Of course different religions developed aspects that are unique unto themselves over the centuries, but my point was that underneath it all the same basic concepts are there: rules that govern behavior towards each other that is conducive to the survival of the entire Human Race and successful maintainence of a society. If we were to kill each other with reckless abandon, or act in ways that propmted the killing of others then we wouldn't last very long! LOL.



Sure, but there is nothing particularly "religious" about any of that.



			
				celtic_crippler said:
			
		

> BTW, here's something to think about: Since when was a "GOD" subject to human emotion? Is it not the height of human arrogance to assign our own short comings to a supreme being??? We think too much of ourselves. IMHO



Don't ask me. I didn't write it.

Personally, my own beliefs about the Divine are very much in agreement with the principles of apophatic theology:

In Negative theology, it is not necessary to know the essence of God:
- Neither existence nor nonexistence applies to God, i.e., God is beyond existing or not existing. (One should not say that God exists in the usual sense of the term; nor should we say that God is nonexistent.) 
- There is no multiplicity in God's being. (One should not claim that god is one, or three, or any type of being. All that can be said is, whatever God is, is not multiple independent beings) 
- God is not ignorant. (One should not say that God is wise since that word implies we know what wise means, whereas we only know what wise means to a human.) 
- Likewise, God is not evil. (To say that He is good limits Him to what good means to humans.) 
- God is not a creation (but beyond this we do not know how God comes to be) 
- God is not conceptually definable in terms of space and location. 
- God is not conceptually confinable to assumptions based on time.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

MartialIntent said:
			
		

> You've put a lot of interesting stuff down, I'm wondering why? Can I ask if you'd countenance the possiblity of your proofs _altering_ the beliefs of those who take the bible as their de facto standard document? I mean, does the possibility exist for overwhelming proof to overcome overwhelming faith [or vice versa]?



In general, I assume that my arguments will not change the minds of most people. As a good rule-of-thumb, a given individual is not capable of altering their own worldview by more than 10% (if even that) at any given point in time. Therefore, if you were brought up to see the Bible as the infallible "Word of God" and that is part of your ingrained worldview, then most of my arguments and proofs of inerrancy will not only fail to convince, but they will come across as personally threatening and "arrogant".

It is conceivable that a person "on the fence" might find my arguments to be persuasive, but I cannot make that assumption. For the most part, I doubt many people will be swayed no matter how much logic and evidence is brought to them. That is the power of psychological inertia.

That being said, I am of the philosophy that the truth is worth exploring for its own sake. It needs no other pragmatic or practical application. If you believe it is worthwhile to investigate the truth, then that is all that is needed. That is why I do what I do.

I post my arguments on forums such as this as a means of "pressure-testing" them and of clarifying my own position on the subject. I doubt anyone here would substantially change my mind, either, but they may be able to help me improve my arguments. 

Laterz.


----------



## Brother John

Wow... This thread has really grown. Mostly due to your tenacity Heretic. Seems this is a very well thought out issue for you (wether I believe your point of view or not, I've got to say....you can write a LOT about it). 

So really it boils down, according to what you've said, (totally paraphrased by me) to:

1. The Historicity of the Bible is suspect at best.

2. The Historicity of the Bible and the "Spiritual Validity" of the faiths that are based on these books (The Bible being a compilation of books) are not one and the same. (in other words, point number one doesn't impact the spiritual truths of the Bible itself)

3. Christians (*just like* Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindi, Atheist, Agnostic, Dianeticists, Neo-Pagans....etc.) are still *Human* and _flawed_ and have a long way to go to fully live up to their own spiritual traditions and paradigms.

_does that sum it up?_
If these are your points.....

*I can live with that.*        :ultracool 

If things were PERFECT, then there'd be no need for "faith", or hard work.
I believe that we are here to exercise and grow in both in our climb toward the light.
We still have our work cut out for us in our ascension then.

See you on the path......


Your Brother        :asian:
John


----------



## MartialIntent

heretic888 said:
			
		

> It is conceivable that a person "on the fence" might find my arguments to be persuasive, but I cannot make that assumption. For the most part, I doubt many people will be swayed no matter how much logic and evidence is brought to them. That is the power of psychological inertia.


You're quite correct, many people are indeed not for swaying. I don't know if you'd class yourself among them? But yeah, "the power of psychological inertia" could actually be the scientist's way to describe the essence of faith perhaps. And of course faith is often blind to logic and evidence - a bit like the bee whose weight, dimension and size _should_ preclude its ability to fly.

Anyway, sorry to be tangential. Thanks and respects!


----------



## Ray

heretic888 said:
			
		

> In general, I assume that my arguments will not change the minds of most people. As a good rule-of-thumb, a given individual is not capable of altering their own worldview by more than 10%..


and it appears that the arguments of others will not change your mind. Maybe you're right and have no need to; or you're wrong and not capable of altering your own worldview (along with me and the other "most" of the people)...


----------



## heretic888

Brother John said:
			
		

> Wow... This thread has really grown. Mostly due to your tenacity Heretic. Seems this is a very well thought out issue for you (wether I believe your point of view or not, I've got to say....you can write a LOT about it).



I'll choose to take that as a compliment.  



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> _does that sum it up?_
> If these are your points.....



Pretty much, yeah.



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> *I can live with that.* :ultracool
> 
> If things were PERFECT, then there'd be no need for "faith", or hard work.
> I believe that we are here to exercise and grow in both in our climb toward the light.
> We still have our work cut out for us in our ascension then.



I agree.



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> See you on the path......



Have a good one.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

MartialIntent said:
			
		

> You're quite correct, many people are indeed not for swaying. I don't know if you'd class yourself among them? But yeah, "the power of psychological inertia" could actually be the scientist's way to describe the essence of faith perhaps. And of course faith is often blind to logic and evidence - a bit like the bee whose weight, dimension and size _should_ preclude its ability to fly.
> 
> Anyway, sorry to be tangential. Thanks and respects!


 
No worries, MartialIntent.

I should point out though that what I'm talking about is not religious "faith" per se. It can refer to "faith" in just about _anything_. It may be faith in a person, an institution, a political party, or even your favorite restaurant.

The issue is that when a person emotionally and personally _identifies_ with that something, when so much of their personal psychic energy and social identity is bound up in it, then it is _very_ hard for a person to openly criticize and analyze that something. That is what I refer to as "psychological inertia".

This is related to cognitive dissonance theory in social psychology.

Laterz.


----------



## elder999

At John 18:37, 38 we find this interchange of words between Jesus and Pontius Pilate (which started when Jesus was on trial):
Pilate: You arent a king, are you? 
Jesus: You are saying that Im a king. This is why I was born and why I came into the world, *to testify to the truth*. *Everyone who is on the side of truth listens to my voice*. 
Pilate: *What is truth?*


 _What *is* truth?_

Im in a room at 68 degrees Fahrenheit-thats a *fact.*

I say Its _cold_ in here, which, for me, is the truth.

My co worker gets up from his chair sweating, walks right over to the thermostat, turns it down even more and says, Its too  *hot* in here, which, for him, is the truth.

And there we have it: one fact, two truths, all valid.

Ive found-as a former Christian- former seminarian, son, grandson and great- grandson of ministers who has studied most of the worlds greater religious scriptures, and several different versions of the Bible-and Im a person  with a deep love and respect for the teachings of the rabbi Yeshua, faith (or lack thereof) notwithstanding--that _all the religious scriptures of the world contain much beauty and truth,_

*Facts,* however, are..well, up for discussion, if not often dubious.

Errors-in translation, interpretation and intent, are everywhere.

Starting with Genesis-the literal interpretation of the creation myth contained therein is pretty much a dark ages phenomena-early Hebrew commentary, and even some early Christian commentary (ala Augustine) pretty much make it apparent that prior to 1200 A.D. or so, the creation myth of Genesis was seen as allegory-thusly doing away with any scientific inconsistencies it contains, like, where Cains wife came from, or  how long the days were before the sun was created, or how plants managed to survive before the sun was created-its simply someones way of explaining the universes existence, mans place in it and his evolving relationship with the Creator. 

While some of the events  and people of the Old Testament can be found to have some basis in  factual event and people, the relationship of the stories to facts is open to debate. Thus, we have a city called Jericho that archaelogical evidence points to having fallen after a long siege, but no support at all for its demise as the target of supernatural sonic weaponry. Doesnt mean it didnt happen that way, and  it doesnt mean it did. And, while we can be pretty sure that there was a great flood, and that at some point, somebody was on a boat with some animals, the storys been told and retold in so many versions in the region that we can be fairly certain that his name didnt become Noah until the Hebrews got a hold of the tale, and that the boat probably just had some livestock on it, and not two of every kind of beast on earth-in fact, since the world at the time was pretty much as far as one could walk in a couple of days, for most of the people of that region, at any rate, and since we know that the flood was pretty much confined to that region, the phrase two of each kind of beast takes on a radically different meaning to the literal interpretation so often imposed on the tale.

Im not even going to get into the whole New Testament thing in this kind of detail (several different potential  debates there,starting with, say, _Nazareth_) except to point out that most accepted Biblical scholarship-and by that I mean academics in the field of religion, and not necessarily of the faith-have pretty thoroughly discredited every account or mention of Jesus ever held to be contemporaneous with the Gospels. Josephus mention of him is generally accepted as a  later addition by translators. The Gospels themselves-well, *theyre full of beauty and truth*, for those who can see it, but theyre also full of a lot of other stuff, and a lot of it is simply not historically reliable, but, speaking as a scientist, Ive pretty clearly demonstrated that just because somethings not a fact, doesnt mean its not true, and vice versa.


----------



## heretic888

Ray said:
			
		

> and it appears that the arguments of others will not change your mind.


 
Well, Ray, to be perfectly blunt. . .

Not a single person here arguing for Biblical infallibility has provided anything resembling a logical argument. Ad hominems ("you need to have an open mind. . ."), anonymous appeals to authority ("well, my Jewish friend says that. . ."), and bibliographies ("read these and you'll understand. . .") are _not_ logical arguments, nor do they constitute proofs.

The fact that somebody disagrees with you does not constitute a valid "argument". It's just a disagreement. 



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Maybe you're right and have no need to; or you're wrong and not capable of altering your own worldview (along with me and the other "most" of the people)...


 
In either event, actual evidence is required. Somebody is not right or wrong "just because".

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

elder999 said:
			
		

> At John 18:37, 38 we find this interchange of words between Jesus and Pontius Pilate (which started when Jesus was on trial):
> Pilate: You arent a king, are you?
> Jesus: You are saying that Im a king. This is why I was born and why I came into the world, *to testify to the truth*. *Everyone who is on the side of truth listens to my voice*.
> Pilate: *What is truth?*
> 
> 
> _What *is* truth?_
> 
> Im in a room at 68 degrees Fahrenheit-thats a *fact.*
> 
> I say Its _cold_ in here, which, for me, is the truth.
> 
> My co worker gets up from his chair sweating, walks right over to the thermostat, turns it down even more and says, Its too *hot* in here, which, for him, is the truth.
> 
> And there we have it: one fact, two truths, all valid.
> 
> Ive found-as a former Christian- former seminarian, son, grandson and great- grandson of ministers who has studied most of the worlds greater religious scriptures, and several different versions of the Bible-and Im a person with a deep love and respect for the teachings of the rabbi Yeshua, faith (or lack thereof) notwithstanding--that _all the religious scriptures of the world contain much beauty and truth,_
> 
> *Facts,* however, are..well, up for discussion, if not often dubious.
> 
> Errors-in translation, interpretation and intent, are everywhere.
> 
> Starting with Genesis-the literal interpretation of the creation myth contained therein is pretty much a dark ages phenomena-early Hebrew commentary, and even some early Christian commentary (ala Augustine) pretty much make it apparent that prior to 1200 A.D. or so, the creation myth of Genesis was seen as allegory-thusly doing away with any scientific inconsistencies it contains, like, where Cains wife came from, or how long the days were before the sun was created, or how plants managed to survive before the sun was created-its simply someones way of explaining the universes existence, mans place in it and his evolving relationship with the Creator.
> 
> While some of the events and people of the Old Testament can be found to have some basis in factual event and people, the relationship of the stories to facts is open to debate. Thus, we have a city called Jericho that archaelogical evidence points to having fallen after a long siege, but no support at all for its demise as the target of supernatural sonic weaponry. Doesnt mean it didnt happen that way, and it doesnt mean it did. And, while we can be pretty sure that there was a great flood, and that at some point, somebody was on a boat with some animals, the storys been told and retold in so many versions in the region that we can be fairly certain that his name didnt become Noah until the Hebrews got a hold of the tale, and that the boat probably just had some livestock on it, and not two of every kind of beast on earth-in fact, since the world at the time was pretty much as far as one could walk in a couple of days, for most of the people of that region, at any rate, and since we know that the flood was pretty much confined to that region, the phrase two of each kind of beast takes on a radically different meaning to the literal interpretation so often imposed on the tale.
> 
> Im not even going to get into the whole New Testament thing in this kind of detail (several different potential debates there,starting with, say, _Nazareth_) except to point out that most accepted Biblical scholarship-and by that I mean academics in the field of religion, and not necessarily of the faith-have pretty thoroughly discredited every account or mention of Jesus ever held to be contemporaneous with the Gospels. Josephus mention of him is generally accepted as a later addition by translators. The Gospels themselves-well, *theyre full of beauty and truth*, for those who can see it, but theyre also full of a lot of other stuff, and a lot of it is simply not historically reliable, but, speaking as a scientist, Ive pretty clearly demonstrated that just because somethings not a fact, doesnt mean its not true, and vice versa.


 
Well said. :asian:


----------



## pstarr

I'd be very interested in what particular "historical inconsistancies" appear in the New Testament...?

     Jericho, according to the most recent archeological evidence, may have been brought down by a large earthquake or some similar event-

     The questions posed regarding the length of days during the creation, where Cain's wife came from, and so on, have been addressed by numerous Biblical scholars (both Christian and Jewish)... The answers that these scholars provide to the aforementioned questions may not be the answers you'd like, but they do provide answers to the questions, per se.

     It would seem that you're only too anxious to jump on a bandwagon and poo-poo these writings without having done much homework on your own...


----------



## elder999

pstarr said:
			
		

> I'd be very interested in what particular "historical inconsistancies" appear in the New Testament...?
> 
> Jericho, according to the most recent archeological evidence, may have been brought down by a large earthquake or some similar event-
> 
> The questions posed regarding the length of days during the creation, where Cain's wife came from, and so on, have been addressed by numerous Biblical scholars (both Christian and Jewish)... The answers that these scholars provide to the aforementioned questions may not be the answers you'd like, but they do provide answers to the questions, per se.
> 
> It would seem that you're only too anxious to jump on a bandwagon and poo-poo these writings without having done much homework on your own...


 
Uh......right.



			
				el Brujo de la Cueva said:
			
		

> I&#8217;ve found-as a former Christian- former seminarian, son, grandson and great- grandson of ministers who has studied most of the world&#8217;s greater religious scriptures, and several different versions of the Bible-and I&#8217;m a person with a deep love and respect for the teachings of the rabbi Yeshua, &#8220;faith&#8221; (or lack thereof) notwithstanding--that all the religious scriptures of the world contain much beauty and truth,
> 
> Facts, however, are&#8230;..well, up for discussion, if not often dubious





			
				el Brujo de la Cueva said:
			
		

> Early on I earned a degree in religious studies; my father, grand father and great-grand father were all ministers, though they also practiced other trades.



See  here.

I *did* my homework, quite literally, a long time ago, and I've kept up with my studies in that regard.


Okay,"Jesus of Nazareth." This appellation is the result of  one of many  mistranslations from the telephone game (Aramaic to Koine Greek to Latin to Greek to Latin to German(?)/English, etc.) the we've come to know as "the New Testament." It was, in truth, "Jesus the Nazarene," the Nazarenes being an sect of Judaism (though some might want to quibble and call them Essenes). Nazareth itself has been the site of human habitation for a long time, though there is no mention of it in any Jewish or contemporary texts prior to the third or fifth century A.D. Arcxhaelogical evidence indicates though, that the place that came to be called Nazareth was, in the years 100 B.C. to 100 A.D., most probably a nascent necropolis-a graveyard for the Hellenistic _pagan_ city of Sepphoris. Hardly anyone lived there, was born there, and certaintly no Jews, because of the religious strictures they had at that time against living in just such a place. Hence, no Jesus of Nazareth. Not to say he didn't exist, just that he was from, well, somewhere else if he was a Hebrew. 

I could go on about the mistranslations that have resulted in some obvious historic inaccuracies, but I won't-I think it suffices to say that Nazareth, in what we would call the time of Jesus, pretty much didn't exist, either as a Jewish town or much more than a village, and didn't really come to be inhabited by Jews until the onset of Rabbinic Judaism after the fall of Jerusalem, and then probably only by splinter sects, possibly with ties to Christianity, sometime after 100 A.D.

Someone did mention Josephus, though, and I need to add that most scholarship has discredited the mentioning of Jesus in Josephus as later additions, probably around 400 A.D.-or the same time as the solidification of church canon. The same goes for the "census" and nativity stories in the Bible-and I in no way mean to imply that he (Jesus) didn't exist, only that the references cited are hardly conclusive.


And, I'm sorry, if, against all scientific evidence, you want to believe that the universe was created jsut as it essentially is now in 6 days, well, that's your right,and I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise,  but I think it's a mistake to do so, and not at all what I think the author(s) of that particular myth intended.Historical documents, such as commentary from the Tanakh and early Christian writings by the likes of Augustine, Eusubius,Origen, et al., support the notion that early on Christians and Jews believed the creation myth of Genesis to be allegorical, that the Creation and the Creator were unfathomable to the human mind-anyonew who believes it to be literal,is-in my opinion-quite literally living in the Dark Ages, as it is from that time that the notion originates.

_ edited for spelling and to add personal biographical details...._


----------



## heretic888

pstarr said:
			
		

> I'd be very interested in what particular "historical inconsistancies" appear in the New Testament...?


 
"Factual inconsistencies" might be the more appropriate term, as not all of the inconsistencies or contradictions pertain to _history_ per se.

To sum up _what I have already explained at least three times now_:

1) The Gospel of Luke has Jesus being born during the census of Quirinus (in 6 CE) whereas the Gospel of Matthew has Jesus being born during the reign of Herod the Great (who died in 4 BCE). These claims are incompatible. Furthermore, there is no historical record of the "slaughter of innocents" described by the Matthean author nor is such an event (as well the "escape to Egypt") ever mentioned in the Gospel of Luke.

2) The descriptions of Judean geography by the Markan and Johannine authors is glaringly inaccurate, so much so that no native of the land in question could have possibly made them.

3) The descriptions of first century Jewish customs and laws --- from an annual custom of releasing a criminal on Passover to telling Jewish women not to divorce their husbands to expecting the laity to wash their hands before eating or drinking --- are historically absurd.

4) The recollection of Jesus' lineage in the Matthean and Lukan sources are incompatible, beginning as early as Joseph's own father. The ex post facto rationalizations that one is a "biological" and one is a "legal" lineage is not supported by the texts themselves.

5) The location of the resurrection appearances are mutually incompatible, as the Jesus of Mark and Matthew appears to his disciples in Galilee (where they were specifically ordered to go) whereas the Jesus of Luke have him appearing in and around Jerusalem (which is about 100 miles away from Galilee).

That's just to name a few off the top of my head. . .

Of course, all of the preceding examples of "negative" evidence are further supported by examples of "positive" evidence:

1) The authors of the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John are dependent upon Mark's text. This is a hypothesis known as Markan Priority and has been the dominant paradigm in New Testament scholarship for the better part of one hundred years.

2) The Markan text itself appears to have been a creative midrash on Old Testamental literature. In Michael Turton's historical commentary on Mark, he demonstrates _scene by scene_ how the Markan author mined the Old Testament to create his storyboard for "Jesus".

3) The basic form of the canonical Gospels themselves is that of a dramatic play, not a historical biography. There are a number of scenes in the Gospels where Jesus speaks "monologues" to himself (away from any "eyewitnesses") that betray this origin, as well as the rapid-fire pacing of the events, and other internal markers.

Sorry folks, but we just ain't dealing with history here.



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> Jericho, according to the most recent archeological evidence, may have been brought down by a large earthquake or some similar event-



Ah, "the most recent archeological evidence". . .

Appeal to Anonymous Authorities



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> The questions posed regarding the length of days during the creation, where Cain's wife came from, and so on, have been addressed by numerous Biblical scholars (both Christian and Jewish)... The answers that these scholars provide to the aforementioned questions may not be the answers you'd like, but they do provide answers to the questions, per se.



Ah, "numerous Biblical scholars". . .

Appeal to Anonymous Authorities



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> It would seem that you're only too anxious to jump on a bandwagon and poo-poo these writings without having done much homework on your own...



Ah, of course. My disagreement is due to social pressure and ignorance. . .

Ad Hominem Abusive

It's becoming readily apparent, pstarr, that the only things you're bringing to this discussion are appeals to unknown authorities and thinly-veiled personal attacks. In my own personal experience, these are common tactics from apologetics.

Laterz.


----------



## pstarr

I certainly don't mean to come across as throwing "thinly veiled attacks."  I never veil an attack.  If you feel that you're being attacked it must be due to some paranoia, but there's certainly no deliberate attack being generated from this end.  I simply wondered why or how it is that when something regarding Christianity is mentioned you seem to be the first one to jump up and wave red flags.


----------



## Nevada_MO_Guy

[Disclaimer] In my opinion [/end disclaimer]

The Bible is 100% truth, if based on a persons Faith

The Bible is <100% truth, if based on views outside the "Faith" box.

By the way, what is up with the City of Gold with the Streets of Gold....I mean doesn't that seem like a lot of gold?

What if someone likes silver?


----------



## celtic_crippler

There's entirely too many contradictions contained within the bible for it to be true. Plain and simple. That's without going into all the material that was syphoned out by the Catholic Church and King James just because it didn't fit thier particular views.


----------



## heretic888

pstarr said:
			
		

> I certainly don't mean to come across as throwing "thinly veiled attacks." I never veil an attack. If you feel that you're being attacked it must be due to some paranoia, but there's certainly no deliberate attack being generated from this end.



Alright, pstarr, it's becoming readily evident you don't know how this works. Allow me to elucidate the matter for you. . .

First off, please read Ad Hominem Abusive, Circumstantial Ad Hominem, and Poisoning the Well.

Now, then, when you make accusations such as I am "too anxious to jump on a bandwagon and poo-poo these writings without having done much homework on your own", this implies that the reason I disagree with your position is because I buckle under social pressure and/or I am ignorant and unlearned on the subject. This is precisely a fallacy because it is an attempt to discredit one's opponent without having to go through all the trouble of refuting his actual _arguments_.

It may well be, as you said, that I "jump on the bandwagon" and haven't done my "homework". However, there are two problems here:

1) There is no way to actually _prove_ those claims. Since the fallibilism principle of Karl Popper cannot be applied to them (that is, there is no way to disprove or refute them), then they remain nothing more than dogmatic assertions.

2) Even _if_ your claims of my shortcomings are true, it does _not_ mean I am wrong or that my arguments are invalid. In fact, such issues really have nothing to do with the discussion _whatsoever_.

So, in summation. . .

Yes, you are making personal attacks and, yes, you are doing so in an intellectually dishonest fashion. Simply saying you're not isn't going to change this.



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> I simply wondered why or how it is that when something regarding Christianity is mentioned you seem to be the first one to jump up and wave red flags.



Ah, I see. So now we're moving on to Straw Man arguments, eh?

It's pretty absurd to say I "jump up and wave reg flags" whenever anything "regarding Christianity is mentioned", considering I openly draw upon Apophatic Theology and Christian Mysticism in my own belief system. In fact, I have made this declaration more than once on this thread alone.

Of course, even if what you say is true, it still does not mean that my position is wrong or that any of the logical arguments I have brought up against Biblical inerrancy are in any way inaccurate. In fact, it just seems to be another attempt on your part to poison the well.

The lesson here is: personal attacks do not make a logical argument.

Laterz.


----------



## michaeledward

I don't know if this man's God was from the Bible, or somewhere else ... But I have to share .... and this doesn't really deserve its own thread.

Mike



> "The man shouted 'God will save me, if he exists', lowered himself by a rope into the enclosure, took his shoes off and went up to the lions," the official said.
> "A lioness went straight for him, knocked him down and severed his carotid artery."


 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060605/od_nm/ukraine_lion_dc;_ylt=AuEVv3QHyvUSnG8MZCnDAgKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-


----------



## Carol

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I don't know if this man's God was from the Bible, or somewhere else ... But I have to share .... and this doesn't really deserve its own thread.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060605/od_nm/ukraine_lion_dc;_ylt=AuEVv3QHyvUSnG8MZCnDAgKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-


----------



## Kacey

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I don't know if this man's God was from the Bible, or somewhere else ... But I have to share .... and this doesn't really deserve its own thread.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060605/od_nm/ukraine_lion_dc;_ylt=AuEVv3QHyvUSnG8MZCnDAgKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-



I think he forgot the part about "God helps those who help themselves".


----------



## michaeledward

Kacey said:
			
		

> I think he forgot the part about "God helps those who help themselves".


 
I thought it was "God helps those who aren't idiots".


----------



## Kacey

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I thought it was "God helps those who aren't idiots".



Different phrase, same theory!


----------



## Carol

Well...if "Jesus Saves" means what I think it does...God "saved" him all right.  Be careful what you wish for


----------



## Flamebearer

I believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God. Since God defines right and wrong, He is Truth, and so his word is 100% truth. (When I say 'God' I mean Jehovah God as described in the Bible)

It's also a _fact _that the Bible is the most well-preserved work of any ancient literature. There are hundreds of surviving manuscripts from very early on that differ only very slightly, and the time elapsed between them and the originals is also small. This is especially significant when compared with works such as Homer's Illiad, and Thucydides' histories, which have very few manuscripts from ancient times, and the time lapse between them and their originals is comparatively large. (I can supply references if need be)

Definately an interesting topic!

-Flamebearer


----------



## heretic888

Flamebearer said:
			
		

> It's also a _fact _that the Bible is the most well-preserved work of any ancient literature.



After the Council of Nicea (circa 325 CE) determined what was and was not orthodoxy, then sure. . .

But, then again, that really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.



			
				Flamebearer said:
			
		

> There are hundreds of surviving manuscripts from very early on that differ only very slightly. . .



If by "very early on" you mean the late 300's onward and by "differ only very slightly" you mean things like the Gospel of Mark not containing any Resurrection scenes (the so-called "Long Ending"). . .

Then, sure. 



			
				Flamebearer said:
			
		

> . . . and the time elapsed between them and the originals is also small.



That depends on when you date the "originals". Most mainstream scholars (such as John Dominic Crossan or Burton Mack) date the canonical gospels to between 70 and 100 CE. We have a few fragments from around that time (the earliest dating to around 125 CE), but no full manuscripts until the 4th century.



			
				Flamebearer said:
			
		

> Definately an interesting topic!



On that we can agree. 

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

Recently, there was an excellent post by Rod Green on the JesusMysteries discussion list on Yahoo:

"First, it is important to make a clarification before proceeding. There is a common error by most that the canon was established in the church councils of the late fourth century. This is not true. There were several councils that met on this subject, but their authority was only local and did not have an Empire-wide effect. There was no faith-wide vote on a canon. Also, and just as important, the Catholic Church did not view the canon as we do today, particularly as the Protestants view it. Their faith was a living faith updated and expressed within the views of Popes, Councils, and Traditions. Even the 'canon' could be overturned by continuing revelation. The Catholic Church actually had little need for a canon until the Reformation, and had never precisely drawn the boundaries of their canon until then. In fact, the chosen books were not all necessarily looked upon as inspired.

Even the Catholic Biblical Encyclopedia entry 'Canon' proclaims that twenty books of the NT are inherently worth more than the seven deuterocanonical ones (Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James Jude, and Revelations). The Catholic Church here uses the same terminology 'deuterocanonical' as they use for the OT 'lesser works,' probably indicating the same ambivalence toward the veracity and authenticity of these books.

So where does Revelations fit into this freefloating collection? Well, we know for certain that Revelations was disputed by Marcion, Dionysius of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, and the Synod of Laodicea in 360 CE. St. John of Crysomstom also argued strongly against its inclusion in the fourth century. Christians in Syria rejected it outright. Origen was ambivalent as was Eusebius who noted it as disputed. In 692, a council of Eastern Bishops endorsed BOTH Athanasius' list (which included Revelations) as well as the Synod of Laodicea (which rejected it!).

By the ninth century, Revelations was sill included in the list of 'disputed' books in the Stichometry of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and while the Eastern Church eventually allowed its inclusion, it remains the only canonical book not read within the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Likewise, the Syrian National Church used the Diatesseron for centuries, and it also refused Revelations. BTW, the Nestorian Christian Church of Syria still refuses admission of Revelations into their canon even today (They only accept 22 books).

Wescott notes that in the tenth century there were at least ten different canons being used within the Greek Church, most not including Revelations.

In 1516 Erasmus also disputed Revelations in his Annotationes. Zwingli, at the Berne disputation of 1528, denied that Revelation was a canonical book of the New Testament. Martin Luther rejected Revelations asserting that 'Christ is neither taught nor known in it.' Calvin appears to have agreed, and he refused to write an exegesis on Revelation, James, and Jude. Most people do not realize that many Lutheran Bibles did not include Revelations for two centuries. Others since the Reformation who rejected Revelations include Oecolampadius, Karlstadt, and Gustavus Adolphus.

Although Revelations has never actually been accepted by ALL Christian Churches, even today, it did not even become normative for the Greek Orthodox Church until after the tenth century. The early Protestant reformers almost universally rejected it. Revelations was a favorite of the Western Church particularly in Rome. Only as the Roman Church began to assert more authority over all Catholics did the Eastern Church begin to begrudgingly allow its inclusion, but only then as a compromise candidate not held in high esteem. After the deaths of the 16th century reformers, Protestants moved back toward the Roman Church as a 'correction,' and eventually returned Revelations to its canonical position, albeit in last place in the canon.

I believe the most pertinent question is, why did the Western Church embrace Revelations and the Eastern Church rejected it? It would seem that the East, the birth place of apocalyptic literature, would be the proponent, but that wasn't the case. The writings of the early proponents just don't offer much explanatory material."

Kinda puts a whole new light on the _Left Behind_ series, don't it?? 

Laterz.


----------



## Flamebearer

mmm, yes, the question of the canon. First of all, I should point out that the First Council of Nicaea  was not convened in order to determine which books should be included in the Bible. There is some documentary evidence that the Council of Nicaea did discuss whether or not the Old Testament apocrypha were canonical, but works such as the Historia Ecclesia (documentation of the actions of the church in that period) say nothing to indicate that the Council made pronouncements as to which books should be included in the New Testament. The final description of the canon as we know it came in AD 367 in a letter by Athanasius, and from a council held in Carthage the same year.

But the formal determination of the canon is not the point. To quote Dr. Bruce Metzger of Princeton Theological Seminary: "When the pronouncement was made about the canon, it merely ratified what the general sensitivity of the church had already determined. You see, the canon is a list of authoritative books more than it is an authoritative list of books ... For somebody now to say that the canon emerged only after councils and synods made these pronouncements would be like saying, 'Let's get several academies of musicians to make a pronouncement that the music of Bach and Beethoven is wonderful.' I would say, 'Thank you for nothing!'"

I have absolutely no problem with the dates that you quote in reference to the Gospels. Let me compare other ancient works to these - works that scholars have not had major disputes in calling reliable. Homer wrote the Illiad in ~700 BC, and we have about 650 surviving Greek manuscripts, dating from the second and third century AD and beyond. That's a time lapse of at least 900 years, and not all of these manuscripts are whole. Caesar's Gallic Wars was written at around 50 BC, and there is a time span of 900 years between the originals and the ten surviving manuscripts. Tacitus' Annals has a time lapse of 1000 years and twenty surviving manuscripts.

In contrast, more than 5000 New Testament manuscripts have been catalogued in Greek alone (not counting the early translations into Latin, Syriac, and Coptic). The time lapse between the originals and the earliest surviving fragment (which scholars count as manuscript) is at most 50 years. The time lapse between the earliest full manuscript (Codex Sinaiticus, ~350 AD) and the originals is about 250 years. This is pretty significant.

Dr. F.F. Bruce of the University of Manchester has stated, "There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament."

Hope this puts the canon in perspective. Apologies for the length - I condensed it as much as I could 

-Flamebearer


----------



## pstarr

Well done!


----------



## fightingfat

Constantines' role in the story of Christianity is a turning point and extremely important as well. It's not all about historicity- it's a tradition that is still active and alive today!


----------



## Raewyn

I know we are supposed to back up what we say with a bit of fact from somewhere, but in regards to the bible ( speaking as a non believer) isnt the bible a basis for the faith????  There either is a god or there isnt?? Does the bible not chronicle this??  Please do not jump on me for my ignorance,  Im just asking the question. Do we as people who belong to different religions read the same bible and interperet as we see fit??  Or are there different bibles for different religions?  Where did the bible come from or should this be in a different thread? Why isnt the bible 100% truth??


----------



## heretic888

Flamebearer said:
			
		

> mmm, yes, the question of the canon. First of all, I should point out that the First Council of Nicaea was not convened in order to determine which books should be included in the Bible.



My understanding is that the purpose of the Nicene Council was to establish which "version" of Christianity was orthodox. Thus, the Nicene Creed which attempts to establish the "nature" of Jesus Christ vis a vis humanity and divinity. 



			
				Flamebearer said:
			
		

> The final description of the canon as we know it came in AD 367 in a letter by Athanasius, and from a council held in Carthage the same year.



No argument here.



			
				Flamebearer said:
			
		

> But the formal determination of the canon is not the point. To quote Dr. Bruce Metzger of Princeton Theological Seminary: "When the pronouncement was made about the canon, it merely ratified what the general sensitivity of the church had already determined. You see, the canon is a list of authoritative books more than it is an authoritative list of books ...



If he is referring to the "general sensitivity" of most Christians by the fourth century, then sure. . .

Of course, even then, most of the Apostolic Letters and the Revelation of John were highly disputed and controversial texts. The Revelation is still rejected by many Christians living today (the Syriacs do not accept it and the Eastern Orthodox Church does not contain it in its liturgy).



			
				Flamebearer said:
			
		

> I have absolutely no problem with the dates that you quote in reference to the Gospels. Let me compare other ancient works to these - works that scholars have not had major disputes in calling reliable. Homer wrote the Illiad in ~700 BC, and we have about 650 surviving Greek manuscripts, dating from the second and third century AD and beyond. That's a time lapse of at least 900 years, and not all of these manuscripts are whole. Caesar's Gallic Wars was written at around 50 BC, and there is a time span of 900 years between the originals and the ten surviving manuscripts. Tacitus' Annals has a time lapse of 1000 years and twenty surviving manuscripts.
> 
> In contrast, more than 5000 New Testament manuscripts have been catalogued in Greek alone (not counting the early translations into Latin, Syriac, and Coptic). The time lapse between the originals and the earliest surviving fragment (which scholars count as manuscript) is at most 50 years. The time lapse between the earliest full manuscript (Codex Sinaiticus, ~350 AD) and the originals is about 250 years. This is pretty significant.
> 
> Dr. F.F. Bruce of the University of Manchester has stated, "There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament."



Sure, but the reason for that is most likely due to the burning of the Alexandrian library.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

fightingfat said:
			
		

> It's not all about historicity- it's a tradition that is still active and alive today!


 
Well, yeah, that's kind of what I've been saying for twelve pages now. . .


----------



## heretic888

Raewyn said:
			
		

> I know we are supposed to back up what we say with a bit of fact from somewhere, but in regards to the bible ( speaking as a non believer) isnt the bible a basis for the faith????



It is to some people. . .

Of course, that depends on your definition of "faith" as well. According to St. John of the Cross, "true faith" or "perfect faith" is entirely "dark" (that is, emptied of pre-existing concepts or images).



			
				Raewyn said:
			
		

> There either is a god or there isnt??



That depends on what you mean by "God".



			
				Raewyn said:
			
		

> Does the bible not chronicle this??



As I said before, the Bible is unreliable as a historical document.



			
				Raewyn said:
			
		

> Please do not jump on me for my ignorance, Im just asking the question. Do we as people who belong to different religions read the same bible and interperet as we see fit??



You are free to interpret a text however you so wish, but that doesn't make your intepretations inherently valid. Hermeneutics is a science.



			
				Raewyn said:
			
		

> Or are there different bibles for different religions?



Different religions have different holy texts, yes.



			
				Raewyn said:
			
		

> Where did the bible come from or should this be in a different thread?



I addressed this in another thread.



			
				Raewyn said:
			
		

> Why isnt the bible 100% truth??



Because it was written by human beings.

Laterz.


----------



## Flamebearer

In context of the interview I was reading, I believe that Dr. Metzger _was_ referring to the "general sensitivity" of Christians by the fourth century. But the one thing that they did not do was sit down, assemble a list of books that they thought should be in the New Testament, and then declare them to be the divinely inspired Word of God. Rather, those that were clearly the Word of God were included in the canon. The debate over Revelation is not whether it should be _declared_ the Word of God; it is over whether it _is_ the Word of God.

To quote Dr. Metzger again: "You have to understand that the canon was not the result of a series of contests involving church politics. The canon is rather the separation that came about because of the intuitive insight of Christian believers. They could hear the voice of the Good Shepherd in the gospel of John; they could hear it only in a muffled and distorted way in the Gospel of Thomas [a book excluded from the canon], mixed in with a lot of other things."

The "Christian believers" he is referring to is not just a council of bishops or an exclusive club. These books included in the canon were used repeatedly by Christians all over the known world and generally regarded as inspired by God. Their "insight" is not to be scorned, either; after all, if God truly exists, and has given us messages through inspired scribes, why should He not guide His followers in preserving His words? This action would be quite logical.

It's easy to say that the manuscripts of old works were destroyed, but so were some of the manuscripts of the New Testament. Such conjectures cannot add to our understanding of this topic.

In answer to Raewyn, yes, the Bible is the basis for Christian beliefs. That's why the issue of its validity is so important - if it's not true, then Christians everywhere and I in particular have based our hope and our lives on something that is utterly meaningless. The Bible describes a perfect God who sets the absolute standards for right and wrong, and cannot tolerate anything in his presence that is imperfect - and in fact demands death for any person that is. But, even though the human race is inherently imperfect, this God is merciful enough to provide a way for us to reach perfection: accepting that He came to earth as a man and died as a substitute for our imperfections - and then came back to life, under His own power, to prove His victory over death! It is only through this substitution that He will see us as perfect and able to enter His presence as a friend.

Fortunately, the Bible is _not_ unreliable as an historical document. There is not only documentary evidence, but also archeological and corroborative evidence to prove this. Different portions of it have been "interpreted" by
many different people to mean many different things, but without a background of the God of the Bible, these interpretations merely become, at best, good relative morality. 

"Why isn't the bible 100% truth?" Awesome, awesome question. The Bible itself claims to be inspired by God and to be truth. The only reasons it would not be are if: 1) There is no God. Therefore, it could not be His word, and any further claims are completely bunk. 2) Human corruption in copying from the true originals. We know, especially with the presence of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that the Old Testament is amazingly accurate. In relation to the New Testament, scholars such as Norman Geisler and William Nix say: "The New Testament ... has survived in a purer form than any other great book - a form that is 99.5 percent pure." With this in view, I have no qualms in saying that the original manuscripts, inspired by God, are indeed 100% pure and truthful, and that the Bible I have today is as close to the originals as humanly possible.

-Flamebearer


----------



## pstarr

I agree entirely.

     The method of using "scripture to test scripture" has also provided a strong indication of the Bible's accuracy.

     The prophesies made in the Bible have, with the exceptions of those involving "the last days", come to pass.  No other book (or modern "prophet", fortune-teller, or otherwise) has even come close to this level of accuracy.

     One such prophesy (actually, several together) which fascinates me has to do with the nation of Israel as a whole.  Moses warned his people that if they failed to adhere to God's laws they would be scattered and hated throughout the earth.
     And sure enough, that happened.  The nations of Israel and Judah, per se, vanished entirely for some time.
     However, God also said that He would (in the last days) bring them back to their land and restore their nation.
     And in 1948 that very thing happened.

     No other nation/culture has ever, in the history of man, been scattered hither, thither, and yon for several centuries...and survived as a nation/culture.  Remnants of such groups may continue to exist but such groups have never, with the single exception of the Jews, re-established themselves _within their former lands_ and maintained their cultural identities.

     Archeological evidence has only served to validate the accuracy of the Bible.  Not a single dig has provided any indication otherwise.  One of my students is a Jewish scholar in this regard, born and raised in Israel.

     Additionally, portions of (copies of) texts of the New Testament have been found and dated to within 50 years of the death of Christ.  This means that some of the original writings were penned while many of the witnesses to the crucifixion were still alive.  
     What's more, translations of these writings are nearly identical to the (wording of)  modern Bible.


----------



## heretic888

Flamebearer said:
			
		

> In context of the interview I was reading, I believe that Dr. Metzger _was_ referring to the "general sensitivity" of Christians by the fourth century. But the one thing that they did not do was sit down, assemble a list of books that they thought should be in the New Testament, and then declare them to be the divinely inspired Word of God. Rather, those that were clearly the Word of God were included in the canon. The debate over Revelation is not whether it should be _declared_ the Word of God; it is over whether it _is_ the Word of God.
> 
> To quote Dr. Metzger again: "You have to understand that the canon was not the result of a series of contests involving church politics. The canon is rather the separation that came about because of the intuitive insight of Christian believers. They could hear the voice of the Good Shepherd in the gospel of John; they could hear it only in a muffled and distorted way in the Gospel of Thomas [a book excluded from the canon], mixed in with a lot of other things."



Historical revisionism at its finest.

Contrary to the claims of apologists like Dr. Metzger, the early Christian communities were characterized almost at their onset by pluralism, conflict, division, and partisanship. Many of the books that make up the so-called "Word of God" are actually 2nd and 3rd century pseudipigraphica authored to promote anti-heresy propaganda. The "Pastoral Letters", for example, were forged in Paul's name around the mid-2nd century to combat Marcionism, which was extremely popular and pervasive at the time.

So, yes, there were a series of political battles and contest throughout the 2nd and 3rd centuries. By the end of the 3rd century to the beginning of the 4th century, a general consensus of what was "canonical" had emerged among most Christian communities --- although their particular version of "Christianity" may have diverged greatly from one another.



			
				Flamebearer said:
			
		

> The "Christian believers" he is referring to is not just a council of bishops or an exclusive club. These books included in the canon were used repeatedly by Christians all over the known world and generally regarded as inspired by God. Their "insight" is not to be scorned, either; after all, if God truly exists, and has given us messages through inspired scribes, why should He not guide His followers in preserving His words? This action would be quite logical.



This action is only "logical" if we assume that:
1) God exists.
2) The Bible is the Word of God.
3) God directly manipulates the course of human history, diminishing free will.

None of which, of course, can be falsified.

This is a big part of the problem I have with apologism. They begin with certain metaphysical presumptions about reality and then proceed to try to "prove" them from there. This is extremely poor science and extremely poor history. A similar approach is attempted in the natural sciences from proponents of "intelligent design".

This is also why a mainstream scholar such as John Dominic Crossan has come out and said that New Testament scholarship, for the most part, is really little more than a platform for doing theology while pretending to be doing history. Robert Price has gone even further and claimed that almost all Historical Jesus research involves not history, but Christology, with the emerging "Historical Jesus" looking a lot like the people doing the researching.



			
				Flamebearer said:
			
		

> It's easy to say that the manuscripts of old works were destroyed, but so were some of the manuscripts of the New Testament. Such conjectures cannot add to our understanding of this topic.



Yes, but after the Nicene Council, the manuscripts of the New Testament were protected. It is not at all unreasonable to assume that much of our pre-Christian literature was lost during the multiple raids on the Alexandrian library.



			
				Flamebearer said:
			
		

> In answer to Raewyn, yes, the Bible is the basis for Christian beliefs. That's why the issue of its validity is so important - if it's not true, then Christians everywhere and I in particular have based our hope and our lives on something that is utterly meaningless.



Or you could just interpret it differently. That is, not literally.



			
				Flamebearer said:
			
		

> Fortunately, the Bible is _not_ unreliable as an historical document. There is not only documentary evidence, but also archeological and corroborative evidence to prove this.



Ah, yes, the good old "just-so" assertions.

I have addressed many of the particulars regarding the errancy of the Bible as a historical document --- everything from the geographical and cultural muck-ups of the evangelicals to the lack of foundation for Old Testament motifs like the Exodus or the Davidic Empire. Simply saying "there's evidence" doesn't mean it's actually there.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

pstarr said:
			
		

> The method of using "scripture to test scripture" has also provided a strong indication of the Bible's accuracy.
> 
> The prophesies made in the Bible have, with the exceptions of those involving "the last days", come to pass. No other book (or modern "prophet", fortune-teller, or otherwise) has even come close to this level of accuracy.



Of course, these "prophesies" are extremely diminished when you realize that:
1) Many of them were written _after the fact_.
2) Many of them refer to very different things than what apologists say they do. The Revelation of John, for example, is used quite commonly to refer to some great World War III apocalypse scenario, but the author undoubtedly had the Romans in mind.



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> Archeological evidence has only served to validate the accuracy of the Bible. Not a single dig has provided any indication otherwise. One of my students is a Jewish scholar in this regard, born and raised in Israel.



Ah, yes. More vague generalizations and appeals to anonymous authorities.

I would be curious to as to references for archeological "evidence" for, say, the Exodus, a world flood, or the Davidic Empire. . .



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> Additionally, portions of (copies of) texts of the New Testament have been found and dated to within 50 years of the death of Christ. This means that some of the original writings were penned while many of the witnesses to the crucifixion were still alive.



Sorry, but I'm gonna call shenanigans on you here.

The absolute _oldest_ fragment we have is believed to be from the Gospel of John and dates to around 125 CE. Anybody that tells you otherwise is, quite simply, lying to you.

It is generally agreed upon by scholars that the canonical gospels were authored _after_ 70 CE (due to internal markers referring to the fall of the Temple) and that Matthew and Luke (and possibly John) used Mark as one of their source materials (i.e., no "eyewitnesses" here). 

Furthermore, as I demonstrated earlier, the canonicals (especially Mark and John) screw up on Judean geography, laws, and customs _so frequently_ that there is absolutely no way they could have been authored by a native of the region. They were most likely authored by Diaspora Jews. This is supported by the fact that whenever the evangelicals have Jesus quote the Old Testament, he always used the Greek Septugaint, not the original Aramaic.



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> What's more, translations of these writings are nearly identical to the (wording of) modern Bible.



Actually, you'd be surprised what Paul _really_ says in Greek. It doesn't sound like mainstream Christianity at all.

Laterz.


----------



## Beowulf

Chronological Study of the Life of Christ
by Dennis McCallum

(excerpt)



Shortly before the death of Herod, Josephus says there was an eclipse of the Moon. This is the only mention that Josephus makes of an eclipse in his entire volume of History (thus demonstrating that he was not fanciful about omens in this area like other historians of the period). Through astronomical calculations we find that a lunar eclipse occurred on Mar.l2/l3, 4 BC We also know that no lunar or solar eclipse occurred in either 3 or 2 BC
Shortly after his death the Jewish Passover occurred (which in that year should have occurred on April 11, according to astronomical calculations). Therefore, Herod's death occurred between March l2 and April 11, in 4 BC Since Christ's birth occurred during his reign, it would must have occurred prior to the period from March l2 to April 11,4 BC
Matthew 2:l also states that, "certain Magi came from the East." Matthew 2:11 states that they came and saw the child. Matthew 2:l6 notes that King Herod ordered all male children under two years of age be slain. Considering the paranoia and brutality that are known to have been a part of Herod's character, we can be sure that he had good reason to limit the killing to less than two years old. The time that the Magi arrived was prior to the death of Herod, possibly very shortly before his death. Thus Christ was probably born no earlier than 6 BC which would be 2 years prior to Herod's death (Note that Herod had ascertained from the Magi the time that the star appeared, and apparently based his decree upon this information.) This line of reasoning will not give us an exact date for the birth, it only shows that he was likely born later than 6 BC, and earlier than 4 BC.
*Luke 2:l,2*-- At approximately this time a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken. We have no record of this census from secular Roman sources. However, there is indication from Egypt that a census was taken approximately every 14 years, and that a census had been taken shortly after 20 BC
Likewise, Luke says that this census was during the time that Quirinius was governor of Syria. We have no record of where Quirinius was at this time, but prior to 6 BC we know that he was fighting a war in Macedonia. Thus we know that the census referred to had not taken place prior to 6 BC Further, we know that in the early AD years Quirinius was Governor of Syria, and during the years 6-3 BC he was somewhere "in the East," (a passing comment in Tacitus). Syria was, of course, considered an Eastern Province by the Romans. He could have very easily been Governor of Syria at this time, there being no evidence to the contrary.
Justin Martyr and Tertullian say that this census can be verified in the archives in Rome. Even though these archives no longer exist, the fact that these contemporaries appealed to them suggests that they did exist at the time. In the l00's AD these men and others had access to this information and their writings could easily have been refuted if it were not so.
*These considerations leave us with the following scenario: *


----------



## Beowulf

IS LUKE WRONG ABOUT THE TIMES OF JESUS BIRTH?
Come Reason Ministries
(excerpt)


Listing the Facts
Let's look at the Biblical passage in question and then we'll take it apart to see what specific historical claims are made.
"Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child. While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn."(NASB)​In the Biblical account, we know these facts are presented:

Caesar Augustus ordered a census
Quirinius was governing Syria (hegemoneuontos tes Syrias Kyreniou)
Each family must register at their familial city of origin
Further, Matthew chapter 2 reports that Herod the Great ordered the slaughter "all the male children who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity, from two years old and under"(Matt 2:16). We know that Herod died 4-2 B.C., so Jesus birth had to have been before his death - most likely by two or more years. Given these facts, scholars generally date Jesus' birth anywhere between 6 B.C. to 4 B.C.
Now, let's turn our attention to the Josephus passage. In 17.13.5 of The Antiquity of the Jews, Josephus writes:
_"So Archelaus' country was laid to the province of Syria; and Cyrenius, one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people's effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus."_1​From the Josephus account we derive the following facts:

Caesar ordered a census
Cyrenius (Quirinius) was sent to account for Syria and sell the house of Archelaus
Cyrenius (Quirinius) "had been consul"
We also know from other historical records that Herod Archelaus was deposed in 6 A.D., so this census must be about 6 or 7 A.D. So, the question goes, if Herod the Great died in 4 B.C. and Josephus tells us Quirinius' census wasn't until 6 A.D., then isn't this a contradiction?

MORE THAN ONE CENSUS

Although on its face we seem to have a difficulty here, there are several pieces that we must consider before jumping to the conclusion that Luke and Josephus were speaking about the same event. Indeed, it seems that Caesar Augustus was the type of leader who ordered many censuses in his day. Records exist to show that Roman-controlled Egypt had begun a census as early as 10 B.C. and it was repeated every 14 years. And Augustus himself notes in his Res Gestae (The Deeds of Augustus) that he ordered three wide-spread censuses of Roman citizens, one in 28B.C., one in 8 B.C. and one in 14 A.D.2 In between there are several other censuses that happened locally across Rome. Luke's account corroborates the idea of multiple censuses for Judea when he writes "This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria." Certainly, the word "first" implies that where was more than one census happened.
On another occasion, an enrollment of all the people of the empire happened to swear an oath of allegiance to Caesar. In Chapter 34 of Res Gestae Augustus also notes, "When I administered my thirteenth consulate (2 B.C.E.), the senate and Equestrian order and Roman people all called me father of the country, and voted that the same be inscribed in the vestibule of my temple".3 Josephus also mentions a time "When all good people gave assurance of their good will to Caesar".4 These types of tributes would also require an enrollment of individuals from across the empire. Orosius, a fifth century Christian, links this registration with the birth of Jesus saying that "all of the peoples of the great nations were to take an oath".5
Taking all of this together, we have at least three censuses in the area of Judea - one in 8 B.C., one starting around 2 B.C. and one in 6 A.D. The only point that is really in question, then, is whether Luke was mistaken in ascribing this census to the time when Quirinius was in the role of Syrian Governor. Since Quirinius wasn't governor of the Syrian province until after Archelaus was deposed, critics claim Luke misidentified the census as the smaller one, which happened some 8-10 years after Herod died. Either Luke is wrong on his dating of Jesus' birth or Matthew made up the story of Herod the Great and the killing of the infants. Is this an accurate objection?

THE GOVERNORSHIP OF QUIRINIUS

In studying this problem, there are two main solutions that Christian scholars offer, and each has some good merit. The first point is the terminology Luke uses when writing about Quirinius' governorship over Syria. In stating that Quirinius controlled the Syrian area, Luke doesn't use the official political title of "Governor" ("legatus"), but the broader term "hegemon" which is a ruling officer or procurator. This means that Quirinius may not have been the official governor of Judea, but he was in charge of the census because he was a more capable and trusted servant of Rome than the more inept Saturninus.
Justin Martyr's Apology supports this view, writing that Quirinius was a "procurator", not a governor of the area of Judea.6 As Gleason Archer writes, "In order to secure efficiency and dispatch, it may well have been that Augustus put Quirinius in charge of the census-enrollment in Syria between the close of Saturninus's administration and the beginning of Varus's term of service in 7 B.C. It was doubtless because of his competent handling of the 7 B.C. census that Augustus later put him in charge of the 7 A.D. census."7 Archer also says that Roman history records Quirinius leading the effort to quell rebels in that area at exactly that time, so such a political arrangement is not a stretch.
If Quirinius did hold such a position, then we have no contradiction. The first census was taken during the time of Jesus birth, but Josephus' census would have come later. This option seems to me to be entirely reasonable.

HEROD'S SLAUGHTER OF THE BABIES

You ask why, if Herod committed such an atrocity as killing all the male babies "two years old and under" as Matthew recounts, how could historians such as Josephus completely ignore it? Well, let's think about this for a moment. Bethlehem at the time of Jesus' birth was a very small city with no more than a few thousand people. The total number of infants who would have been murdered under Herod's edict could be pretty low. As James Patrick Holding writes "How many boys aged two and under could there have been in and around the tiny city of Bethlehem? Five? Ten? Matthew does not give a number. Josephus says that Herod murdered a vast number of people, and was so cruel to those he didn't kill that the living considered the dead to be fortunate. Thus, indirectly, Josephus tells us that there were many atrocities that Herod committed that he does not mention in his histories - and it is probable that authorizing the killing of the presumably few male infants in the vicinity of Bethlehem was a minuscule blot of the blackness that was the reign of Herod. Being that the events of the reign of Herod involved practically one atrocity after another - it is observed by one writer, with a minimum of hyperbole, that hardly a day in his 36-year reign passed when someone wasn't sentenced to death - why should any one event in particular have touched off a rebellion, when others in particular, including those recorded by Josephus, did not?"8
I hope these discussions have helped you further your understanding of the difficulties historians face when trying to piece together events from the limited records of the past. There is certainly no slam-dunk evidence that the Biblical accounts are wrong here. In fact, one must also remember that the Biblical accounts are themselves historic documentation and therefore have historic merit in themselves. The fact that we have outside corroboration of the possibility of multiple censuses strengthens Luke's report of the events as he has written them. To say that this is an error would be premature. God bless you as you seek Him.


----------



## pstarr

Very well researched!   Thank you!


----------



## Ray

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Of course, these "prophesies" are extremely diminished when you realize that:
> 1) Many of them were written _after the fact_.


Absolutely, an example is the re-establishment of Israel in these, the latter days, which took place somewhere after the 2nd world war.


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 2) Many of them refer to very different things than what apologists say they do. The Revelation of John, for example, is used quite commonly to refer to some great World War III apocalypse scenario, but the author undoubtedly had the Romans in mind.


You make the assertion that you know what "John" had in mind?  Interesting...


----------



## pstarr

I agree!  Exactly what John had in mind is still a matter of considerable controversy.  To use the term "undoubtedly" is a bit presumptuous...

And the idea that "many of the prophesies were written after the fact" is equally incorrect, particularly as referencing the prophecies of the Old Testament.


----------



## Brother John

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Of course, these "prophesies" are extremely diminished when you realize that:
> 1) Many of them were written _after the fact_.
> 2) Many of them refer to very different things than what apologists say they do. The Revelation of John, for example, is used quite commonly to refer to some great World War III apocalypse scenario, but the author undoubtedly had the Romans in mind.
> 
> Actually, you'd be surprised what Paul _really_ says in Greek. It doesn't sound like mainstream Christianity at all.
> 
> Laterz.


OK....I'm realy interested to read your explanation of these things. 
Since you yourself don't like things stated as fact w/out details concerning those facts, seems time to back up some of your own statements. ((I don't doubt you can give it a good swing))

What prophesies were written after the fact? How do we "Know" that they were written AFTER the fact?
What prophesies point to things other than their common interpretation? What do they actually point too? How do we "Know" that the common interp. is wrong and this other "obvious" one is correct?? (It is, after, the norm for prophesies to be very enigmatic. KNOWLEDGE concerning their true intent would seem difficult At Best.) For instance: Why does Revelation not point to end times but to the Roman Empire??

What does Paul "Really" say in Greek??? How does what he "really" say not jive with mainstream Christianity??

Thanks 


Your Brother
John


----------



## matt.m

I am with Shesulsa in respect of the "It all applies, or it doesn't apply at all".  I believe it all applies, just for the sake of argument.


----------



## heretic888

I'll address the rest later, but something John said immediately piqued my interest. . .



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> For instance: Why does Revelation not point to end times but to the Roman Empire??


 
The Revelation of John was an apocalypse. The author believed the "end times" was imminent and that it would be marked by the destruction of the Roman Empire and the subsequent rise of Israel as an independent nation. This was a common literary theme in religious writings at the time.

As to _why_ the author held this position, there are little interesting internal markers such as. . .

If you take the Greek for "Caesar Nero" and transliterate it back into Hebrew, the sum of the values for the letters in Hebrew numerology equals 666.

The "beast" which the author refers to was Nero. He probably believed that the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple (circa 70 CE) marked the "end times".

Laterz.


----------



## Brother John

heretic888 said:
			
		

> The Revelation of John was an apocalypse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That's what Revelation means, if I'm not mistaken. One is Greek the other derived from Latin*
> 
> 
> 
> The author believed the "end times" was imminent and that it would be marked by the destruction of the Roman Empire and the subsequent rise of Israel as an independent nation. [QUOTE]*Could you please site the verses that indicate this? Seems you are telling us what John DID believe, instead of your interpretation or conjecture...so I'm sure you've got sources to site.*[/QUOTE]This was a common literary theme in religious writings at the time.[QUOTE]*such as...*[/QUOTE]
> 
> As to _why_ the author held this position, there are little interesting internal markers such as. . .
> 
> If you take the Greek for "Caesar Nero" and transliterate it back into Hebrew, the sum of the values for the letters in Hebrew numerology equals 666.
> 
> The "beast" which the author refers to was Nero. He probably believed that the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple marked the "end times".
Click to expand...

 
Given your usual degree of scepticism it seems odd to me that you claim that John included a puzzle-clue into the words he wrote using Kabbalistic Gematria. It's hardly solid apologetical ground to stand on when making your case for what an author "Did" think or intend. If you've ever studied or looked into Hebrew Gematria you can transliterate LOTS of words and make them equal "666" or your zip-code, date of birth, license plate...etc. Even Kabbalists will tell you it's not a sure sign and not a hill to die on.

Thus far you've mostly offered conjecture.
I do look forward to you unfolding your other postulates for us though.

Your Brother
John


----------



## heretic888

Brother John said:
			
		

> Given your usual degree of scepticism it seems odd to me that you claim that John included a puzzle-clue into the words he wrote using Kabbalistic Gematria. It's hardly solid apologetical ground to stand on when making your case for what an author "Did" think or intend. If you've ever studied or looked into Hebrew Gematria you can transliterate LOTS of words and make them equal "666" or your zip-code, date of birth, license plate...etc. Even Kabbalists will tell you it's not a sure sign and not a hill to die on.


 
Except that, when Caesar Nero is translated back into Latin, the numerical value is 616. Lo and behold, 616 is the number of the "beast" in the Latin vulgate, as well, not 666.

Also, Hebrew numerology is only associated with Kabblah in the modern mind. At the time of the authoring of Revelation, numerology was a common speculation among many writers (both Jewish and Greek). So was astrology, for that matter.

Furthermore, you can simply look at how later Christian writers treated the Revelation of John. They either denied it (as in the case of Eusebius) or simply reinterpreted the text to "explain" why the End Times hadn't happened yet.

Laterz.


----------



## Brother John

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Except that, when Caesar Nero is translated back into Latin, the numerical value is 616. Lo and behold, 616 is the number of the "beast" in the Latin vulgate, as well, not 666.
> 
> Also, Hebrew numerology is only associated with Kabblah in the modern mind. At the time of the authoring of Revelation, numerology was a common speculation among many writers (both Jewish and Greek). So was astrology, for that matter.
> 
> Furthermore, you can simply look at how later Christian writers treated the Revelation of John. They either denied it (as in the case of Eusebius) or simply reinterpreted the text to "explain" why the End Times hadn't happened yet.


Agreed.
The translating back into Latin is interesting, but you'd also be translting the numerical system too.... so of course the number of the beast And the gematria for Nero remains the same. It's equivalent.

PLEASE NOTE: I'm not really disagreeing with Anything you're saying. I also believe that John was refering to the fall of Rome and Rise of Israel. I also don't look down on the use of Gematria, just didn't think it'd be a tool in your arsenal.
Good for you....

Your Brother
John


----------



## Flamebearer

First, I must apologize for the delayed reply.

Second, I must say that I find it incredibly presumptuous of heretic888 to simply brush off the statements of respected scholars as biased opinions. For example: Dr. Metzger, whom I've been quoting, holds a masters and doctrate from Princeton University, as well as five other honorary doctorates. He's the author of over fifty books on the text of the New Testament and has been the chairman or president of more than five Biblical Literature committees or societies. I doubt if heretic888 has spent over forty-six years teaching the New Testament - and Metzger is just one example of the experts who defend the veracity of the Bible. 

John Dominic Crossan, on the other hand, is a member of the Jesus Seminar, which likes to protray its work as mainstream scholarship (but tends to bypass such details as peer review). In reality, he represents an extremely small fraction of New Testament scholars who make a disproportionate amount of noise.

Most of those who study Christ believe that there is some value, some truth, in the study, just as those who study science believe that there is value in it. Here's some food for thought: Why would anyone who believes that Jesus Christ is a fraud desire to study Him? The answer: to prove Him, once and for all, wrong. I find it quite interesting that those who have gone into this search ready to have their assumptions challenged, and possibly changed, have come to the conclusion that the Bible is true. A case in point: Lee Strobel, an investigative journalist for the Chicago Tribune. His book, The Case for Christ, chronicles his search as he put the evidence for the life of Jesus through a courtroom-style investigation. (Very good reading, by the way. I thoroughly recommend it.)

Yes, I do indeed make assumptions about reality, as does everyone and everything else, even "good" science. Science makes the basic assumption that natural phenomena can be explained in a logical fashion; that effects have causes, and that there are natural laws which must be found. Those who claim that the Bible is not true, or that Christianity is false, assume that the God of the Bible does not exist. Therefore, it cannot possibly be the Word of God. I think that's one of the reasons Christianity is so controversial: it challenges basic assumptions. Instead of saying that man is God, it says that God made man and desires that they acknowledge Him.

I also realize that saying that there is evidence doesn't make it so - but it works the other way, too. Denying that there is evidence doesn't mean that there is no evidence. We're at a bit of an impasse on this. And let not the generally black pot call the kettle generally black.

One of the facts that persists is the very existence of the church today. Let me explain: Christians have had enemies from the very beginning. It didn't start with the Romans, but with the leaders of Judaism. It makes sense. Jesus' followers claimed that he was God - a blasphemous statement and the worst crime imaginable. Naturally, those leaders who didn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah got riled and tried to stamp out the movement. Simply producing the body of Jesus, or proving that his disciples had stolen it, would have proven wrong the claim that He had risen from the dead. This being a central belief of the church, it would have fallen apart right there. The problem is, they couldn't. Even though this particular opposition was the closest, time-wise, to the alleged events of Christ's life, they couldn't produce contrary evidence.

Finally, I think I should explain my reasons for engaging in this discussion. I'm not trying to win an argument. If a person is not willing to reconsider their assumptions, argument is pointless. I am writing so that readers courageous enough to have their assumptions challenged may see some of my viewpoint. I encourage them to not take for granted anything I or anyone else may say (after all, this is the Internet). Get some reliable sources and check it out for yourself! The book I mentioned is a good starting place, but definitely not the only one. 

-Flamebearer


----------



## heretic888

Flamebearer said:
			
		

> . . . I must say that I find it incredibly presumptuous of heretic888 to simply brush off the statements of respected scholars as biased opinions. For example: Dr. Metzger, whom I've been quoting, holds a masters and doctrate from Princeton University, as well as five other honorary doctorates. He's the author of over fifty books on the text of the New Testament and has been the chairman or president of more than five Biblical Literature committees or societies. I doubt if heretic888 has spent over forty-six years teaching the New Testament - and Metzger is just one example of the experts who defend the veracity of the Bible.


 
I don't care how many degrees or how much "authority" he has, an apologist is an apologist.

When someone makes claims such as "they just intuitively _felt_ it was the word of God" or appeals to received tradition and authority, then no serious critic is to take such claims seriously. This, as is so common in Biblical scholarship, is theology masquerading as history. Plain and simple.

I mean, how exactly can you _falsify_ the claim that the Bible intuitively "feels" like the Word of God, that it "resonates" with all "true believers"?? Such claims cannot be falsified, precisely because they are faith assertions. This is evangelism, not science.

I'm sure he has done a great deal of research into the subject and has acquired useful data in regards to the field, but his pre-formed theological commitments "color" any interpretation or analysis of this information. This is epidemic among apologist scholars.

This is also why the author of the article I linked earlier in this thread compared having a doctorate in theology to having a doctorate in Star Trek. The entire field is a complete joke by scientific standards (including the standards of other historical fields).  



			
				Flamebearer said:
			
		

> John Dominic Crossan, on the other hand, is a member of the Jesus Seminar, which likes to protray its work as mainstream scholarship (but tends to bypass such details as peer review). In reality, he represents an extremely small fraction of New Testament scholars who make a disproportionate amount of noise.
> 
> Most of those who study Christ believe that there is some value, some truth, in the study, just as those who study science believe that there is value in it.



Which is exactly why the field is something of a running joke to other academics. There is no accepted standards of methodology or peer review, the discipline is really pre-paradigmatic in nature. The standard everyone appeals to is intuitionism (it just _feels_ true), which is why Biblical scholarship is really just a platform for theology, not history or sociology.

This is also the case for the "Jesus Seminar". The entire criteria, the standard, for what Jesus did or did not "probably say" was intuitionism among the scholars. Whether conservative or liberal scholarship is invoked here, it's all a big joke in the field.

Robert Price pointed this out quite clearly in his _Deconstructing Jesus_, in which he argues that most (if not all) "Historical Jesus scholarship" is really just a medium for promoting one's Christology. The "Historical Jesus" the scholar inevitably finds always looks amazingly similar to the beliefs of that scholar himself.



			
				Flamebearer said:
			
		

> Here's some food for thought: Why would anyone who believes that Jesus Christ is a fraud desire to study Him? The answer: to prove Him, once and for all, wrong. I find it quite interesting that those who have gone into this search ready to have their assumptions challenged, and possibly changed, have come to the conclusion that the Bible is true.



You mean like Robert Price, John Shelby Spong, Burton Mack, or Marcus Borg?? 



			
				Flamebearer said:
			
		

> A case in point: Lee Strobel, an investigative journalist for the Chicago Tribune. His book, The Case for Christ, chronicles his search as he put the evidence for the life of Jesus through a courtroom-style investigation. (Very good reading, by the way. I thoroughly recommend it.)



I wouldn't. It's more apologetic nonsense.

I would recommend Burton Mack's _Who Wrote the New Testament?_ for a fairly reasonable account of how the Christian canon developed.



			
				Flamebearer said:
			
		

> Those who claim that the Bible is not true, or that Christianity is false, assume that the God of the Bible does not exist. Therefore, it cannot possibly be the Word of God. I think that's one of the reasons Christianity is so controversial: it challenges basic assumptions. Instead of saying that man is God, it says that God made man and desires that they acknowledge Him.



If you want to deal in Straw Man non-sequiters, sure.

That there are geographical errors in Mark and John really has nothing to do with the existence of "God", and bringing it into the discussion just shows we're not dealing in science but evangelism. Just one more reason why I hold the field to be a running joke in historical circles.



			
				Flamebearer said:
			
		

> I also realize that saying that there is evidence doesn't make it so - but it works the other way, too. Denying that there is evidence doesn't mean that there is no evidence. We're at a bit of an impasse on this. And let not the generally black pot call the kettle generally black.



The problem here is that there are points where there _should_ be evidence. That there is no convincing evidence for, say, a World Flood or a Davidic "Empire" or a mass "Exodus" from Egypt is extremely telling.



			
				Flamebearer said:
			
		

> One of the facts that persists is the very existence of the church today. Let me explain: Christians have had enemies from the very beginning. It didn't start with the Romans, but with the leaders of Judaism. It makes sense. Jesus' followers claimed that he was God - a blasphemous statement and the worst crime imaginable. Naturally, those leaders who didn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah got riled and tried to stamp out the movement. Simply producing the body of Jesus, or proving that his disciples had stolen it, would have proven wrong the claim that He had risen from the dead. This being a central belief of the church, it would have fallen apart right there. The problem is, they couldn't. Even though this particular opposition was the closest, time-wise, to the alleged events of Christ's life, they couldn't produce contrary evidence.



If you believe unfalsifiable Church propaganda, sure, but when asked for actual evidence for _any_ of that, such arguments simply fall apart.

For example, Christians aren't even _mentioned_ by any external historical sources until the early second century (if you ignore the obvious forgeries in Josephus). Again, very telling.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

Brother John said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> The translating back into Latin is interesting, but you'd also be translting the numerical system too.... so of course the number of the beast And the gematria for Nero remains the same. It's equivalent.


 
Which just shows that there is nothing special about the number itself, but to its symbolism (as a veiled reference to the "beast", Emperor Nero).

If the number had some intrinsic prophetic value, then it wouldn't change when you translate the text into different languages. 



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> PLEASE NOTE: I'm not really disagreeing with Anything you're saying. I also believe that John was refering to the fall of Rome and Rise of Israel. I also don't look down on the use of Gematria, just didn't think it'd be a tool in your arsenal.



Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in any "magical" power of things like numerology or astrology. That's superstitious animism, if you ask me.

However, I think it is important to take into account how the ancient minds that authored these texts would have seen the world. They most likely _did_ believe in numerology and astrology, at least for symbolic purposes. It is important to try to approximate the proper context when evaluating ancient texts.

Which is why I find the modern religious interpretations of such texts to be something of a joke. This is clearly a case of historical revionism.

Laterz.


----------



## Karateguy4000

OH MY.. Yes the bible is 100% ture. Jesus has said in his word im the way the turth and the light no man comes to the father but by me. 

 That is all i got to say is the bible is ture 

 Dwaynr


----------



## Ray

heretic888 said:
			
		

> However, I think it is important to take into account how the ancient minds that authored these texts would have seen the world.


You aren't making the supposition that mankind was less intelligent 2,000 to 5,000 years ago are you?  You're just saying that ancient people just hadn't come to our level of sophistication, right?


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> It is important to try to approximate the proper context when evaluating ancient texts.





			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Which is why I find the modern religious interpretations of such texts to be something of a joke. This is clearly a case of historical revionism.


I'm left speechless by those two comments.


----------



## Kenpsy7

Yes the Bible is 100% true. What most scoffers and unbelievers tend to overlook in their observations is that God is God. He is soverign, regardless of how we feel about it. He has providentially written and preserved the Bible. It is Gods providence that has kept the bible intact today, despite all of the attacks on it and subtle attempts to undermine its authority as Gods authoratative word. Lets suppose that Jesus was the only begotten son of God (and he is) as the bible plainly states. Lets further suppose that God allowed his only begotten Son to be falsely accused, mocked, beaten, scourged, striped naked, and crucufied before the eyes of sinful men, all to pay the debt that those same men and ladies owed for their sinful lives (and He did). Then God would be a fool( which he is not), or not much of a God (he is the creator of all things) if he allowed the record of His only begotten Sons death burial and ressurrection (the Gospel) to be lost or somehow perverted. What good would it do us (as sinners in need of a savior) if the record of how we are to be saved (Born Again) was not accurate. Yes, the bible has been preserved down through the ages by an all powerful God (the only true God) so that you and I can recieve forgivness for our sins(eternally) and avoid the lake of fire for all eternity. Now, wheather you are willing to repent (Turn from your sin to God) of your sins and recieve Gods free gift (Grace) of salvation through the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ is your own decision between you and your maker. It's like this, God wants you to be saved and go to heaven when you die, I'm reasonably confident that you would like to have all your sins forgiven and go to heaven when you die, the devil does not want you to be saved (The devil is going to be cast into the lake of fire in the future). To whom will you listen?? God has put his truth out in plain sight for all to see (the Bible). But you have free will. Choose Gods way, or your own. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.


----------



## heretic888

Ray said:
			
		

> You aren't making the supposition that mankind was less intelligent 2,000 to 5,000 years ago are you? You're just saying that ancient people just hadn't come to our level of sophistication, right?


 
No and no.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> I'm left speechless by those two comments.



Um, okay.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

Kenpsy7 said:
			
		

> Yes the Bible is 100% true. What most scoffers and unbelievers tend to overlook in their observations is that God is God. He is soverign, regardless of how we feel about it. He has providentially written and preserved the Bible. It is Gods providence that has kept the bible intact today, despite all of the attacks on it and subtle attempts to undermine its authority as Gods authoratative word.


 
Ah, the joys of circular logic.

One is reminded of the words of Stephen Colbert:

"Y'see, the thing is that the Bible is the Word of God and can't be wrong. How do we know the Bible _is_ the Word of God?? Because the Bible _says_ it's the Word of God. I mean, what part of my _wheel of logic_ are you not getting on here??"

Lo and behold, friends. Lo and behold.

Laterz.


----------



## Ray

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Ah, the joys of circular logic.
> 
> One is reminded of the words of Stephen Colbert:
> 
> "Y'see, the thing is that the Bible is the Word of God and can't be wrong. How do we know the Bible _is_ the Word of God?? Because the Bible _says_ it's the Word of God. I mean, what part of my _wheel of logic_ are you not getting on here??"
> 
> Lo and behold, friends. Lo and behold.


In the post that you are responding to there is not one line that says (nor implies) the "circular reasoning" that you are ascribing to it.

Maybe for once, you could really use those logic skills that you claim to have: read, think and ponder what a person says before making responses that insult and belittle anyone who believes differently than you.


----------



## John Brewer

Jesus:

Liar
Lunatic
LORD
You decide!


----------



## celtic_crippler

The question is "Is the BIBLE 100% truth?" not "are the teachings of Jesus Christ 100% truth?". 

I haven't seen anyone (unless I missed a post somewhere) bashing the teaching of Jesus Christ. Interestingly enough, no 'writings' of Jesus are actually contained in the current accepted version of the "bible." I've never heard anyone quote Jesus 3:16 before. 

Many of the idealogies presented in the Bible are also evidient in the Tora(spelling?) and the Koran. They contain basic ethical teachings necessary for civilization to continue to exist and so that anarchy and chaos do not prevail. 

Did you know it's the same God??? The God spoke of by Jews, Christians, and Muslims is the same guy. WHAT!?!?! It's true. History proves it. Jesus was a rabbi...actually one of thousands at the time believed to be a possible "messiah." Muhammed wrote that he fealt he was the last in a long line of prophets (including Jesus, Abraham, and Moses) to put God's word into writing. Centuries and differing opinions of powerful persons has blurred the line between these 3 religions to the point where most people think they are 3 distinct different one's with 3 distinct different "Gods." Man, that's probably gonna upset some peeps.....anyway....

That's my point. Man's influenced the teachings and writings of all these "religions" for centuries. Certain individuals have altered, ommitted, and edited the bible (and other religious text) for their own political gains. Do you honestly think or believe the bible exists today as it did in its original form?? It does not. Since the beginning of time, man has used 'religion' as a political tool to hold power over others. Just look at our own U.S. Constitution! It's only been a little over 200 years since it was written and look how many "leaders" have changed and perverted it. The U.S. hasn't been a "constitutional government" in almost 100 years!!!!! Putting that into perspective, the bible has been around a lot longer and has had more opportunities to be "screwed" with. 

So...is the bible 100% truth? Based on the law of large numbers and the basic behaviors of man........probably not. Besides, when's the last time a bush caught on fire and started talking to you?


----------



## elder999

I'm not going to get into the whole mistranslation thing here-been there, done that-the "Bible" is full of errors, especially most of the English versions, most especially the totally excrable King James' Version.

I'm gonna quote Pilate, and ask, _What is *truth?*_

Then I'm going to point out the difference between a "fact" and "truth"
with  this post way back in the beginning of all this.

The Bible is full of beauty and truth; it isn't entirely factual at all-in *fact*, there are large portions of it that were probably never meant to be taken as such.....


----------



## KOROHO

The Bible, as the word of God, is 100% truth.
The problems come from man's misunderstanding, mis-translating and in many cases outright manipulation of it.
But I firmly believe that even if you have one of the poorest translations, if you are tuly seeking the truth, then God will reveal that to you and guide you on your way.


----------



## pstarr

I think that the translations have been very accurate - but misinterpretations abound.

Sometimes people try to read things into it that aren't there.  Some folks have a tough time with the concept of miracles.

Whatever.


----------



## Carol

pstarr said:
			
		

> I think that the translations have been very accurate - but misinterpretations abound.
> 
> Sometimes people try to read things into it that aren't there. Some folks have a tough time with the concept of miracles.
> 
> Whatever.


 
Shame.  Miracles are cool.  :ultracool


----------



## pstarr

Yes, they are!  And miracles still happen...


----------



## KOROHO

Yes, they do!
I know people who were blind and now are not.  The DRs cant explain it.
I know people who were dead and now are not.  One walked out of the morgue and still has his death certificate as a souvenier.
One woman from our church moved away about 10 years ago.  The Dr told her she will be dead in 3 months or less.  She came back home to make arrangements for someone to take care of her kids.  She got prayer in church and the cancer left her body.  
Another girl with an inoperable brain tumor decided to not wast time and money on the doctors and trust in God instead.  Today she sings on the Praise Team with no sign of ever having a tumor.

Doctors can,  and some times do, do good things.  But when it gets right down to it, they know very little and understand less.  God is the only healer.  He alone can restore broken lives and he alone can bring eternal life.


----------



## KOROHO

celtic_crippler said:
			
		

> Many of the idealogies presented in the Bible are also evidient in the Tora(spelling?) and the Koran. They contain basic ethical teachings necessary for civilization to continue to exist and so that anarchy and chaos do not prevail.
> 
> Did you know it's the same God??? The God spoke of by Jews, Christians, and Muslims is the same guy.


 
Some what correct.  The Tora is part of the Bible.

And yes, these three religions sort of have the same God.  
The God of the Old Testament, Jehovah, Yahweh, etc was and is still the God of the Jews and the muslims call him allah.  But the muslims have thier own set of beliefs about him and turned away from him, for this they are cut off and cursed.

In the New Testament, we see that God was manifest in the flesh (Yeshua the Messiah, who so many call Jesus").  But many Jews refused to accept him and killed him. 

Today Christians still have 1 God and accept that he played different roles (Father in Creation, Son in Redemption and Holy Spirit in re-generation).

muslims call "Jesus" a prophet and refuse to accept his divinity.

There are Messianic Jews who have come to accept Yeshua as the Messiah.  And there are those "Christians" who accept the "trinity doctrine" which in essence gives them 3 gods.

So all though we are looking at 3 different religions with the same god, that one God does not look at the 3 religions the same way.

God is not interested in religion.  And Christianity is not a religion - it is a faith and   a personal relationship with God and an acceptance of his sacrifice on the cross coupled with a commitment to live and wlak with him, obeying his commandments.  You can pray all you want, light all the candles, read the Tora, the Bible, the Koran, hang crosses all over the place, do the rosary, say "hail mary", etc all you want.  You're still lost without Jesus and Baptism in his name and being "born again".

Look at the example of the great flood.  Do you really think Noah was the only "religious man" in the world?  Or the only man in the world who believed in God or even prayed?  He most certainly was not.  But there were still an awful lot of "God believers", and "religious people" who died in the water


----------



## pstarr

I'm with you, Koroho...but we're probably going to get jumped on here pretty quick.  Get your armor on-


----------



## heretic888

I'll ignore your personal attacks, Ray, as they are a such an abundantly common tactic on your posts ("What would Jesus do? Poison the well, I guess."), and address the meat n' potatoes of the post. . .



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> In the post that you are responding to there is not one line that says (nor implies) the "circular reasoning" that you are ascribing to it.


 
Yes, it is circular reasoning. Claiming otherwise does not change this, just as claiming there are no geographical and cultural errors in the Synoptics does not change the fact that they're there.

Circular reasoning is precisely axiomatic reasoning, it is when a truth claim is held to be "self-evident" in and of itself, without any logic or evidence whatsoever needed to justify it. These are the "just-so" assertions that I routinly criticize on threads such as this (probably because they are the number one tool of apologists).

This is the case of the aforementioned post, when the claim that the Bible is the "Word of God" and, as such, "cannot be wrong on anything", is made. No evidence or reason is presented. In fact, "evidence" is called into question altogether, because the unshakable axiom of the claim is held to supercede any and all evidence whatsoever.

The logic behind these claims is precisely what Mr. Colbert parodies on his show: the Bible is the Word of God because it _says_ its the Word of God. Simple enough.

Sorry, but I call's 'em as I see's 'em.


----------



## heretic888

Crane557 said:
			
		

> Jesus:
> 
> Liar
> Lunatic
> LORD
> You decide!


 
Well, I'll take door number four. . .

4. Mythical-allegorical composite.


----------



## heretic888

celtic_crippler said:
			
		

> The question is "Is the BIBLE 100% truth?" not "are the teachings of Jesus Christ 100% truth?".
> 
> I haven't seen anyone (unless I missed a post somewhere) bashing the teaching of Jesus Christ. Interestingly enough, no 'writings' of Jesus are actually contained in the current accepted version of the "bible." I've never heard anyone quote Jesus 3:16 before.


 
Pretty much. 



			
				celtic_crippler said:
			
		

> Many of the idealogies presented in the Bible are also evidient in the Tora(spelling?) and the Koran. They contain basic ethical teachings necessary for civilization to continue to exist and so that anarchy and chaos do not prevail.



Perhaps, but you don't need to appeal to any religious authority or document to have such ethical teachings. The many secular democratic nations in the world today are evidence of that.

Also, there are also a number of ideologies presented in such religious texts that are, quite frankly, archaic and parochial bigotries that all rational adults should reject off hand. The injunction in the pseudo-Pauline Pastoral Letters  that women should not speak in church immediately comes to mind, as does the passive acceptance of human slavery.

I should point out that the _vast majority_ of Christians _do_ reject these parochialisms. The problem is that, via cognitive dissonance, these Christians simply ignore the parts of their own religious literature they do not accept (a common practice across all cultures), as opposed to accepting these elements are there and openly admitting they are archaic to today's believers.



			
				celtic_crippler said:
			
		

> Did you know it's the same God??? The God spoke of by Jews, Christians, and Muslims is the same guy. WHAT!?!?! It's true. History proves it.



Y'know, unless one wants to fall into the error of "intelligent design", I'm pretty skeptical of any historical evidence of "God". . .

As for the "same God" thing, try asking Jews or Muslims about the Holy Trinity. To the Christian mindset, Jesus Christ _is_ God (see John 1).



			
				celtic_crippler said:
			
		

> That's my point. Man's influenced the teachings and writings of all these "religions" for centuries. Certain individuals have altered, ommitted, and edited the bible (and other religious text) for their own political gains. Do you honestly think or believe the bible exists today as it did in its original form??



There is no "original form" of the Bible. It is a living document that has been edited and redacted numerous times over the centuries.

I should also point out that not all Christians accept every book of the Bible as "canon", such as the Apocrypha or Revelation.

Laterz.


----------



## Ray

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I'll ignore your personal attacks, Ray, as they are a such an abundantly common tactic on your posts ("What would Jesus do? Poison the well, I guess."), and address the meat n' potatoes of the post.


It wasn't an attack.  It was an observation.  You belittled the poster's belief...


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Yes, it is circular reasoning. Claiming otherwise does not change this, just as claiming there are no geographical and cultural errors in the Synoptics does not change the fact that they're there.


Just show where the poster that you charged with circular reason was guilty of circular reasoning.


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Circular reasoning is precisely axiomatic reasoning, it is when a truth claim is held to be "self-evident" in and of itself, without any logic or evidence whatsoever needed to justify it.


Wow, thanks for the definition.  Now I truely know the definition of circular reasoning in addtion to what a circular saw is.  Now, just address the part where the poster that you made fun of used circular reasoning.


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> These are the "just-so" assertions that I routinly criticize on threads such as this (probably because they are the number one tool of apologists).


Straw man, straw man.


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I call's 'em as I see's 'em.


See an eye doc.


----------



## heretic888

elder999 said:
			
		

> I'm not going to get into the whole mistranslation thing here-been there, done that-the "Bible" is full of errors, especially most of the English versions, most especially the totally excrable King James' Version.
> 
> I'm gonna quote Pilate, and ask, _What is *truth?*_
> 
> Then I'm going to point out the difference between a "fact" and "truth"
> with this post way back in the beginning of all this.
> 
> The Bible is full of beauty and truth; it isn't entirely factual at all-in *fact*, there are large portions of it that were probably never meant to be taken as such.....


 
Well said. :asian:


----------



## heretic888

KOROHO said:
			
		

> The Bible, as the word of God, is 100% truth.
> The problems come from man's misunderstanding, mis-translating and in many cases outright manipulation of it.



The problem here is that many of the books that make up the Bible _are_ outright distortions and manipulations. The pseudo-Pauline Pastoral Letters, for example, were largely written to "correct" the authentic Paulines such as Galatians, mostly as a late 2nd century rebuttal to Marcionism.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

pstarr said:
			
		

> I Sometimes people try to read things into it that aren't there. Some folks have a tough time with the concept of miracles.


 
I think the problem is that certain individuals appeal to "miracles" whenever something currently unexplained happens. It's almost like a knee-jerk reaction to some people.

Of course, history has shown us that most of the phenomena previously attributed to "miracles" or "supernatural" agencies have later been explained with more parsimonius and rational explanations. Weather and physical illness both being perfect examples. What reason is there to believe that today's "miracles" won't be tomorrow's Weather Channel??

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

KOROHO said:
			
		

> Yes, they do!
> I know people who were blind and now are not. The DRs cant explain it.
> I know people who were dead and now are not. One walked out of the morgue and still has his death certificate as a souvenier.
> One woman from our church moved away about 10 years ago. The Dr told her she will be dead in 3 months or less. She came back home to make arrangements for someone to take care of her kids. She got prayer in church and the cancer left her body.
> Another girl with an inoperable brain tumor decided to not wast time and money on the doctors and trust in God instead. Today she sings on the Praise Team with no sign of ever having a tumor.
> 
> Doctors can, and some times do, do good things. But when it gets right down to it, they know very little and understand less. God is the only healer. He alone can restore broken lives and he alone can bring eternal life.


 
Personally, I don't buy into fatalism myself.

By the way, "prayer healings" have been demonstrated in studies with members of various religions and even demonstrated by atheist participants. Whatever's going on there, it ain't God. Or, if it is God, he certainly doesn't seem to give a flying you-know-what about whether your believe in him or not.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

KOROHO said:
			
		

> Some what correct. The Tora is part of the Bible.


 
If you are talking about the Christian Bible, then a more accurate description would be that a Greek mistranslation of the Torah is part of the Bible.



			
				KOROHO said:
			
		

> And yes, these three religions sort of have the same God.



And, yet, only Christians talk about trinities. . .




			
				KOROHO said:
			
		

> But the muslims have thier own set of beliefs about him and turned away from him, for this they are cut off and cursed.



Ah, the joys of ethnocentrism.



			
				KOROHO said:
			
		

> In the New Testament, we see that God was manifest in the flesh (Yeshua the Messiah, who so many call Jesus"). But many Jews refused to accept him and killed him.



Anti-Semitic nonsense. The description of the Sanhedrin trial and Pilate's inquisition are completely non-historical in nature.



			
				KOROHO said:
			
		

> There are Messianic Jews who have come to accept Yeshua as the Messiah.



In other words, they're Christians just pretending to be Jews. 



			
				KOROHO said:
			
		

> And there are those "Christians" who accept the "trinity doctrine" which in essence gives them 3 gods.



How is that any different than the "on God with different roles" description you gave before??

I also like the putting the word _Christians_ in quotation marks, thinly veiling your own sense of sectarian elitism.



			
				KOROHO said:
			
		

> So all though we are looking at 3 different religions with the same god, that one God does not look at the 3 religions the same way.



A more correct statement would be that your religion says that God does not look at the all three religions in the same way, as no human being could possibly know the mind of God.



			
				KOROHO said:
			
		

> God is not interested in religion. And Christianity is not a religion - it is a faith and a personal relationship with God and an acceptance of his sacrifice on the cross coupled with a commitment to live and wlak with him, obeying his commandments.



In other words, you operationally redefine the word "religion" to give your own cult special status. More sectarian elitism.



			
				KOROHO said:
			
		

> Look at the example of the great flood. Do you really think Noah was the only "religious man" in the world? Or the only man in the world who believed in God or even prayed? He most certainly was not. But there were still an awful lot of "God believers", and "religious people" who died in the water



The "great flood" never happened. It comes from the Epic of Gilgamesh, a Babylonian mythical work.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

Ray said:
			
		

> It wasn't an attack. It was an observation.


To quote Judge Judy:

"Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining."

An attack is an attack, no matter how you try to rationalize it as impartial "observation" or other such nonsense.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> You belittled the poster's belief...



If by "belittled" you mean I pointed out that his belief (and probably yours as well) rests on circular reasoning and axiomatic assumptions, then sure.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Just show where the poster that you charged with circular reason was guilty of circular reasoning.



That would be the paragraph of my post that you conveniently "forgot" to quote:

_This is the case of the aforementioned post, when the claim that the Bible is the "Word of God" and, as such, "cannot be wrong on anything", is made. No evidence or reason is presented. In fact, "evidence" is called into question altogether, because the unshakable axiom of the claim is held to supercede any and all evidence whatsoever.

The logic behind these claims is precisely what Mr. Colbert parodies on his show: the Bible is the Word of God because it says its the Word of God. Simple enough."_



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Wow, thanks for the definition. Now I truely know the definition of circular reasoning in addtion to what a circular saw is. Now, just address the part where the poster that you made fun of used circular reasoning.



See above.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Straw man, straw man.



What did Dr. Robertson used to say. . .

Kettle? Pot? Black?



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> See an eye doc.



Ah, another personal attack. Delightful.

Y'know, Ray, you guys sure aren't doing a whole lot to change my opinion of apologists. Circular logic, axioms, appeals to authority, and attacks on the intelligence/morality of one's opponents seem to be the name of the game here. 

I should point out that _every_ single apologist on this thread, without exception, has used such tactics. I'm sensing a trend. 

Thanks but no thanks.


----------



## elder999

heretic888 said:
			
		

> The "great flood" never happened. It comes from the Epic of Gilgamesh, a Babylonian mythical work.
> 
> Laterz.


 
Trying my best to stay out of this, but it's likely that the great flood did happen on the Caspian and Black sea during the late Paleoithic age....about 5600 B.C. ('course, the "young earth" folks might have a hard time with this, as it's far too early for an earth that's only been around since 5494 B.C. )

See  here. 

Carry on .


----------



## Ray

heretic888 said:
			
		

> To quote Judge Judy:
> 
> "Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining."


This has no application to the subject at hand.


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> An attack is an attack, no matter how you try to rationalize it as impartial "observation" or other such nonsense.





			
				ray said:
			
		

> In the post that you are responding to there is not one line that says (nor implies) the "circular reasoning" that you are ascribing to it.
> 
> Maybe for once, you could really use those logic skills that you claim to have: read, think and ponder what a person says before making responses that insult and belittle anyone who believes differently than you


Certainly the first sentance is not an attack, unless you suggest that I must automatically "get in line" with your POV.

The second line says that you insulted him.  If those words were directed at me, I would be insulted.  If I tell you that you insulted me, would that be an attack?


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> If by "belittled" you mean I pointed out that his belief (and probably yours as well) rests on circular reasoning and axiomatic assumptions, then sure.


My beliefs are not circular - however I do hold some axiomatic beliefs (such as axioms including but not limited to Euclid's geometry).



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Ah, the joys of circular logic.
> 
> One is reminded of the words of Stephen Colbert:
> 
> "Y'see, the thing is that the Bible is the Word of God and can't be wrong. How do we know the Bible _is_ the Word of God?? Because the Bible _says_ it's the Word of God. I mean, what part of my _wheel of logic_ are you not getting on here??"
> 
> Lo and behold, friends. Lo and behold.


No, that's not belittling by any means.  



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> That would be the paragraph of my post that you conveniently "forgot" to quote:
> 
> _This is the case of the aforementioned post, when the claim that the Bible is the "Word of God" and, as such, "cannot be wrong on anything", is made. No evidence or reason is presented. In fact, "evidence" is called into question altogether, because the unshakable axiom of the claim is held to supercede any and all evidence whatsoever._
> 
> _The logic behind these claims is precisely what Mr. Colbert parodies on his show: the Bible is the Word of God because it says its the Word of God. Simple enough."_







			
				[B said:
			
		

> Kenpsy7][/B]
> _Yes the Bible is 100% true. What most scoffers and unbelievers tend to overlook in their observations is that God is God. He is soverign, regardless of how we feel about it. He has providentially written and preserved the Bible. It is Gods providence that has kept the bible intact today, despite all of the attacks on it and subtle attempts to undermine its authority as Gods authoratative word._




That's the quote you referenced in your "humorous escapade."  He says: God is God.  God kept the Bible intact.  He doesn't say it's the word of god because god says it is.  He says he believes in a God without saying he believes because of the bible...you are saying the reverse.


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> What did Dr. Robertson used to say. . .
> 
> Kettle? Pot? Black?
> 
> Ah, another personal attack. Delightful.


Is that another appeal to authority?  Or a subtle attempt at humor?


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Y'know, Ray, you guys sure aren't doing a whole lot to change my opinion of apologists. Circular logic, axioms, appeals to authority, and attacks on the intelligence/morality of one's opponents seem to be the name of the game here.


I'm not interested in changing your opinions.  Your opinions are amusing to me.  You're the one making appeals to authority and throwing out straw men.  

Finally, you have no idea what my beliefs on the bible are.  You are assuming and assuming incorrectly.  All I did was point out that yourinsulted and belittled someone for their belief.


----------



## heretic888

elder999 said:
			
		

> Trying my best to stay out of this, but it's likely that the great flood did happen on the Caspian and Black sea during the late Paleoithic age....about 5600 B.C. ('course, the "young earth" folks might have a hard time with this, as it's far too early for an earth that's only been around since 5494 B.C. )
> 
> See here.
> 
> Carry on .


 
Well, there's a difference between a regional flood and a flood that literally encompassed the _whole_ world (requiring some guy to trot the planet gathering two of every species so they wouldn't get wiped out by God's wrath).

In any event, many of the specific details of the Noah story appear to be derived from the Gilgamesh epic. Not surprising, as much of the Genesis myths are simply Semitic recastings of Sumerian-Babylonian folklore.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

Ray said:
			
		

> This has no application to the subject at hand.


 
When you're right you're right. I see no reason to carry this conversation any further.

Have a good one.

Laterz.


----------



## elder999

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Well, there's a difference between a regional flood and a flood that literally encompassed the _whole_ world (requiring some guy to trot the planet gathering two of every species so they wouldn't get wiped out by God's wrath).
> 
> In any event, many of the specific details of the Noah story appear to be derived from the Gilgamesh epic. Not surprising, as much of the Genesis myths are simply Semitic recastings of Sumerian-Babylonian folklore.
> 
> Laterz.


 
Agreed about the details of the stories, but I should point out that in the age in question the "whole world" wasn't really too much more than a man could walk in three days for most people....yet another problem with taking the stories themselves too literally.


----------



## KOROHO

elder999 said:
			
		

> the "whole world" wasn't really too much more than a man could walk in three days.


Not quite true, although this is likely what many believed.

King David understood how vast the world was - he also understood that it was round.  Apparently, God revealed much to him about the world and I am sure there were others with this knowledge.

Certainly Jesus, being the Creator of the world, knew this.


----------



## heretic888

KOROHO said:
			
		

> King David understood how vast the world was - he also understood that it was round. Apparently, God revealed much to him about the world and I am sure there were others with this knowledge.


 
Seeing as how there is no archeological evidence for a Davidic empire, it is much more likely that the stories of "King David" were written several centuries (possibly millenia) after the fact.

By the way, stories of a vast empire and a noble line of kings that was later destroyed by foreign powers would be particularly appealing to a conquered people, regardless of its lack of any historical basis.



			
				KOROHO said:
			
		

> Certainly Jesus, being the Creator of the world, knew this.



First off, no gospel (canonical or otherwise) has "Jesus" saying anything about the deluge.

Secondly, "Jesus" was most likely a mythical composite derived from several pre-existing figures.

Laterz.


----------



## Ray

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Have a good one.


Thanks, you have a good one too.  I have no problem with your beliefs, just that one posting.  I hope I didn't come off as insulting in return.


----------



## Beowulf

TBC Today : "No Doubt We're In The Last Days" News

[TBC: As the days pass, the attacks against the Bible become more violent
and direct. Consider the following example from a textbook entitled
"Invitation to Critical Thinking," which very possibly will find a place in
classrooms in Canada. Each book costs the schools $59 each. "Critical
Thinking" (which is not really thinking, but indoctrination) plays a major
role in today's public schools. Consider the following comments from a
conservative Christian columnist who was asked for permission to allow some
of his own writings to be included in the textbook.]



> Link to complete article
> 
> ...I began to read the sample pages the publisher sent to me.
> 
> Critical Thinking Tip 11.5 (these are instructions for the children at the
> top of the exercise)
> 
> Remember that issues are complex, so a diversion may on occasion be
> warranted and reasonable. A warranted and reasonable diversion should
> eventually return to the issue. Keep the issue(s) in mind. In other words,
> the teacher will decide what is to be a "warranted and reasonable diversion"
> and if you take a different path than the predetermined one, your argument
> will not be "warranted or reasonable."
> 
> Exercise 11.16 Fallacies of Relevance II
> 
> In each of the following examples, check all fallacy categories that apply.
> More importantly, explain each fallacious instance you identify.


----------



## heretic888

Personally, I'd choose "None of the above". An Appeal To Authority is the closest thing to a fallacy there.

Laterz.


----------



## Beowulf

> The "great flood" never happened. It comes from the Epic of Gilgamesh, a Babylonian mythical work.
> 
> Laterz.


 
Actually the fact that there is more than one account of a great flood is a double edged sword.

On the one hand myths in various cultures around the world relating to a great flood could be interpreted as evidence that the bible used other flood myths as a source for creating its own myth.

On the other hand, if there really was a great flood we would expect to find accounts of it in many cultures other than the Hebrews, and we do.

Thus it is more about which presupposition you adhere to.

"The bible cannot possibly be true therefor..."

"The bible is true therefor..."

Metaphysical or antimetaphysical, agnostic metaphysical or whatever, presuppositions occur whichever camp you adhere to.

Of course you could always make up a different take for why there are certain spiritual "echoes" if you will in each cultures myths which are similar.
I think Joseph Campbell did so, although I've only heard about his work.

In my opinion, the evidence that other cultures have biblical stories, or stories similar to them in no way discredits those stories, since one would expect to find them in other cultures around the world if they are indeed true.



> Here are a few:
> 
> Europe
> Greek, Arcadian, Samothrace
> Roman
> Scandinavian, German
> Celtic, Welsh
> Lithuanian, Transylvanian Gypsy
> Turkey
> 
> Near East
> Sumerian
> Egypt, Babylonian, Assyrian, Chaldean, Hebrew, Islamic
> Persian, Zoroastrian
> 
> Africa
> Cameroon
> Masai (East Africa), Komililo Nandi, Kwaya (Lake Victoria)
> Southwest Tanzania, Pygmy, Ababua (northern Zaire), Kikuyu (Kenya), Bakongo (west Zaire), Bachokwe? (southern Zaire), Lower Congo, Basonge, Bena-Lulua (Congo River, southeast Zaire)
> Yoruba (southwest Nigeria), Efik-Ibibio (Nigeria), Ekoi (Nigeria)
> Mandingo (Ivory Coast)




*Complete article:  FLOOD STORIES FROM AROUND THE WORLD*


----------



## heretic888

Beowulf said:
			
		

> On the other hand, if there really was a great flood we would expect to find accounts of it in many cultures other than the Hebrews, and we do.



It does not logically follow that because there is something like a "flood myth" in numerous cultures, that some type of "world flood" actually occured in the distant past. To argue otherwise is to Appeal To Common Practice.

It is also relevant to point out that the "flood" parallels only hold out if we are dealing in the most vague of general abstractions about these myths. When we actually examine the specific details of the myths --- when they happened, why they happened, what people "survived", how the people "survived", and so on --- we see nothing short of a radical pluralism.

Regardless, my point about the lack of evidence vis a vis the Biblical deluge was simply that:

1) There is no _physical_ or _empirical_ evidence that a world flood ever occured. At best, there is some evidence to indicate a regional flood _might_ have occured thousands of years _before_ the Bible says it did.

2) The specific details of the Hebrew myth appear to have been acquired from the specific details of the older Babylonian myth.

Laterz.


----------



## Beowulf

I just tried to reply 3 times and it erased it!


----------



## Beowulf

> heretic888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does not logically follow that because there is something like a "flood myth" in numerous cultures, that some type of "world flood" actually occured in the distant past. To argue otherwise is to Appeal To Common Practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually its not Appeal to Common Practice on my part since that wasn't my argument.
> Its actually a straw man on your part my fellow taijutsudansan.
> 
> My argument is that if the flood account in Genesis is true then it would logically follow that their would be numerous flood myths (which there are).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is also relevant to point out that the "flood" parallels only hold out if we are dealing in the most vague of general abstractions about these myths. When we actually examine the specific details of the myths --- when they happened, why they happened, what people "survived", how the people "survived", and so on --- we see nothing short of a radical pluralism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Variation of details within the myths would also logically follow if a global flood happened. I can't speak for all the myths, but their are many that are about a flood brought by one or more Gods, wiping out humanity and only a select few surviving. Each culture appears to have its own "twist" and heros within the story, yet the most important detail is that they all report it occurring, and many of these are from cultures that are vastly seperated from one another.
Click to expand...


----------



## Beowulf

> Regardless, my point about the lack of evidence vis a vis the Biblical deluge was simply that:
> 
> 1) There is no _physical_ or _empirical_ evidence that a world flood ever occured. At best, there is some evidence to indicate a regional flood _might_ have occured thousands of years _before_ the Bible says it did.


. 



> Why Christians Should Believe in a Global Flood
> by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
> (excerpt)
> *[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT] *
> 
> *[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Scientific Reasons [/FONT]*
> 
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The earth's surface and sedimentary crust also bear strong witness to the historicity of a worldwide Flood, and the early geologists (Steno, Woodward, etc.) taught this. Most modern geologists have argued, on the other hand, that the earth's crust was formed slowly over billions of years. Yes, but consider the following significant facts. [/FONT]
> 
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]All the mountains of the world have been under water at some time or times in the past, as indicated by sedimentary rocks and marine fossils near their summits. Even most volcanic mountains with their pillow lavas seem largely to have been formed when under water. [/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Most of the earth's crust consists of sedimentary rocks (sandstones, shales, limestones, etc.). These were originally formed in almost all cases under water, usually by deposition after transportation by water from various sources. [/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The assigned "ages" of the sedimentary beds (which comprise the bulk of the "geologic column") have been deduced from their assemblages of fossils. Fossils, however, normally require very rapid burial and compaction to be preserved at all. Thus every sedimentary formation appears to have been formed rapidlyeven catastrophicallyand more and more present-day geologists are returning to this point of view. [/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Since there is known to be a global continuity of sedimentary formations in the geologic column (that is, there is no _worldwide_ "unconformity," or time gap, between successive "ages"), and since each unit was formed rapidly, the entire geologic column seems to be the product of continuous rapid deposition of sediments, comprising in effect the geological record of a time when "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished."[/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It is also significant that the types of rocks, the vast extent of specific sedimentary rock formations, the minerals and metals, coal and oil found in rocks, the various types of structures (i.e., faults, folds, thrusts, etc.), sedimentary rocks grossly deformed while still soft from recent deposition, and numerous other features seem to occur indiscriminately throughout the various "ages" supposedly represented in the column. To all outward appearances, therefore, they were all formed in essentially the same brief time period. [/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The fossil sequences in the sedimentary rocks do not constitute a legitimate exception to this rule, for there is a flagrant circular reasoning process involved in using them to identify their supposed geologic age. That is, the fossils have been dated by the rocks where they are found, which in turn had been dated by their imbedded fossils with the sequences based on their relative assumed stages of evolution, which had ultimately been based on the ancient philosophy of the "great chain of being." Instead of representing the evolution of life over many ages, the fossils really speak of the destruction of life (remember that fossils are dead things, catastrophically buried for preservation) in one age, with their actual local "sequences" having been determined by the ecological communities in which they were living at the time of burial. [/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The fact that there are traditions of the great Flood found in hundreds of tribes in all parts of the world (all similar in one way or another to that in the Genesis record) is firm evidence that those tribes all originated from the one family preserved through the cataclysm. [/FONT]


----------



## pstarr

Gosh, I was never aware that the apocrypha were "books of the Bible"...

Beowulf- nice post regarding the flood.  Well done.


----------



## Beowulf

> 2) The specific details of the Hebrew myth appear to have been acquired from the specific details of the older Babylonian myth.


Laterz.[/quote]

This really goes into the realm of opinion. The Epic of Gilgamesh right? Is there a way to prove which is older?

  I read this one a while back and only one chapter in it referred to the flood account. It seemed that the few fragments that could be traced to the bible were about two words from what I remember when I read it. Then IMO it seemed like a pomous king story had been pasted on.

 I remember it talked about the earth "teaming with life" and rearing its head like a wild bull and the gods became angry because of the "babble". So I connected "teamed with life" from the bible and also "babble". But IMO the bible seemed to make a lot more sense. The Epic of G version sounded like it had been passed around the room too much.

IMO it seemed like an erroneous retelling of the story by some 12 year olds trying to tell a late night scary story. But I thought it was cool. I actually had a freind who used to love reading it out loud because its written with such intense warrior poetry.


----------



## heretic888

pstarr said:
			
		

> Gosh, I was never aware that the apocrypha were "books of the Bible"...


 
It depends if you accept Protestant historical revisionism or not.



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> Beowulf- nice post regarding the flood. Well done.



Actually, it'd be a lot more impressive if it was information published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Y'know, as opposed to apologist nonsense published in a populist work within the dubious field of "creation science".

Really, it's pretty absurd to claim one has "scientific evidence" for something, but won't submit one's findings to the peer review of other scientists. This would be like claiming one has "scientific evidence" that proves atheism, but only publishes it in magazines like _Skeptic_.

I don't think so.


----------



## Beowulf

Actually, it'd be a lot more impressive if it was information published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Y'know, as opposed to apologist nonsense published in a populist work within the dubious field of "creation science".

Really, it's pretty absurd to claim one has "scientific evidence" for something, but won't submit one's findings to the peer review of other scientists. This would be like claiming one has "scientific evidence" that proves atheism, but only publishes it in magazines like _Skeptic_.


This follows the fallacy of Pollute the Well. Instead of defeating my arguments you have reverted that. Actually, was there not a public forum for this very subject recently in Kansas? It was boycotted by evolutionists. I wonder why. LOL!!!


----------



## Beowulf

Wow, macs don't quote well (at least not this one). Notice the first two paragraphs on that last one are Heretics and the last one is my reply.


----------



## heretic888

Beowulf said:
			
		

> This follows the fallacy of Pollute the Well. Instead of defeating my arguments you have reverted that.


 
Not at all.

I know absolutely nothing about the personal characteristics or history of the individual that wrote the aforementioned article. Ergo, I cannot "poison the well" by introducing embarassing information about him. 

All I know is that he and other "creation scientists" claim to have what they call "scientific evidence" for their position, but will not publish their findings in peer-reviewed academic journals dedicated to such sciences. I'm sorry, but that is just how science _works_. It has to be methodologically reproduced by other peers in the field, otherwise we have no basis for believing it the author's position.

This is actually quite common among pseudoscience as a whole, whether we're talking about proponents of "intelligent design", "flat earth hypothesis" or one of the many "conspiracy theories" out there. They don't publish in peer-reveiwed academic periodicals, but instead through populist mediums like personal websites or various publishing companies.

Laterz.


----------



## Beowulf

heretic888 said:
			
		

> All I know is that he and other "creation scientists" claim to have what they call "scientific evidence" for their position, but will not publish their findings in peer-reviewed academic journals dedicated to such sciences. I'm sorry, but that is just how science _works_. It has to be methodologically reproduced by other peers in the field, otherwise we have no basis for believing it the author's position.
> 
> 
> 
> *Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?  (link to full article) *
> 
> By David Buckna
> 
> In his book _The Monkey Business_ (1982) paleontologist Niles Eldredge wrote that no author who published in the _Creation Research Society Quarterly_ has contributed a single article to any reputable scientific journal (p.83). Apparently Eldredge couldnt be bothered to glance at the Science Citation Index or any other major science bibliographic source.
Click to expand...





> This is actually quite common among pseudoscience as a whole, whether we're talking about proponents of "intelligent design", "flat earth hypothesis" or one of the many "conspiracy theories" out there. They don't publish in peer-reveiwed academic periodicals, but instead through populist mediums like personal websites or various publishing companies


.

By trying to equate my position with "flat earth hypothesis" or ridiculous "conspiracy theories" a person could easily make my position look silly. This again goes into the realm of mere opinion and could be an Appeal to Common Practice if anything.


----------



## Rich Parsons

Just a reminded to everyone to please keep the insults and sniping out of the discussions. Religion is a touchy subject for many. 

Thank you


----------



## heretic888

Beowulf said:
			
		

> *Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? *



All of which is completely _irrelevant_ unless we are talking about the specific arguments in support of their "creation science".

That a certain scientist publishes articles on the migration patterns of sea turtles in a peer-reviewed journal and then goes around and publishes articles about the Flood in a pseudoscience journal dedicated to creationism has no bearing whatsoever.

This be like me saying that Richard Dawkins occassionally writes articles for _Skeptic_ or _Atheist_ magazine has any bearing whatsoever on the work he publishes concerning molecular genetics.

In both cases, one set of their work may be reputable while the other set is completely dubious (or at least suspicious from a scientific vantage). That the same person published both sets of work is irrelevant, as there is no direct correlation (in terms of scientific credibility) between the two.



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> By trying to equate my position with "flat earth hypothesis" or ridiculous "conspiracy theories" a person could easily make my position look silly.



Not difficult to do, as all of the aformentioned are on equal footing in science.



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> This again goes into the realm of mere opinion and could be an Appeal to Common Practice if anything.



If by "mere opinion" you mean "peer-reviewed scientific research", then sure. . .

I do find your references interesting, though, from a purely psychological perspective. It would be like me citing "evidence" for penis envy in a periodical called the _Freudian Research Initiative_. These journals are clearly designed to champion one theoretical point of view above all others, being characterized not by a field-specific research methodology, but by the universal acceptance of foregone conclusions.

_Real_ scientific journals don't do that. They provide diverse points of view and do not unilaterally support any given set of conclusions in the field. If I opened up an issue of _Psychology Bulletin_, I would see no foregone assumptions that behaviorism has more merit than humanism, for example. I would simply see research articles arguing for either perspective.

This is why your "evidence" is not science, but apologism. Science uses a methodology to uncover evidence and form tentative conclusions or predictions based on that evidence. Apologism begins with the conclusions at the start, and then proceeds to selectively "find" the "evidence" that supports their conclusions.

That is precisely why everything you have cited in the past several posts has no scientific merit whatsoever. It is theology masquerading as science.

Laterz.


----------



## shesulsa

_*Moderator Note:*_

Several articles have been posted nearly in their entirety which is against MartialTalk policy.  These posts have been edited to smaller abstracts including links to on-line articles.  Please review the copyright policy here on MartialTalk before posting large portions of articles.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Super Moderator


----------



## hongkongfooey

KOROHO said:
			
		

> Not quite true, although this is likely what many believed.
> 
> King David understood how vast the world was - he also understood that it was round. Apparently, God revealed much to him about the world and I am sure there were others with this knowledge.
> 
> Certainly Jesus, being the Creator of the world, knew this.


 
So Jesus created the world before he was born?


----------



## hongkongfooey

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The book did indeed, never 'set itself as a great work of fact', or take an action of any kind. And of course, you know that. I'm sure others have pointed out, that there are those who treat the book as fact; the true word of God.
> 
> I mention this only because, today, on a popular radio talk show program, 'Fresh Air, with Terry Gross', the host interviewed one, Michael Farris.
> 
> Mr. Farris is the founder of Patrick Henry College. This college has a mandatory 'Statement of Faith', that all students, faculty, and trustees must profess the following.
> [/list]There are some other items of interest on the schools website.
> 
> http://www.phc.edu/
> 
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5427797
> 
> The foundation of this college is to set the Bible as 100% fact. And to take those who believe this and move them into the halls of power.


 
I bet there are great parties at that school.


----------



## heretic888

hongkongfooey said:
			
		

> So Jesus created the world before he was born?


 
In the Gospel of John, Jesus Christ is identified with the Word of God. There are similar sentiments in some of the Pauline epistles (especially Philippians).

Mind you, I don't think that Jesus Christ existed in the first place. I believe he is a mythical composite who is wholly allegorical and symbolic in nature (which is the role of Christ within the context of contemplative prayer).

However, the idea is there nonetheless.

Laterz.


----------



## hongkongfooey

While I do believe that there could have been a man named Jesus that lived a long time ago. I don't believe that he was capable of all of the supernatural feats the bible says he accomplished. I believe that he was just a man.


----------



## heretic888

hongkongfooey said:
			
		

> While I do believe that there could have been a man named Jesus that lived a long time ago. I don't believe that he was capable of all of the supernatural feats the bible says he accomplished. I believe that he was just a man.


 
Well, I was just telling you what a _literal_ interpretation of the Bible says about Jesus. The "creator of the world" thing does have a scriptural basis, if you interpret the text at face value.

Regarding the historicity of Jesus, I have discussed this several times on these forums. Both the lack of contemporary corroboration as to his existence as well as the fact that the farther back we go, the more "mythical" and less "historical" Jesus is made out to be, lends me to believe that "Jesus Christ" is no different than Osiris, Heracles, Dionysus, or any of a dozen iother dying-and-resurrecting godmen popular at the time.

But that's just my perspective.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

As to _why_ I believe that perspective, here are photographs of the Egyptian god Serapis:

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/serapis1.jpg
http://ce.eng.usf.edu/pharos/alexandria/gallery/serapis.jpg
http://www.egyptos.net/img/dieux/jserapis.jpg

Look familiar to you??

How about a few of the Greek god Dionysus:

http://www.ancientsculpturegallery.com/sitebuilder/images/049-449x555.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Dionysos_Sardanapalus.jpg
http://www.skidmore.edu/fye/bat/dionysus.jpg
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/classics/jhamilton/mythology/dionysus/dionysus1.JPG

Not familiar at all, huh??


----------



## Blade of the East

hongkongfooey said:
			
		

> While I do believe that there could have been a man named Jesus that lived a long time ago. I don't believe that he was capable of all of the supernatural feats the bible says he accomplished. I believe that he was just a man.


 
To answer two questions, The Holy Spirit, God, and Jesus are the same person in different forms, so since Jesus is God he created the universe. (a bit confusing I know) Secondly because Jesus is God he was able to preform the miracles that were mentioned in the bible.


----------



## michaeledward

Blade of the East said:
			
		

> To answer two questions, The Holy Spirit, God, and Jesus are the same person in different forms, so since Jesus is God he created the universe. (a bit confusing I know) Secondly because Jesus is God he was able to preform the miracles that were mentioned in the bible.


 
Both of these statements require the belief in the truth of the statement, to accept the statement as true; aka circular reasoning. 

I do not believe those statements are true. 

Therefore, making such statements will not fare well in any attempt to persuade me to your point of view on this issue.


----------



## DeLamar.J

shesulsa said:
			
		

> We've all heard that saying ... "Either it all applies or none of it applies."
> 
> What say you?


I have read the Bible and its variations. I dont believe any of the magical part, such as Jesus healing people or the walking on water. However, the Bible has some great teachings that I cannot deny. 
I dont think the Bible is meant to be taken literally, I believe that its meant to teach people good morals to live by, the Bible, to me, should be seen more as a guideline, than actual facts.
For instance, the mark of the beast. No man will be able to buy sell or work without it. Barcodes, implants to track people ect ect ect. What I get out of this is not to rely 100% on a system because it gives people high up too much power over mankind, and as Jesus said, when there is authority, there will be abuse of authority. That I believe. 
Take the lessons from the Bible, but dont let midevil superstitions control your life in the 20th century. Just my opinion.


----------



## KOROHO

hongkongfooey said:
			
		

> So Jesus created the world before he was born?


 
John 1: In the beginning746 was2258 the3588 Word,3056 and2532 the3588 Word3056 was2258 with4314 God,2316 and2532 the3588 Word3056 was2258 God.2316 Joh 1:2 The same3778 was2258 in1722 the beginning746 with4314 God.2316 
Joh 1:3 All things3956 were made1096 by1223 him;846 and2532 without5565 him846 was not3761 any thing1520 made1096 that3739 was made.10

Yes.  God created the world.  The man "Jesus" was God the Creator manifest in the flesh.  God made a human body and put his Spirit in it. This has always been the foundation of Christian theology.  

It is probably best to atleast the Bible and get a grasp of the basics before discussing it.


----------



## heretic888

Or, if you prefer Meister Eckhart's interpretation:

".... there are more days than one. There is the soul's day and God's day. A day, whether six or seven ago, or more than six thousand years ago, is just as near to the present as yesterday. Why? Because all time is contained in the present Now-moment. Time comes of the revolution of the heavens and day began with the first revolution. The soul's day falls within this time and consists of the natural light in which things are seen. God's day, however, is the complete day, comprising both day and night. It is the real Now-moment, which for the soul is eternity's day, on which the Father begets his only begotten Son and the soul is reborn in God. 

The soul's day and God's day are different. In her natural day the soul knows all things above time and place; nothing is far or near. And that is why I say, this day all things are of equal rank. To talk about the world as being made by God to-morrow, yesterday, would be talking nonsense. God makes the world and all things in this present now. Time gone a thousand years ago is now as present and as near to God as this very instant. The soul who is in this present now, in her the Father bears his one-begotten Son and in that same birth the soul is born back into God. It is one birth; as fast as she is reborn into God the Father is begetting his only Son in her.

God the Father and the Son have nothing to do with time. Generation is not in time, but at the end and limit of time. In the past and future movements of things, your heart flits about; it is in vain that you attempt to know eternal things; in divine things, you should be occupied intellectually....

Again, God loves for his own sake, acts for his own sake: that means that he loves for the sake of love and acts for the sake of action. It cannot be doubted that God would never have begot his Son in eternity if [his idea of] creation were other than [his act of] creation. Thus God created the world so that he might keep on creating. The past and future are both far from God and alien to his way."

Laterz.


----------



## KOROHO

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> ... I dont believe any of the magical part, such as Jesus healing people or the walking on water. ...
> For instance, the mark of the beast. No man will be able to buy sell or work without it. Barcodes, implants to track people ect ect ect. What I get out of this is not to rely 100% on a system because it gives people high up too much power over mankind, and as Jesus said, when there is authority, there will be abuse of authority. That I believe.
> .


 
As for the "majical" stuff.  I don;t see why a God that created the world and everything in it, would not be able to walk on the water.  And why the God that created life would not be able to put life back into a dead body.  As mentioned in a previous post, I personally have met and know some people that have been dead.  An old friend who I went to church with wlaked out of the morgue and kept his death certificate as a souvenier.
There was no "magic".
Nothing in the Bible defies science.  Science is merely the understanding of how the things that God created work.


As for the "bar codes", etc this is just the kind of stuff that proves the Bible is true.  How do you think that, roughly 2,000 years ago, people were able to predict with 100% accuracy, what would be happening today?

Bible prophecy tells of a world governement, now we have the U.N. which is essentially just that and will only continue to grow in power.  Revelation talks of war with helicopters, "numbers" being implanted in people for control, which is being done now in some cases.  Do you think John just got lucky when he wrote of waht could only be computer chips and bar codes?

Really, nothing personal Delamar.  You've been thoughtful and respectful in your statements.  I just feel like you read things in good faith and are likely a well intentioned person.  But I also feel like you missed something big.


----------



## DeLamar.J

KOROHO said:
			
		

> As for the "majical" stuff. I don;t see why a God that created the world and everything in it, would not be able to walk on the water. And why the God that created life would not be able to put life back into a dead body. As mentioned in a previous post, I personally have met and know some people that have been dead. An old friend who I went to church with wlaked out of the morgue and kept his death certificate as a souvenier.
> There was no "magic".
> Nothing in the Bible defies science. Science is merely the understanding of how the things that God created work.
> 
> 
> As for the "bar codes", etc this is just the kind of stuff that proves the Bible is true. How do you think that, roughly 2,000 years ago, people were able to predict with 100% accuracy, what would be happening today?
> 
> Bible prophecy tells of a world governement, now we have the U.N. which is essentially just that and will only continue to grow in power. Revelation talks of war with helicopters, "numbers" being implanted in people for control, which is being done now in some cases. Do you think John just got lucky when he wrote of waht could only be computer chips and bar codes?
> 
> Really, nothing personal Delamar. You've been thoughtful and respectful in your statements. I just feel like you read things in good faith and are likely a well intentioned person. But I also feel like you missed something big.


You must be a jehovah's witness. Your pretty good. However, Im just not wired up properly for faith. But that still dont mean I'm not going to read the Bible every once in a while.


----------



## KOROHO

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> You must be a jehovah's witness. Your pretty good. However, Im just not wired up properly for faith. But that still dont mean I'm not going to read the Bible every once in a while.


 
I am very far from being a JW.  Among other things, JW's deny the deity of Christ.  I am a member of a United Pentecostal Church International congregation.

I grew up in a United Method Church, which is pretty tame.  But stopped going when I was a teenager and was not forced any more.  Many years later I found myself in an extremely conservative movement, the International Church of Christ.  The UMC handed out Bibles but I never read it and no one ever said it was "the word of God" and the never paid much attention to it, other than reading a nice passage every once in a while to make people feel good.  The ICOC proposed to me that the Bible was the word of God.  Like so many said "come on. It's full of holes, etc." all the usual, seemingly rational arguments.  They actually told me to just not come back any more then.  

Then one day, I guess you can say I met God and he set things straight.
I remember reading through the Bible after a study with the ICOC group.  I was sure they were just trying to confuse issues, taking things out of context to make me think it's saying something it's not, etc.  I wanted to read it on my own and just get things sorted out.  What God showed me that night was that the Bible is his word and made it very clear who Jesus (actually Yeshua) was and is.  What turns out is that the ICOC was misquoting and trying to pull something over on me.  Had I continued down that path I don't know where I would be now.  I still ask people for advice sometimes, but my Biblical understanding really only comes from God.  I am very gun shy about someone telling me what the Bible says.  And I invite people to read and study for themselves.  We offer studies to help and guide, but I don't want people to feel that I am leading them to believe something.  They have to come to it on thier own time,led by God.

I let Him lead me to where he wanted me to go and learn what he wanted me to learn.  I found my self in CA, leaving the ICOC and into a much more liberal and charasmatic church where I learned a few things, then on to the UPCI - a combination of the charismatic and more mainstream theology.

I may not be the worlds foremost Bible scholar.  But I was able to learn greek to start translating the New Testament and do word studies.  I may not be able to quote books/chapters/verses in rapid fire like some do, but I don't feel I need to.  I got a good foundation and I can find what I need when I need it.

I have not only seen the 100% accuracy of Bible prophecy, like I said I have seen miracles in people coming out of the morgue, blind people starting to see and others absolutely amzing things that have left Doctors totally baffled and admitting it was a miracle.

I hope you do keep reading your Bible and praying about it.  I think you are "wired for faith" because all people are.  We all have "faith" in some thing.  Even people who do not believe in God at all have faith in things.  Some people put thier faith in the governement, people have faith in science, but we all have faith.  It's all the same kind of faith, just misdirected some times.

if you keep faithfully reading yur Bible and keep the truth in your heart, then I am sure that God will do for you what he did for me.


----------



## pstarr

That's right!  Look at it with an open mind and heart.  If you have preconceived notions about it, they only confuse things.

We've been told to "live by faith rather than by what we see."  That can be tough sometimes...


----------



## Ray

heretic888 said:
			
		

> As to _why_ I believe that perspective, here are photographs of the Egyptian god Serapis:
> 
> Look familiar to you??
> 
> How about a few of the Greek god Dionysus:
> Not familiar at all, huh??


Precisely why I don't believe that Leon Russell, John Lennon and George Harrison ever existed.  Their fictional appearance was obviously patterned after these gods.


----------



## heretic888

KOROHO said:
			
		

> Nothing in the Bible defies science.


 
Well, except for a "young earth", six-day "creation", the Flood, the Exodus, the Davidic Empire, the geographical and cultural descriptions of Mark and John, and a few other historical issues.

Of course, all of the aforementioned assumes a literal reading of the text. 



			
				KOROHO said:
			
		

> As for the "bar codes", etc this is just the kind of stuff that proves the Bible is true. How do you think that, roughly 2,000 years ago, people were able to predict with 100% accuracy, what would be happening today?



Simple. People are reading into the text what they want it to say, rather than what it actually says.

Revelation is clearly about the conflict between Israel and the Roman Empire during the first to second centuries. The notation I described earlier about the "Mark of the Beast" coming to mean "Caesar Nero" in both Greek and Latin is proof alone of this. The general consensus among the Biblical scholars I have read is that Revelation was probably originally a first century apocalypse authored by a Jewish Zealot that was subsequently "Christianized" and edited sometime in the second century.

One of the rather amusing things about "Biblical Prophecy" is that it is always decided to have "predicted" events that have happened after-the-fact. Nobody was using Revelation to "predict" September 11 or World War II until both of those events had already happened. Likewise, I'm sure people will "discover" that Revelation actually predicted a dozen other historical events ---- after they have all happened, of course.

In psychology, we call that a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Laterz.


----------



## Blade of the East

I am not trying to persuade anyone I was just giving my point of view on why Jesus was able to preform the miracles in the bible.


----------



## hongkongfooey

KOROHO said:
			
		

> John 1: In the beginning746 was2258 the3588 Word,3056 and2532 the3588 Word3056 was2258 with4314 God,2316 and2532 the3588 Word3056 was2258 God.2316Joh 1:2 The same3778 was2258 in1722 the beginning746 with4314 God.2316
> Joh 1:3 All things3956 were made1096 by1223 him;846 and2532 without5565 him846 was not3761 any thing1520 made1096 that3739 was made.10
> 
> Yes. God created the world. The man "Jesus" was God the Creator manifest in the flesh. God made a human body and put his Spirit in it. This has always been the foundation of Christian theology.
> 
> It is probably best to atleast the Bible and get a grasp of the basics before discussing it.


 

So you are basically saying that God impregnated a woman, who gave birth to a man, so God could have a body? So in essence God created himself? I mean if God could create the universe, why not just appear to  humans and make them believe? Why create a life just to sacrifice it, so some people will fall into line?


----------



## hongkongfooey

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> I have read the Bible and its variations. I dont believe any of the magical part, such as Jesus healing people or the walking on water. However, the Bible has some great teachings that I cannot deny.
> I dont think the Bible is meant to be taken literally, I believe that its meant to teach people good morals to live by, the Bible, to me, should be seen more as a guideline, than actual facts.
> For instance, the mark of the beast. No man will be able to buy sell or work without it. Barcodes, implants to track people ect ect ect. What I get out of this is not to rely 100% on a system because it gives people high up too much power over mankind, and as Jesus said, when there is authority, there will be abuse of authority. That I believe.
> Take the lessons from the Bible, but dont let midevil superstitions control your life in the 20th century. Just my opinion.


 
This is how I see it also. The Ten Commandments are common sense. When people start buying into to Ghosts and Goblins, things get crazy.


----------



## Xue Sheng

heretic888 said:
			
		

> the Flood,


 
I have been staying out of this and I truly have no intension to get into it, I know when I am out classed. But this point that Heretic888 brought up, "the flood", and it was probably mentioned before in here somewhere in this post, is a real sticking point for me about the whole is the bible 100% true thing.

If you melt all of the ice on the planet, which would raise sea level quite a bit, it still is not enough to flood the world. There just is not enough water on the planet to do that.

Ok, I'm done, have at me.


----------



## hongkongfooey

But, it was magic water.


----------



## Xue Sheng

hongkongfooey said:
			
		

> But, it was magic water.


 
DOH! 

I didn't think of that... ok I feel better now.. Thanks


----------



## elder999

KOROHO said:
			
		

> Yes. God created the world. The man "Jesus" was God the Creator manifest in the flesh. God made a human body and put his Spirit in it. This has always been the foundation of Christian theology.
> 
> It is probably best to atleast the Bible and get a grasp of the basics before discussing it.


 
Your exegesis  is faulty. I won't bother you with the long version of mine.  This one should do you, and, while my Greek is better than his, Anthony Buzzard certainly can't be construed as having an "anti-Christian" agenda....short version: "the Word," is the mind of God the Creator. When Jesus was conceived, the Word became flesh, but he didn't exist before that-it's as though I were to say to someone about an invention that it was "in their head" before it was actually invented.

_In the beginning was the idea/knowledge/knowing, and the idea/knowledge/knowing was with God, and the idea/knowledge/knowing was God._


----------



## Beowulf

hongkongfooey said:
			
		

> But, it was magic water.


 
No, you rockheads! Everybody knows it was holy water.

There are actually 3 ways to make holy water, that is one of them.
The other 2 are: have a priest bless it or just burn the Hell out of it.


----------



## Beowulf

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> I have been staying out of this and I truly have no intension to get into it, I know when I am out classed. But this point that Heretic888 brought up, "the flood", and it was probably mentioned before in here somewhere in this post, is a real sticking point for me about the whole is the bible 100% true thing.
> 
> If you melt all of the ice on the planet, which would raise sea level quite a bit, it still is not enough to flood the world. There just is not enough water on the planet to do that.
> 
> Ok, I'm done, have at me.


 
This would be a problem if the earth's topography had always looked just as it does now, but we can tell from studying its surface that it has not. The bible tells us in many places that God altered the earths topography. 

New continental land-masses bearing new mountain chains of folded rock strata were uplifted from below the globe-encircling waters that had eroded and leveled the pre-Flood topography, while large deep ocean basins were formed to receive and accommodate the Flood waters that then drained off the emerging continents. 
Without mountains or seabasins, water would cover the whole earth to a depth of 2.7 km, or 1.7 miles (not to scale).19 


That is why the oceans are so deep, and why there are folded mountain ranges.  Indeed, if the entire earths surface were leveled by smoothing out the topography of not only the land surface but also the rock surface on the ocean floor, the waters of the ocean would cover the earths surface to a depth of 2.7 kilometers (1.7 miles).19


----------



## Beowulf

The catastrophic plate tectonics model gives a mechanism for the deepening of the oceans and the rising of mountains at the end of the flood.


----------



## Beowulf

> New continental land-masses bearing new mountain chains of folded rock strata were uplifted from below the globe-encircling waters that had eroded and leveled the pre-Flood topography, while large deep ocean basins were formed to receive and accommodate the Flood waters that then drained off the emerging continents.
> Without mountains or seabasins, water would cover the whole earth to a depth of 2.7 km, or 1.7 miles (not to scale).19
> 
> 
> That is why the oceans are so deep, and why there are folded mountain ranges. Indeed, if the entire earths surface were leveled by smoothing out the topography of not only the land surface but also the rock surface on the ocean floor, the waters of the ocean would cover the earths surface to a depth of 2.7 kilometers (1.7 miles).19


 
Sorry, I forgot to cite this. It was a quote from _Noah's Flood--what about all that water,_ by Don Batten, Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Weiland_._


----------



## heretic888

Wallace, eh?? I don't suppose they have any scientific citations more recent than, say, the 1850's, huh??

Laterz.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Beowulf said:
			
		

> This would be a problem if the earth's topography had always looked just as it does now, but we can tell from studying its surface that it has not. The bible tells us in many places that God altered the earths topography.
> 
> New continental land-masses bearing new mountain chains of folded rock strata were uplifted from below the globe-encircling waters that had eroded and leveled the pre-Flood topography, while large deep ocean basins were formed to receive and accommodate the Flood waters that then drained off the emerging continents.
> Without mountains or seabasins, water would cover the whole earth to a depth of 2.7 km, or 1.7 miles (not to scale).19
> 
> 
> That is why the oceans are so deep, and why there are folded mountain ranges. Indeed, if the entire earth&#8217;s surface were leveled by smoothing out the topography of not only the land surface but also the rock surface on the ocean floor, the waters of the ocean would cover the earth&#8217;s surface to a depth of 2.7 kilometers (1.7 miles).19


 
I know about plate tectonics and the argument still doesn't fly, sorry. 

What was once Pangaea is now everything else. Water has risen and fallen due to warmer and cooler temperatures on Earth and that is generally where major changes in land mass come from. And volcanic activity does not add THAT much land nor does subduction the mass never change. Just the rocks on the surface change from time to time. Continental collision can raise mountains (Himalayas), but some where else it is going under another land mass (San Andreas Fault) And North America and Europe are moving further apart.  

And there is simply not enough water to do what you say no matter how you slice it. Even without sea basins or mountains there is not enough water. And if that were they case then you would also have to say that there were nothing but shallow seas on the planet then. Sorry it doesn&#8217;t work no geological evidence for that at all.

Geologically there current land masses are close to the same size they were millions of years ago just separated and moved. Sorry there just is not enough water. And erosion removes land not adds it or in your example moves it. The planets mass stays the same as does the amount of on it water.

If I understand what you are saying here the only way this would work is if God made the planet bigger to make the flood water go down or removed water form the Earth. These are the only 2 possible ways I see it could have happened. And I see no evidence of this in Science or religion.

I wish the Bible was 100% true, really I do, but I do not think it is based on the flood if nothing else.

Could there have been a great flood, very likely, there are to many societies with flood stories to be certain that a great flood did not happen, but it was regional not global, simple not enough water. 

If your entire existence and the existence of your ancestors was lived in say a 1000 square mile area and it floods, you would believe the world was flooded. 

And I am already way to far into this than I want to be.


----------



## DeLamar.J

hongkongfooey said:
			
		

> But, it was magic water.


:ultracool


----------



## Beowulf

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> I know about plate tectonics and the argument still doesn't fly, sorry.
> 
> What was once Pangaea is now everything else. Water has risen and fallen due to warmer and cooler temperatures on Earth and that is generally where major changes in land mass come from. And volcanic activity does not add THAT much land nor does subduction the mass never change. Just the rocks on the surface change from time to time. Continental collision can raise mountains (Himalayas), but some where else it is going under another land mass (San Andreas Fault) And North America and Europe are moving further apart.
> 
> And there is simply not enough water to do what you say no matter how you slice it. Even without sea basins or mountains there is not enough water. And if that were they case then you would also have to say that there were nothing but shallow seas on the planet then. Sorry it doesnt work no geological evidence for that at all.
> 
> Geologically there current land masses are close to the same size they were millions of years ago just separated and moved. Sorry there just is not enough water. And erosion removes land not adds it or in your example moves it. The planets mass stays the same as does the amount of on it water.
> 
> If I understand what you are saying here the only way this would work is if God made the planet bigger to make the flood water go down or removed water form the Earth. These are the only 2 possible ways I see it could have happened. And I see no evidence of this in Science or religion.
> 
> I wish the Bible was 100% true, really I do, but I do not think it is based on the flood if nothing else.
> 
> Could there have been a great flood, very likely, there are to many societies with flood stories to be certain that a great flood did not happen, but it was regional not global, simple not enough water.
> 
> If your entire existence and the existence of your ancestors was lived in say a 1000 square mile area and it floods, you would believe the world was flooded.
> 
> And I am already way to far into this than I want to be.


 
I mostly agree with you Xue Sheng, and although I'm not a science major (are any of us?) I think its presumptuous to say a global flood is an impossibility, especially in light of the myths. 

Some interesting models have been created on the subject at globalflood.org by phds. Of course it does go against the grain of the mainline scientific community which will not publish anything with a pro-creation interpretation, so that is really the only reason it is marginalized. But whether or not you buy into either sides ideas it is certainly thought-provoking.


----------



## Beowulf

> All of which is completely _irrelevant_ unless we are talking about the specific arguments in support of their "creation science".
> 
> That a certain scientist publishes articles on the migration patterns of sea turtles in a peer-reviewed journal and then goes around and publishes articles about the Flood in a pseudoscience journal dedicated to creationism has no bearing whatsoever.


 
I guess you missed the reason I posted the article: 

I give you a smaller excerpt of the above article:

In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal _Science_ pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if _Science_ had a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters. Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters. This admission is particularly significant since _Sciences_ official letters policy is that they represent the range of opinions received. e.g., letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions. Yet of all the opinions they receive, _Science_ does not print the creationist ones.

 Creation articles will always be suppressed by the elite and thoroughly entrenched current power-structure of academia, that is why they do not publish. 






> I do find your references interesting, though, from a purely psychological perspective. It would be like me citing "evidence" for penis envy in a periodical called the _Freudian Research Initiative_. These journals are clearly designed to champion one theoretical point of view above all others, being characterized not by a field-specific research methodology, but by the universal acceptance of foregone conclusions.
> 
> _Real_ scientific journals don't do that. They provide diverse points of view and do not unilaterally support any given set of conclusions in the field. If I opened up an issue of _Psychology Bulletin_, I would see no foregone assumptions that behaviorism has more merit than humanism, for example. I would simply see research articles arguing for either perspective.
> 
> This is why your "evidence" is not science, but apologism. Science uses a methodology to uncover evidence and form tentative conclusions or predictions based on that evidence. Apologism begins with the conclusions at the start, and then proceeds to selectively "find" the "evidence" that supports their conclusions.
> 
> That is precisely why everything you have cited in the past several posts has no scientific merit whatsoever. It is theology masquerading as science.
> 
> Laterz.


 
Lets start with the first part: Do real scientific journals really provide _diverse points of view_ and not unilaterally support any given set of conclusions in the feild? The scientific community does not have its own dogma does it?

Paul Ehrlich and L.C. Birch, biologists at Stanford and the University of Sydney, respectively, summarized the problem in Nature Magazine:
Our theory of evolution has become ... one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out inextremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.

L. Harrison Matthews, writer of the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's ORIGIN OF SPECIES has this to say:
The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded upon an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.

Hubert P. Yockey, writing for the _Journal of Systematic Biology, _has this to say about the whole question of origins:
Since science has not the vaguest idea of how life originated on earth, whether life existed anywhere else, or whether little green men pullulate in our galaxy, it would be honest to admit this to our students, the agencies funding research, and the public.... It is new knowledge, not another clever scenario, that is needed to achieve an understanding of the origin of life.


*I was a young man with uninformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.*

Charles Darwin

Regarding what is science, William Kilgore, in his research paper _Challenging the Naturalistic Philosophy of Evolution_ writes:
 
Both sides in this debate have philosophical presuppositions. In the West, the non-evolutionist is typically a _Christian theist_ (though this is not always the case; e.g., Michael Denton). But the evolutionists also have an underlying philosophy. As mentioned above, they are _naturalists_. Unfortunately, those who continually make statements like "Evolution is science; creation is religion/faith" do not seem to realize this. This is an odd situation. Especially so in light of the fact that prominent evolutionists have had honest moments when they have stated their unwavering commitment to naturalism in no uncertain terms. It is all there in their own writings for any who care enough to look.

Strictly speaking, neither evolution nor creation are *empirical* science, _nor can they be_. This is evident in that they both seek to address the question of life's origin, something that cannot be repeated nor put into a test tube. Neither theory is subject to repeatable experimentation or observable processes. However, both can be described as *forensic* science, in that they seek to reconstruct a theory about a past event based on empirical data presently observed. Origin science, whether evolutionism or creationism, is analogous to what forensic specialists do at a crime scene and what archaeologists do on a dig. Most importantly, both theories are first and foremost a _philosophical framework for interpreting the data_.

One of the primary flaws with evolutionists is their stubborn propensity to confuse the data itself with _data-interpretation_. The very same data is viewed by both evolutionists and non-evolutionists, but because each is working within a different paradigm the interpretive conclusions are very different. Yet evolutionists call their own (naturalist) interpretation "science" and the non-evolutionist interpretation "faith."


----------



## heretic888

Beowulf said:
			
		

> I mostly agree with you Xue Sheng, and although I'm not a science major (are any of us?) I think its presumptuous to say a global flood is an impossibility, especially in light of the myths.


 
Well, "because the myths say so" is not a valid argument, especially in light of a lack of physical evidence. It is a rather convoluted Appeal To Tradition and nothing more.


----------



## heretic888

Beowulf said:
			
		

> Creation articles will always be suppressed by the elite and thoroughly entrenched current power-structure of academia, that is why they do not publish.




So, now you're appealing to conspiracy theories, eh?? 



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> Lets start with the first part: Do real scientific journals really provide _diverse points of view_ and not unilaterally support any given set of conclusions in the feild?


 
No, they don't. Although certain individuals can erect discrimination fantasies to try and convince misinformed others to the contrary.

However, it's pretty absurd to even remotely claim that a set of conclusions is "unilaterally" supported in, say, evolutionary science when there is controversy over things like niche selection, epigenetic inheritance, punctuated equilibria, and the Baldwin effect.

Of course, that's just the point. "Creation science" is constructed through the abdication of reason and evidence, not its exercise. They freely erect Straw Man arguments and will even outright lie to advance their pseudoscientific agenda (see the "quoting game" article in the Intelligent Design thread), which is really just religious proselytizing with a "scientific" veneer.



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> The scientific community does not have its own dogma does it?





			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> Science proceeds from certain assumptions, if that's what you mean. But conclusions are never preformed, as opposed to religious dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beowulf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul Ehrlich and L.C. Birch, biologists at Stanford and the University of Sydney, respectively, summarized the problem in Nature Magazine:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beowulf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our theory of evolution has become ... one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out inextremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More opinions with no arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beowulf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [L. Harrison Matthews, writer of the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's ORIGIN OF SPECIES has this to say:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beowulf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded upon an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More opinions with no arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beowulf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hubert P. Yockey, writing for the _Journal of Systematic Biology, _has this to say about the whole question of origins:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beowulf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since science has not the vaguest idea of how life originated on earth, whether life existed anywhere else, or whether little green men pullulate in our galaxy, it would be honest to admit this to our students, the agencies funding research, and the public.... It is new knowledge, not another clever scenario, that is needed to achieve an understanding of the origin of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, this is truly hilarious. It's like telling a statistics professor, "Gee, do you know that an extreme variance can skew a mean??"
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Beowulf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was a young man with uninformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Beowulf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, context is nice, isn't it??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beowulf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Regarding what is science, William Kilgore, in his research paper _Challenging the Naturalistic Philosophy of Evolution_ writes:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beowulf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both sides in this debate have philosophical presuppositions. In the West, the non-evolutionist is typically a _Christian theist_ (though this is not always the case; e.g., Michael Denton). But the evolutionists also have an underlying philosophy. As mentioned above, they are _naturalists_. Unfortunately, those who continually make statements like "Evolution is science; creation is religion/faith" do not seem to realize this. This is an odd situation. Especially so in light of the fact that prominent evolutionists have had honest moments when they have stated their unwavering commitment to naturalism in no uncertain terms. It is all there in their own writings for any who care enough to look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He must include the Roman Catholic Church in his assessment, then, since they officially accept the idea of theistic evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beowulf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strictly speaking, neither evolution nor creation are *empirical* science, _nor can they be_. This is evident in that they both seek to address the question of life's origin, something that cannot be repeated nor put into a test tube.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is about the origin of life?? Um, okay.
> 
> He should inform the other 99.99% of the world's biologists, then. They'll be shocked to learn they're doing it all wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beowulf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the primary flaws with evolutionists is their stubborn propensity to confuse the data itself with _data-interpretation_. The very same data is viewed by both evolutionists and non-evolutionists, but because each is working within a different paradigm the interpretive conclusions are very different. Yet evolutionists call their own (naturalist) interpretation "science" and the non-evolutionist interpretation "faith."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, this is unbelievably hilarious. It makes you think he's never even read Stephen Jay Gould before.
> 
> Yes, "evolutionists" know there is a difference between the facts (or data) and the theoretical explanation for said data. Gould was very clear on this point in his "Evolution as Fact and Theory" article. I suppose there are a very wacky ideologues out there, but by no means do they make up the majority or consensus of the world's scientists.
> 
> The real probelm is that, no matter how they try to B.S. like-minded "true believers", the "non-evolutionists" don't honestly and critically address the data. They erect Straw Man arguments, Red Herrings, and outright lie to advance their agendas. But at no point do they really deal with the relevant evidence.
> 
> The classic example is to point out the "holes" or "gaps" in the fossil record to therefore conclude that the fossil record doesn't exist or can't tell us anything about the planet's past. This is completely nonsensical, but it is typical "creation science" strategy.
> 
> What proponets of "intelligent design" and "creation science" _do_ try to do is bring up minor disputes of details, such as how evolution works. Not everybody accepts universal Darwinism (as in, universal natural selection) and not everybody accepts universal gradualism. The "non-evolutionists" opportunistically capitalize on this to therefore conclude there is no "evidence" for evolution, which is entirely absurd. The debate between natural selection versus niche selection has nothing to do with common descent, no matter how unscrupulously certain apologists try to slice it.
> 
> And, again, I'm going to have to point out that until these guys publish their works in peer-reviewed academic journals, that what they're doing ain't science.
> 
> Laterz.
Click to expand...


----------



## qizmoduis

Beowulf said:
			
		

> I mostly agree with you Xue Sheng, and although I'm not a science major (are any of us?) I think its presumptuous to say a global flood is an impossibility, especially in light of the myths.



Actually no, it is not presumptuous to say this at all.  Especially in light of the myths.  It is simply a fact that there is no evidence that even remotely suggests a global flood.  Period.  The Grand Canyon doesn't suggest a global flood.  Mt. St. Helens doesn't.  Plate tectonics certainly doesn't.  No amount of apologetic handwaving can mold centuries of scientific observations and measurements to fit the myth.

The Epic of Gilgamesh isn't evidence, nor is the Bible's semi-plagiarized version of it, just like the Odyssey isn't evidence of the existence of giant one-eyed cannibals on islands and the myth of Hercules isn't evidence a giant named Atlas is carrying the world on his shoulders.  Presents under the tree on Christmas morning is not evidence of Santa Claus.

Here's a few links for you:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

Oh, and since you seem to be carrying on the dishonest tradition of creationist quote-mining:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

I thought we had addressed quote-mining in the most recent ID thread.


----------



## Beowulf

I only quote because I am not a scientist. I feel that a scientist could better explain such ideas. If I was a science major and asked questions regarding business I would probably let a business person explain that as well. Are you a scientist?


----------



## heretic888

Beowulf said:
			
		

> I only quote because I am not a scientist. I feel that a scientist could better explain such ideas.


 
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and just _assume_ that the scientists you quoted actually believe what you claim they believe and are arguing for a "non-evolutionist" position, as you called it.

Even so, all you have done is lobbed the opinions of a few random scientists at us. As such, so what?? I can counter-lob the opinions of _reknowned_ scientists like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould, if you want, but what purpose would that serve??

In each case, we are given opinions without any arguments or evidence in support of them. They're "just-so" statements. Well, opinions are like, you know, in that everyone's got one. They're nothing special.

Then, of course, we're side-stepping the little issue of peer review and an absence of publications in academic journals. . . . 



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> If I was a science major and asked questions regarding business I would probably let a business person explain that as well. Are you a scientist?


 
I'm a psychology grad student, actually.

Laterz.


----------



## Beowulf

> In each case, we are given opinions without any arguments or evidence in support of them. They're "just-so" statements. Well, opinions are like, you know, in that everyone's got one. They're nothing special.
> 
> Then, of course, we're side-stepping the little issue of peer review and an absence of publications in academic journals. . . .


 

You're right, we are sidestepping this issue.

So do you mind if I ask you a few questions? Please use peer review and academic journal publications only.

1.Where did the space for the universe come from? 

2. Where did matter come from? 

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since 
this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.) 

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor? 

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true? 

13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?) b) Single-celled animals evolve? c) Fish change to amphibians? d) Amphibians change to reptiles? e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live? 

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve? b) Sea horses evolve? c) Bats evolve? d) Eyes evolve? e) Ears evolve? f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve? 
15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the bodys resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? i) The immune system or the need for it? 




Don't forget to familiarize yourself with the burden of proof and only use science in its purest empirical forms. 

Please no citing "overwhelming evidence", nor appeals to common practice, nor that which has not been published in academic journals and peer review. 
Remember, the burden of proof is on you. If you don't think so, I suggest you familiarize yourself with it.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Beowulf said:
			
		

> You're right, we are sidestepping this issue.
> 
> So do you mind if I ask you a few questions? Please use peer review and academic journal publications only.
> 
> 1.Where did the space for the universe come from?
> 
> 2. Where did matter come from?
> 
> 3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
> 
> 4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
> 
> 5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
> 
> 6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
> 
> 7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
> 
> 8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
> 
> 9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since
> this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
> 
> 10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
> 
> 11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
> 
> 12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
> 
> 13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?) b) Single-celled animals evolve? c) Fish change to amphibians? d) Amphibians change to reptiles? e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?
> 
> 14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve? b) Sea horses evolve? c) Bats evolve? d) Eyes evolve? e) Ears evolve? f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
> 15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body&#8217;s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? i) The immune system or the need for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget to familiarize yourself with the burden of proof and only use science in its purest empirical forms.
> 
> Please no citing "overwhelming evidence", nor appeals to common practice, nor that which has not been published in academic journals and peer review.
> Remember, the burden of proof is on you. If you don't think so, I suggest you familiarize yourself with it.


 
I was happily out and then you had to go and pull me back in. 

Well let me get together with an Astronomer, Physicist, Biologist, Geologist, Geneticist, Medical Doctor, Botanist, Bishop, and an Archeologist, throw in a Philosopher and a Psychologist and they can answer your questions

I see the tactic, when in doubt or up against the wall out shout them or fire so many questions at them that you know they can&#8217;t answer all of them so you can then say AHA!! I knew it, I was right. But the problem is I am not trying to prove that there is no God I am just saying the Bible is not 100% correct and the majority of your questions cannot be answered in the Bible either. 

Nope, bad move, you can easily look it all up in a book and online. I am not going to do it for you. 

Also I am sure you have just set yourself up for a barrage of answers.

I had a Science professor in College once that was talking about the beginning of the Universe and Evolution and after the talk he did say this.

&#8220;Although it is very likely that science is correct if you actual think about it evolving from  Amino acids to single celled organisms to Humans is about as likely as a tornado hitting a junkyard and producing a Boeing 747&#8221;

So as to your questions, how does the Bible explain them beyond divine intervention?

And since I did warn you, I have another question, since you are asking if the others are scientists&#8230; are you a theology or Biblical Scholar?

And I was a Physical Geography Minor in College, basically Geology, Climatology and (thanks for giving me the chance to say this, I rarely do and I thnk it is so cool) Fluvial Geomorphology. 

OK I'm not angry anymore I got to type Fluvial Geomorphology


----------



## heretic888

Good points, Xue Sheng.

As I said earlier in this thread, oversaturation does not trump logic. . . .

Although, it seems that Beowulf's account has been closed. I suppose this thread has just about run its course.

Have a good one.


----------



## Xue Sheng

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Good points, Xue Sheng.
> 
> As I said earlier in this thread, oversaturation does not trump logic. . . .
> 
> Although, it seems that Beowulf's account has been closed. I suppose this thread has just about run its course.
> 
> Have a good one.


 
It appears that you are right, his account is in fact closed. I had not noticed.

Take it easy. :asian:


----------



## hongkongfooey

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> And since I did warn you, I have another question, since you are asking if the others are scientists are you a theology or Biblical Scholar?


 

No! But, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.


----------



## Carol

hongkongfooey said:
			
		

> No! But, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.


 
:roflmao:  :lol: :cheers:


----------



## Xue Sheng

hongkongfooey said:
			
		

> No! But, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.


 
I agree with Carol Kaur on this

:roflmao: :lol: :cheers:


----------



## qizmoduis

I know that Beowulf's account has been closed, but I'd like to address the questions he/she/it posed:



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> You're right, we are sidestepping this issue.
> 
> So do you mind if I ask you a few questions? Please use peer review and academic journal publications only.
> 
> 1.Where did the space for the universe come from?
> 
> 2. Where did matter come from?
> 
> 3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
> 
> 4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
> 
> 5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?


 
The previous 5 questions are irrelevant to the question of Evolution and it's explanatory theory.



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> 6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?



This is also not relevant to Evolution, but is an interesting question in its own right.  Not that the other questions aren't interesting, of course.



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> 7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?



Ah!  Now we have a relevant question.  Here's what talkorigins has to say:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB350.html

Note how the article includes <gasp> REFERENCES to scientific articles about this very subject.  This particular claim is a standard creationist claim.  Beowulf has yet to actually post an original idea, and as such follows in the hallowed footsteps of modern creationist apologetics, where are arguments are put forth by copying and pasting lists of nonsense from either the ICR handbook or AnswersInGenesis.com.




			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> 8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?



Who did Adam's sons marry? Who was Cain afraid of when he was worried about being considered a murderer?



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> 9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since
> this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)



Why do creationists insist on anthropomophizing a process?



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> 10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)



A genetic mutation involes CHANGING genetic code, not recombining it.  It's important when debating anything that you get your definitions correct, otherwise your arguments are complete nonsense.  One of the most important mechanisms at the DNA level of evolution involves duplication of strands of DNA, which then go on with separate sets of divergent mutations.  Here's an example using english words:

original:      sit
duplication: sit sit
mutation:    sit fit

Uh oh, look at that.  We now have two words.  New information, and all I did was use just two of the genetic mechanisms that have been observed.  There's also deletion: sit it
Addition: spit fit

And other mechanisms that I'm unaware of.  It's also important to note that mutations are not required to result in meaningful information, so long as it doesn't prevent the organism from reproducing.  For example:

mutation: sit sst

is perfectly fine so long as it doesn't kill the organism before the information is passed on.
[/quote]



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> 11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?



It is.  Possible != probably.  There's no need to posit some unmeasurable creator when a phenomenon is perfectly explainable via natural processes.  


			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> 12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?



See above.  You completely misunderstand how natural selection works.



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> 13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?) b) Single-celled animals evolve? c) Fish change to amphibians? d) Amphibians change to reptiles? e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?
> 
> 14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve? b) Sea horses evolve? c) Bats evolve? d) Eyes evolve? e) Ears evolve? f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
> 15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body&#8217;s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? i) The immune system or the need for it?



Research.  It's what scientists do.  You can do it too.  None of your questions are obstacles.  

www.talkorigins.org

I should also point out your appeal to the ideal of Irreducible Complexity, championed by Michael Behe and the Discovery Institute.  IC as an idea is just long-winded, intellectually vacuous appeal to incredulity.  Basically, Behe can't comprehend it, therefore it doesn't happen.

Let's see what my favorite site has to say on the subject:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/#irred
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html#IC

Again, I would suggest you not copy your arguments directly from AnswersInGenesis.



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> Don't forget to familiarize yourself with the burden of proof and only use science in its purest empirical forms.
> 
> Please no citing "overwhelming evidence", nor appeals to common practice, nor that which has not been published in academic journals and peer review.
> Remember, the burden of proof is on you. If you don't think so, I suggest you familiarize yourself with it.



Irony is a common occurrence when reading posts by creationists.  This last tidbit is a perfect example.


----------



## searcher

I won't get in on this oh so good discussion except for my answer.   Yes I believe the Bible 100%.   I don't have to rationalize it out since it is God's word.   It has yet to be shown to contradict itself.   This is a wonderful argument that is going on.   One of our bible studies has been going over this very topic and it is good to see what the "outside" world has to say on the subject.   

On the note of how the flood occured without there being that much water on the face of the earth and as to where it could have gone I will say this.  It was  and is God that is in charge of the whole thing so anything is possible.   If you say that it cannot happen then you can explain to me how everything came from one piece of black matter(Big Bang Theory).

I do believe in the Big Bang, but it goes more like this:  Bang!! God made everything in 6 days.


----------



## hongkongfooey

searcher said:
			
		

> I won't get in on this oh so good discussion except for my answer. Yes I believe the Bible 100%. I don't have to rationalize it out since it is God's word. It has yet to be shown to contradict itself. This is a wonderful argument that is going on. One of our bible studies has been going over this very topic and it is good to see what the "outside" world has to say on the subject.
> 
> On the note of how the flood occured without there being that much water on the face of the earth and as to where it could have gone I will say this. It was and is God that is in charge of the whole thing so anything is possible. If you say that it cannot happen then you can explain to me how everything came from one piece of black matter(Big Bang Theory).
> 
> I do believe in the Big Bang, but it goes more like this: Bang!! God made everything in 6 days.


 
Okay, but who or what made God?


----------



## heretic888

searcher said:
			
		

> I won't get in on this oh so good discussion except for my answer. Yes I believe the Bible 100%. I don't have to rationalize it out since it is God's word.



Ah, the myth of self-reification.



			
				searcher said:
			
		

> It has yet to be shown to contradict itself.



In much the same way, the world has yet to be shown to be round.

I would suggest reading over the arguments that have been presented before making banal and dismissive statements like this. 



			
				searcher said:
			
		

> On the note of how the flood occured without there being that much water on the face of the earth and as to where it could have gone I will say this. It was and is God that is in charge of the whole thing so anything is possible.



So, in other words, it's true because I say so. Gotchah.



			
				searcher said:
			
		

> If you say that it cannot happen then you can explain to me how everything came from one piece of black matter(Big Bang Theory).



And that, class, is what we call a Red Herring. It will be on next week's exam.



			
				searcher said:
			
		

> I do believe in the Big Bang, but it goes more like this: Bang!! God made everything in 6 days.



So, in other words, you think a bunch of Bronze Age semi-literate pig farmers that owned slaves, had multiple wives, and believed the earth was flat had more insight into cosmological history than modern-day physicists. 

Uh huh. Sure.

Laterz.


----------



## pstarr

I'm just curious - what was out there before the big bang?


----------



## elder999

pstarr said:
			
		

> I'm just curious - what was out there before the big bang?


 
Nothing. Or, one thing, or if you prefer _void and without form._:wink2: 

This argument, between "science" and the Bible,  really shouldn't be one at all-the two are not altogether mutually exclusive, but one cannot be used to prove the other in any way-nor can one be used to completely refute the other.The Creator, by definition, has to be metaphysically AND physically, outside of the creation, and not bound by its laws. As such, scientific evidence of a creator is lacking, and may be altogether absent. Where the Bible is inaccurate-and it is, quite simply, inaccurate-can be chalked up to a variety of factors, none of which make it _untrue_, merely factually wrong (see my 68 degree rule post a few pages back).......while some of the stories are myths, many have a basis in history. Others, of course, are scientifically inexplicable-inaccurate, and most likely false.

Also, the numerous "scientists" quoted in the many creationist posts (some of whom I know) are largely discredited, though I won't get into it, since their principle proponent has departed.


----------



## pstarr

elder999 said:
			
		

> Nothing. Or, one thing, or if you prefer _void and without form._:wink2:
> 
> This argument, between "science" and the Bible, really shouldn't be one at all-the two are not altogether mutually exclusive, but one cannot be used to prove the other in any way-nor can one be used to completely refute the other.The Creator, by definition, has to be metaphysically AND physically, outside of the creation, and not bound by its laws. As such, scientific evidence of a creator is lacking, and may be altogether absent. Where the Bible is inaccurate-and it is, quite simply, inaccurate-can be chalked up to a variety of factors, none of which make it _untrue_, merely factually wrong (see my 68 degree rule post a few pages back).......while some of the stories are myths, many have a basis in history. Others, of course, are scientifically inexplicable-inaccurate, and most likely false.
> 
> Also, the numerous "scientists" quoted in the many creationist posts (some of whom I know) are largely discredited, though I won't get into it, since their principle proponent has departed.


 
    I'm not necessarily arguing for or against the Bible.  I just wonder what there was before the Big Bang?  It couldn't have been nothing because it's not possible to create something out of nothing...so there must have been something there and I am wondering what it was.


----------



## elder999

pstarr said:
			
		

> I'm not necessarily arguing for or against the Bible. I just wonder what there was before the Big Bang? It couldn't have been nothing because it's not possible to create something out of nothing...so there must have been something there and I am wondering what it was.


 
Well, no-the question is not only one of physics, but somewhat  metaphysical:Before the Big Bang, there was actually no time-time and space were generated at the Big Bang-moreover, time slows in gravitational fields, and, since all the matter that exists now was theoretically condensed into one very small thing, it's gravity would also be such that time didn't move-in theory, and depending upon which model is being used.


----------



## heretic888

elder999 said:
			
		

> Nothing. Or, one thing, or if you prefer _void and without form._:wink2:
> 
> This argument, between "science" and the Bible, really shouldn't be one at all-the two are not altogether mutually exclusive, but one cannot be used to prove the other in any way-nor can one be used to completely refute the other.The Creator, by definition, has to be metaphysically AND physically, outside of the creation, and not bound by its laws. As such, scientific evidence of a creator is lacking, and may be altogether absent. Where the Bible is inaccurate-and it is, quite simply, inaccurate-can be chalked up to a variety of factors, none of which make it _untrue_, merely factually wrong (see my 68 degree rule post a few pages back).......while some of the stories are myths, many have a basis in history. Others, of course, are scientifically inexplicable-inaccurate, and most likely false.
> 
> Also, the numerous "scientists" quoted in the many creationist posts (some of whom I know) are largely discredited, though I won't get into it, since their principle proponent has departed.


 
Well, nobody as far as I can tell thus far on the thread has made the argument that because the historical, geographical, and cultural descriptions of the Bible are less than factual, that God therefore does not exist. I myself have certainly not advanced such a position, as I consider myself something of a panentheist (not to be confused with a pantheist).

So, it isn't a question whatsoever of the existence or non-existence of God (although I think even that question is logically nonsensical). This issue hasn't even been raised except by the apologists on this thread (and the ID thread) when backed into a corner. It's little more than a cheap ploy to divert attention from the original argument (in other words, a Red Herring).

The fact of human evolution tells us nothing whatsoever about "God", neither for nor against. Likewise, the issue of geological time tells us nothing whatsoever about "God", neither for nor against. It's an entirely separate question.

This is one of the traditional tactics of creationist apologists, of course: either believe the Bible to be 100% literally true or you're an atheist. This is what is called a False Dilemma, as the vast majority of the world's scientists are probably theistic evolutionists (as is the Vatican).

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

pstarr said:
			
		

> I'm not necessarily arguing for or against the Bible. I just wonder what there was before the Big Bang? It couldn't have been nothing because it's not possible to create something out of nothing....


 
It's curious that you say that, as "creation out of nothing" is precisely orthodox Christian doctrine.

Laterz.


----------



## pstarr

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Well, nobody as far as I can tell thus far on the thread has made the argument that because the historical, geographical, and cultural descriptions of the Bible are less than factual, that God therefore does not exist. I myself have certainly not advanced such a position, as I consider myself something of a panentheist (not to be confused with a pantheist).
> 
> So, it isn't a question whatsoever of the existence or non-existence of God (although I think even that question is logically nonsensical). This issue hasn't even been raised except by the apologists on this thread (and the ID thread) when backed into a corner. It's little more than a cheap ploy to divert attention from the original argument (in other words, a Red Herring).
> 
> The fact of human evolution tells us nothing whatsoever about "God", neither for nor against. Likewise, the issue of geological time tells us nothing whatsoever about "God", neither for nor against. It's an entirely separate question.
> 
> This is one of the traditional tactics of creationist apologists, of course: either believe the Bible to be 100% literally true or you're an atheist. This is what is called a False Dilemma, as the vast majority of the world's scientists are probably theistic evolutionists (as is the Vatican).


 
     Like I said, I'm not arguing for or against the Bible.  I'm curious and instead of answering my question you're jumping up and down about the validity of the Bible!
     I asked a question about what was there before the Big Bang?  If all matter, time, and so forth were condensed into an infinitely small thing, what was around it?


----------



## heretic888

pstarr said:
			
		

> Like I said, I'm not arguing for or against the Bible. I'm curious and instead of answering my question you're jumping up and down about the validity of the Bible!


 
I don't suppose you've checked the thread title, eh?


----------



## pstarr

Yes, but the idea of the Big Bang was brought up and I decided to ask about it....maybe we should move this to a different thread.


----------



## Xue Sheng

pstarr said:
			
		

> I'm just curious - what was out there before the big bang?


 
I have always thought that before the big bang were a group of scientists trying to discover what caused the big bang and as soon as they discovered it *BANG* it started all over again 

And no I am not serious. 

Sorry, I just couldnt resist.:asian:


----------



## Ray

heretic888 said:
			
		

> It's curious that you say that, as "creation out of nothing" is precisely orthodox Christian doctrine.


 
I found this (quote from Wikipedia - under "Ex Nihilo")  interesting: 



> Early Christian theologians and philosophers, including Philo, Justin, Athenagoras, Hermogenes, Clement of Alexandria, Origen of Alexandria, and, later, John Scotus Erigena also found no good reason to affirm the creation-out-of-nothing hypothesis. Philo, for instance, postulated a pre-existent matter alongside God.
> 
> For an examination of how the doctrine arose originally in Gnosticism and then was adopted by early Church leaders to shore up doctrines of divine determinism, see Gerhard May, Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of &#8216;Creation out of Nothing&#8217; in Early Thought. trans. A. S. (Worrall. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994).


----------



## elder999

pstarr said:
			
		

> I asked a question about what was there before the Big Bang? If all matter, time, and so forth were condensed into an infinitely small thing, what was around it?


 
_*Nothing*_ no-thing, not a thing. If you can't wrap your mind around it, let it go.


----------



## pstarr

What would be the nature of this no-thing?


----------



## searcher

Your statements are the reason I said I did not want to get into this argument.  I stated what I believe and did not attack what you believe.   I live by a certain set of beliefs.   If you don't like it that is fine, but don't attack me or what I believe.


----------



## Ray

heretic888 said:
			
		

> So, in other words, you think a bunch of Bronze Age semi-literate pig farmers that owned slaves, had multiple wives, and believed the earth was flat had more insight into cosmological history than modern-day physicists.
> 
> Uh huh. Sure.


Intellectualism at its best, no doubt.  

These same Bronze Aged people survived, reproduced and some might have indirectly contributed genetic material to you.


----------



## searcher

Ray said:
			
		

> These same Bronze Aged people survived, reproduced and some might have indirectly contributed genetic material to you.


 
This is very unfortunate for the rest of us.


----------



## elder999

pstarr said:
			
		

> What would be the nature of this no-thing?


 
Well, that's one of those metaphysical things, isn't it? If it's not a thing, it doesn't have any "nature," does it?


----------



## pstarr

No, not necessarily.  Rather like wuji.


----------



## Makalakumu

IMHO, the Big Bang is probably wrong, but what the heck.  Here is how I understand the question of what was outside of the infinitely small, infinitely dense point in which our universe was compressed.  

Our concepts of space and time are irrellevent when one is discussion things outside of the universe.  It's like asking what is north of the North Pole.  To say that "nothing" or "void" was outside of the universe still implies these concepts.  

A better explanation is that "outside of the universe" does not exist.  You can't ever get to the edge of the universe because this is, seriously, all there is.

upnorthkyosa

ps - unless one wants to talk about "the bulk" and the "big splat."


----------



## heretic888

searcher said:
			
		

> Your statements are the reason I said I did not want to get into this argument.



This then begs the obvious question:

If you don't want to _discuss_ the subject, then why did you bother posting??



			
				searcher said:
			
		

> I stated what I believe and did not attack what you believe. I live by a certain set of beliefs. If you don't like it that is fine, but don't attack me or what I believe.



The fantasy that your statements are somehow immune to criticism or cross-examination on a public discussion forum is just that: a fantasy.

By the way, I didn't "attack" you, as there was nothing remotely personal in my criticisms. I didn't even really attack your beliefs _per se_, as much as I did the logic underlying them (example: "it's true because I say God did it").

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

Ray said:
			
		

> Intellectualism at its best, no doubt.
> 
> These same Bronze Aged people survived, reproduced and some might have indirectly contributed genetic material to you.


 
Most probably.

However, that is _completely irrelevant_ to what I actually said in the aforementioned post. That these people may have been my ancestors does not magically mean they have secret insight into the workings of the universe. All it means is they lived a long time ago and probably held to a number of ideas that would seem backwards to the modern mind (such as the earth being flat).

The sad truth is that the Bible was written by and to people who believed women were second-class citizens, who probably owned slaves, who believed the world was flat and when it rained it was because the Almighty was angry, who believed mental illness was caused by "demonic possession", and who probably read at an elementary school level (if even that).

That they contributed genetic material to you or me is irrelevant, as this has nothing to do with genetics in the first place. It has to do with historical and cultural context (something that absolutists have trouble wrapping their minds around).

Laterz.


----------



## Ray

heretic888 said:
			
		

> The sad truth is that the Bible was written by and to people who believed women were second-class citizens, who probably owned slaves, who believed the world was flat..


It was known to the Greeks that the earth was round---in fact the circumference was calculated (although not absolutely precise). 


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> It has to do with historical and cultural context (something that absolutists have trouble wrapping their minds around).


As an educated person you must have learned about ethnocentrism. You shouldn't judge other peoples and cultures by your culture.

So what if some ancient people "believed" that women were second class citizens? No, wait. They WERE second class citizens -- of course not of the United States (which didn't exist) but in a different time and culture in which women were second class citizens.

You equate the ancient: owning of slaves, second class citizenry of women, the raising of swine, polygamy and the lack of opportunity to learn to read as some kind of evidence of something, I'm not sure what. Perhaps that these practices make a person less of an astronomer than others who don't share these practices?

However, since you identify "absolutist" as something less than desirable, perhaps you practice relativism? In which case you have no firm foundation on which to base any of your "good/bad" categories. All you need do is rationalize any behavior: perhaps it makes you more likely to reproduce and therefore your line will be more successful; in turn leading to the next evolutionary development. 

I will go on record as being against slavery, for first class citizenry of women in the US, against polygamy (as well as homosexual marriages). However, I fully support the right of individuals, small farmers and large corporations to raise (and consume) swine and other animals   I also support 100% literacy (and not just so people can read your awesome posts, but that's part of it).

Fine, you don't like people who have religious beliefs because they cannot adequately defend their beliefs against your model of how everyone should evaluate ideas and facts. That doesn't mean you have to call them the spawn of "semi-literate pig farmers who owned slaves and practiced polygamy."

analogy: Take a look at the _good_ protections that have been introduced in modern medicine and contrast it with Edward Jenner's development of the smallpox vaccine. You can't judge Jenner by today's standard.


----------



## heretic888

Ray said:
			
		

> It was known to the Greeks that the earth was round---in fact the circumference was calculated (although not absolutely precise).


 
The Greeks did not write the Bible.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> As an educated person you must have learned about ethnocentrism. You shouldn't judge other peoples and cultures by your culture.



I'm not judging their "culture" by the standards of my "culture".

I _am_ judging their "science" by the standards of logic and science, as that is what is being discussed here. We have no reason to believe these individuals were knowledgable about the laws of physics or cosmological history or any such subject matter.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> You equate the ancient: owning of slaves, second class citizenry of women, the raising of swine, polygamy and the lack of opportunity to learn to read as some kind of evidence of something, I'm not sure what. Perhaps that these practices make a person less of an astronomer than others who don't share these practices?



Yeah, I'd say the ability to read is probably pretty important in learning astronomy (or any science, for that matter).

However, the fact is these people didn't have the means to study astronomy the way we do today. It is fanciful wishing to think otherwise.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> However, since you identify "absolutist" as something less than desirable, perhaps you practice relativism?



Given that relativism is just a thinly-veiled form of absolutism, I think not.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> I will go on record as being against slavery, for first class citizenry of women in the US, against polygamy (as well as homosexual marriages). However, I fully support the right of individuals, small farmers and large corporations to raise (and consume) swine and other animals I also support 100% literacy (and not just so people can read your awesome posts, but that's part of it).



Um... good for you??



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Fine, you don't like people who have religious beliefs because they cannot adequately defend their beliefs against your model of how everyone should evaluate ideas and facts. That doesn't mean you have to call them the spawn of "semi-literate pig farmers who owned slaves and practiced polygamy."



Wow. You couldn't have possibly have twisted my words any more there.

First off, I never said I didn't like or dislike any person for holding certain beliefs. This isn't personal at all, and attempts to make it so are a sign of a desperate argument.

Secondly, I never claimed religious people were the spawn of "semi-literate pig farmers". I said the religious text was authored by such individuals. 

I would suggest you actually bother to read my posts if you desire to know my position on this subject.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> analogy: Take a look at the _good_ protections that have been introduced in modern medicine and contrast it with Edward Jenner's development of the smallpox vaccine. You can't judge Jenner by today's standard.



I don't intend to.

Laterz.


----------



## Ray

heretic888 said:
			
		

> The Greeks did not write the Bible.


The knowledge of a round earth was known at the time the Bible was written. 


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> I'm not judging their "culture" by the standards of my "culture".
> 
> I _am_ judging their "science" by the standards of logic and science, as that is what is being discussed here.


Their science is not being discussed here; it is a question about what people believe about the bible.


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> We have no reason to believe these individuals were knowledgable about the laws of physics or cosmological history or any such subject matter.


We also have no reason to believe that they weren't "state of the art" for their time and place.


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'd say the ability to read is probably pretty important in learning astronomy (or any science, for that matter).


Certainly today literacy is very important when learning a science. Probably less so important during the time period in question.


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> However, the fact is these people didn't have the means to study astronomy the way we do today. It is fanciful wishing to think otherwise.


That is a fact of which I agree with you on.


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Wow. You couldn't have possibly have twisted my words any more there.
> 
> First off, I never said I didn't like or dislike any person for holding certain beliefs. This isn't personal at all, and attempts to make it so are a sign of a desperate argument.
> 
> Secondly, I never claimed religious people were the spawn of "semi-literate pig farmers". I said the religious text was authored by such individuals.


Am I twisting your words or are you trying to twist out? "Hey man, that religious book that you revere so much was written by 'semi literate pig farmers' " No, that's not a minimization of the beliefs of Christians and Jews (esp those Jews who keep Kosher). 


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> I would suggest you actually bother to read my posts if you desire to know my position on this subject.


I have, have you? Have you read them from the POV of your intended audience? Maybe us followers of the writings semi-literate pig farmers just can't understand your sophisticated use of the language.


----------



## heretic888

Ray said:
			
		

> The knowledge of a round earth was known at the time the Bible was written.



Yes, but was it known to the people that wrote the Bible?? 

I seem to recall reading that the earth is described as a "circle" (not a "sphere") somewhere in the Old Testament, but I might be wrong. . .

Then again, a lot of information and understanding was effectively lost or diluted during the Dark Ages.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Their science is not being discussed here; it is a question about what people believe about the bible.



Actually, we _are_ discussing their science here. The topic of this thread pertains to whether all of the descriptions in the Bible are 100% factual. If we assume a literal reading of the text, then the science of the individuals definitely comes into play here.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> We also have no reason to believe that they weren't "state of the art" for their time and place.



Sure, but it doesn't change the fact they were wrong.

Sigmund Freud was also very "state of the art" in terms of describing psychological development for his time and place, but he was (mostly) wrong, too.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Certainly today literacy is very important when learning a science. Probably less so important during the time period in question.



No, literacy is prerequisite for learning a discipline that involves the transmission of a large body of information and abstract formulations that deny easily being memorized. One could only calculate the relative location of certain heavenly bodies and such by recording them in a written manner, and one could only formulate their relationship with one another by using abstract calculations that also require being written out to some extent.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> That is a fact of which I agree with you on.



Yay!



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Am I twisting your words or are you trying to twist out?



You're twisting my words. I never "attacked" anybody nor did I claim anybody was the "spawn" of anything. Context, context, context.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> "Hey man, that religious book that you revere so much was written by 'semi literate pig farmers' " No, that's not a minimization of the beliefs of Christians and Jews (esp those Jews who keep Kosher).



If you consider it a "minimization" to point out that the beliefs in question are not timeless eternal truths, but are social constructions that reflect the time and place they come from, then guilty as charged.

This also isn't to say that there are not certain things in the Bible (or other premodern religious literature) that are not relevant to people living today. But, these sorts of things tend to be of a strictly moral (as opposed to ethical) and mystical (as opposed to dogmatic) nature. Approximating the geological history of the earth is _not_ one of them.

In fact, trying to approximate from the Bible _any_ truths concerning the natural sciences is pretty archaic. These people had neither the information nor the means to study these sciences in the way we do today, so it is futile to look to them for insight about subjects like physics, biology, or geology.

As I have said at least a dozen times on this thread so far, the Bible is a book of religious literature. Any value it has is solely as religious literature. It is not a book of science, not a book of history, not even a book of good governance. That should always be kept in mind.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> I have, have you? Have you read them from the POV of your intended audience? Maybe us followers of the writings semi-literate pig farmers just can't understand your sophisticated use of the language.



To be perfectly blunt, that's not _my_ problem.

Laterz.


----------



## Ray

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Then again, a lot of information and understanding was effectively lost or diluted during the Dark Ages.


Another point that you and I agree on.


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Actually, we _are_ discussing their science here. The topic of this thread pertains to whether all of the descriptions in the Bible are 100% factual. If we assume a literal reading of the text, then the science of the individuals definitely comes into play here.





> *Is the Bible True and Correct in your opinion?*
> Yes, I believe all of the Bible is true and correct, even in symbolism
> No, the Bible contains skewed opinions and is filled with fabrications
> Not sure


 
Maybe the topic of the thread is whether everything in the bible is 100% factual, maybe the topic isn't. Maybe it is about the science of the writers, maybe it isn't. When Nathan told David the parable of the rich man who took the poor man's sheep, it was a parable and probably not a true accounting of a rich man who took a poor man's sheep. But was there really a Nathan and a David; or was it also a parable.


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> You're twisting my words. I never "attacked" anybody nor did I claim anybody was the "spawn" of anything. Context, context, context.


Your words were thatt the bible was written by semi-literate pig farmers who owned slaves and treated women badly. 
And that meant what to the people who believe that many of its precepts are good? That they are following the teachings of semi-literate pig farmers who owned slaves and treated women badly... hmmm. Let me try applying your way of connecting the dots to something in my life: "if my father was an alcoholic womanizer then anything I learned from him about music is suspect?" 


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> If you consider it a "minimization" to point out that the beliefs in question are not timeless eternal truths, but are social constructions that reflect the time and place they come from, then guilty as charged.


Nope: I'm not charging you with saying "_beliefs in question are not timeless eternal truths, but are social constructions that reflect the time and place they come from_" I'm charging you with stating that: the writings of pig farmers are incorrect because they are pig farmers; the scientific understanding of a people depend on the status of women in their pastoral society; and so on. I have no problem with your ideas about the bible.


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> To be perfectly blunt, that's not _my_ problem.


If you want to be understood in the way you intend to be, then it certainly is your problem.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg

Mod. Note. 
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Jim Hummel
-MT Senior Moderator-


----------



## Seeking Zen

There is no absolute "truth".  To think so defies reality.  One "Truth" simply leads to another, which is part of a bigger cycle, reality, or "truth", of which it is only a cosmic spec of dust in the picture of everthing, which is only the first of an infinite number of steps towards....and repeat.

See the point....


----------



## terryl965

It has to be true man wrote it


----------



## qi-tah

terryl965 said:


> It has to be true man wrote it


 
Ha! totally.  Not to mention it's being translated about half a million times.


----------



## Freestyler777

I absolutely believe that the bible is 100% fact, not fiction.

And I agree that religion should be an all or nothing game.  Don't rationalize the happenings recorded in the bible. 

One eastern yogi said, "The first three letters of the word rationalist spell R-A-T, Ganesha (wisdom) must ride upon this rat."

I know that is harsh, but picking and choosing what you believe is not so good as having deep faith.  I especially like solomon's books (Proverbs, Song of songs, and Ecclesiastes).


----------



## Andrew Green

Freestyler777 said:


> I know that is harsh, but picking and choosing what you believe is not so good as having deep faith.  I especially like solomon's books (Proverbs, Song of songs, and Ecclesiastes).





Why?  It almost sounds like you are saying that faith is better then critical thinking?


----------



## elder999

Seeking Zen said:


> There is no absolute "truth".


 
There are many absolute "truths":

_Water is wet,and you can't step on the same piece of it twice.Women have secrets._ Stuff like that...:lol:


----------



## Freestyler777

I'm not advocating blind faith, but this isn't burger king, you can't have it your way ! I think you should either believe wholeheartedly, or disbelieve wholeheartedly, or at the very least, be an open-minded agnostic.  Trying to rationalize or explain away some of the supernatural phenomena in the bible is not as beneficial to oneself as being faithful.  I once heard a quote, "No one is great without religiousity."  I hope that clears that up, because all this writing is making me confused.


----------



## Andrew Green

Freestyler777 said:


> I think you should either believe wholeheartedly, or disbelieve wholeheartedly,



The problem I see is that that, is impossible.

Religion is always interpretted.  There are many branches using the same texts as the basis of there beliefs, and they wholeheartedly believe different things.  You cannot accept everything in the bible as is IMO, too much of it was cultural and society of the time it was written.  Stoning for example, rather popular in the bible as a punishment, not so much nowadays.  If it is a all or nothing thing do believers have to accept stoning as suitable punishment for adultery?


----------



## Freestyler777

I'm not saying you should enforce the commandments of the bible as they are written, it is agreed that much is outdated, suitable for that time but not for ours.  For example, in the five books of moses, there are laws about hygiene, agriculture, sacrificing animals, building the tabernacle, so on and so forth.  

So maybe literal interpretation is not called for.  All I am saying is, don't try to give a scientific explanation to the miracles that were chroniciled in the old and new testament.  Everything from the flood that only Noah and his sons survived to the many healings jesus performed should be believed as history, in my opinion.


----------



## cstanley

elder999 said:


> There are many absolute "truths":
> 
> _Water is wet,and you can't step on the same piece of it twice.Women have secrets._ Stuff like that...:lol:


 
  I notice you put truth in quotes. I think the closest we get to absolute truths (outside of revealed religion, which is its own category viz. Immanuel Kant) is a priori truths as in mathematics. In a presumably finite universe (have they changed that again yet?), can we really speak of absolutes? Maybe the universal absolute is some singularity somewhere. There are theoretical absolutes, like absolute zero, but those are constructs that are hardly demonstrable other than in some derivative way. Geez, why are we doing this?


----------



## SageGhost83

celtic_crippler said:


> Besides, when's the last time a bush caught on fire and started talking to you?


 
Uh...When I got totally ripped out of my head while I was at my girlfriend's house and I decided to play with matches in her front yard. Did you know that bushes talk just like curly from the three stooges? They also make lewd comments and try to hit on your significant other.


----------



## Adept

Freestyler777 said:


> Everything from the flood that only Noah and his sons survived to the many healings jesus performed should be believed as history, in my opinion.



Why?


----------



## Boomer

One must keep in mind that the bible is in fact, a library.  It is a collection of many books from many authors.  
That said....some authors are better than others.  
So that leaves room for error, as many people will often disagree on subjects of such great importance.
Even though God may be infallable....his authors weren't.


----------



## aplonis

The bible contradicts itself quite notably even on its single most important topic, the ressurection. Whosoever thinks it does not is welcome to rebut the outline of just those ressurrection-related discrepancies listed in the link below.

http://monotheism.us/the_risen_jesus.html

Read that,  compare it to your own bible, and then try to claim it is not so.


----------



## thardey

aplonis said:


> The bible contradicts itself quite notably even on its single most important topic, the ressurection. Whosoever thinks it does not is welcome to rebut the outline of just those ressurrection-related discrepancies listed in the link below.
> 
> http://monotheism.us/the_risen_jesus.html
> 
> Read that,  compare it to your own bible, and then try to claim it is not so.



I wasn't going to get involved in this one, since I believe that the OP question is inherently un-answerable, as it is written (while I do believe that there are no stupid questions, I also believe that some questions do not have answers.) But I checked out the above link, and I really feel that I have to respond to it.

This guy really seems to be attacking "Christian Dogma", while instituting a healthy dose of his own, so that his summaries reveal a very strong bias, as well as a basic unfamiliarity with the rest of the Gospels.

To begin with: 





> Know that all four gospels were written by men entirely absent from the events they attempt to record. Greeks, they were...students of the Apostle Paul. Nor was Paul a witness either. Paul claims to have been converted by an angelic aparition well after the death of Christ.
> 
> 
> So not one of these for books was written by actual witnesses. Nor was Paul who told them of it himself a witness. It is hearsay, twice removed. Christian scholars know this well attributing all four works to divine inspiration. But if that be the case had they not ought to agree...at least in the more important details? Yet they differ, markedly so, as we shall read.


Does he have a source for this? How does he know? There are many people who have reason to believe that the book of John was written by the disciple John (A Jew who spoke Greek), who was recorded to have been the only disciple who was present at the crucifixion. Matthew refers to the tax collector who became Jesus' disciple (A Jew who spoke Greek). Others believe that Mark was the disciple of Peter, not Paul. If he is going to simply claim that All of the gospels were written by Greeks under Paul's influence, he needs to provide some form of source for these claims.



> *Summary:* John says one, Matthew two, Mark three. Luke is too vague to bother quoting.


No, John _includes_ one, Mathew two, Mark three. None claim that "only" their listed members came to the tomb. A differing account, yes, but contradictory? Hardly. 



> Matthew says two Marys saw an angel roll away the stone after an earthquake. Mark says both Marys and also Salome found it already rolled away. John says that just a single Mary found it already rolled away. Neither Mark, nor Luke nor John say a world about an angel moving the stone nor even an earthquake.


From the New American Standard Version: "And behold, a  severe earthquake _had occurred_, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven  and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. " (emphasis mine)

Matthew does not prove that the two Marys _saw_ the angel roll away the stone, only that the angel "answered" them when they saw him.




> *Summary: * Matthew and Mark report a solitary angel. Luke and John claim a matched pair. Luke says his two angels were standing. Matthew, Mark and John all have theirs sitting some place or other, each in a uniques locale.


"Report" being the key word. Matthew and Mark did not claim "only" one angel. Also, the word "angel" means primarily "messenger" - not the glowing, winged, haloed figures of children's stories. Since only one of the "angels" was recorded as speaking, perhaps only one was truly a messenger, the other a witness. Often, angels were recorded as being taken for regular people.



> *Summary:* Matthew claims Jesus greeted two Marys, saying, Hail. and some futher dialog in the next verse. John has Jesus saying entirely different things to his lone Mary. Luke utterly fails to report Jesus having met any Marys, or even a Solome, at all. Jesus spoke nothing to Marks own solitary Mary, but cast out devils instead.


From the NASB: "And they left  the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His  disciples. And behold, Jesus  met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and  worshiped Him. Then Jesus  said* to  them, Do not be afraid;  go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see  Me.

Sounds to me like Jesus appeared _after_ they reported it to his disciples. In which case it was all of them that saw Jesus. The parallel passage is here: (Luke 24:36-43)




> While they  were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst. 37But they were  startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. 38And He said to  them, Why are you  troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39See My hands and My  feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh  and bones as you see that I have. 40And when He had said  this, He showed them His hands and His feet. 41While they still  could not believe _it_ because of their  joy and amazement, He said to them, Have you anything  here to eat? 42They gave Him a  piece of a broiled fish; 43and He took it and  ate _it_ before them.





> Jesus spoke nothing to Marks own solitary Mary, but cast out devils instead.



Are you kidding me? Mary had the demons cast out back in Luke 8:2!
"and _also_ some women who  had been healed of evil spirits and sicknesses: Mary who was called  Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out"

Seriously, he thinks the demons were cast out _after_ the resurrection? A little background check here, please!




> *Summary: *Luke says one disciple. John says three disciples. But whos count? Parts of this read like a Homer Simpson narrative. Cant you just hear the uncertain pauses: Peter went forth, and _...er...um..._ that other disciple _...whats-his-name..._ came to the sepulchre...


*John says three disciples??????* Where? The only way I can figure is that he doesn't realize that "Simon Peter" is "Peter". (Jesus added the name "Peter" to Simon's name, after which he mostly went by "Peter".) That's basic Sunday school stuff.

And as to the "Homer Simpson" explanation, he obviously doesn't know that the "other disciple" was John himself, who was telling the story. He didn't "forget" his own name, but politely referred to himself as "the other disciple". He refers to himself that way consistently throughout the book of John.



> *Summary: *Matthew, Mark and John say Jesus met eleven in Galilee. But Luke says he met ten just outside Jerusalem. Galilee and Jerusalem are quite far apart, especially for men afoot. A furlong being one eighth of a mile, that makes Emmaus 7.5 miles outside Jerusalem while the nearest mountains in Galilee are at Nazareth, sixty plus miles further yet. Judas, already dead by his own hand, was not invited. So the absense of Thomas Didymus makes ten disciples, not eleven.


I don't even know how to politely respond to this one. All he has to do is to read _two more verses_ than the one he quoted:

"After eight  days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus  came*, the doors having  been shut, and stood in their midst and said, Peace _be_ with you.

Just a little research into the very chapters quoted (and _half_ an open mind) reveals three meetings: One in Jerusalem on the day of the resurrection, at which some doubted, because "they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit." (Luke 24:37), corroborated by Matthew 28:17: "1When they saw Him,  they worshiped _Him_; but some were  doubtful."

One in Galilee at which 10 of the 11 disciples were present, which allayed the doubts of those 10, and another, 8 days later, at which Thomas finally accepted.

And as for his "concluding arguments" about the discrepancies of the ending of the text, he missed the obvious part about each book choosing to end the story in a different place. John's ends in Galilee, soon after the resurrection, Luke sets up his story to be followed by the book of Acts, so it doesn't have a gap (and only a little overlap), Matthew ends the focus on the "Great Commision", and Mark simply ends the report at the time that Jesus left earth. That's a contradiction? What proof is that?

I'm not trying to prove that the Gospels are divine here, or that they are "The Truth." But please, do some of us the favor of realizing that this guy is not the first in 2,000 years to notice this stuff, and that I'm not saying anything new, either. (Okay, I"ll admit, there are a couple of arguments that I haven't seen before, but that's because they're _utter nonsense_, like the idea that Jesus cast demons out of Mary after the resurrection, or that three disciples visited the tomb -- Peter, "the other disciple" and "Simon Peter".)

If you're looking for something to shake someone's faith in the Gospels, there are far, far, better ways to do it than these arguments. This guy would be an embarrassment to most of the scholars of the Jesus Seminar, or "higher criticism."


----------



## Ray

thardey said:


> If he is going to simply claim that All of the gospels were written by Greeks under Paul's influence, he needs to provide some form of source for these claims.


What is the basis for the claim (or assumption) that Paul (then Saul) witnessed nothing of Jesus's life, sermons or any of the other events?  Is there evidence of where Saul was during this time?


----------



## Makalakumu

Ray said:


> What is the basis for the claim (or assumption) that Paul (then Saul) witnessed nothing of Jesus's life, sermons or any of the other events? Is there evidence of where Saul was during this time?


 
Does it really matter?  Look at what people are arguing in the face of what science has revealed about the history of the earth.  There was no genesis, there was no eden, nor adam or eve, nor ark or noah, nor even the silly burning bushes , 10 commandments, or golden calfs...

Thus, when we come to jesus, we come to a long string of falsehoods that becomes so rediculous to beleive in, its a stretch that such a mind could even find a shred of rationality in it.

For a far closer examination of the jesus and this myth's absolutely miniscule existance on this OLD earth, see this video.


----------



## Ray

upnorthkyosa said:


> Does it really matter?  Look at what people are arguing in the face of what science has revealed about the history of the earth.  There was no genesis, there was no eden, nor adam or eve, nor ark or noah, nor even the silly burning bushes , 10 commandments, or golden calfs...


Whether evolution or creation there were two first human beings.  They lived somewhere.

The bible didn't say there was a burning bush, it said there was a bush which did not burn.


upnorthkyosa said:


> For a far closer examination of the jesus and this myth's absolutely miniscule existance on this OLD earth, see this video.


The bible says nothing about the age of the earth, nor the material is was made from.


----------



## fightingfat

Ray said:


> What is the basis for the claim (or assumption) that Paul (then Saul) witnessed nothing of Jesus's life, sermons or any of the other events? Is there evidence of where Saul was during this time?


 
Acts 22:6-11

While on the road to Damascus (c. A.D. 36) to annihilate the Christian community there, Saul was reportedly blinded by a brilliant light and heard the voice of Christ saying, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?...And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid, but they heard not the voice...."


However Paul claims to have seen Jesus in 1 Corinthians 9-11


----------



## fightingfat

BTW some really wise posts on this. The Bible is not like the Qur'an-- it's not the literal dictation of God. It is a library (as someone wisely said) a collection of literature that reflects an *oral *tradition.

This is important I think. God creates the world through his _word_. He is revealed to us through this word made flesh. The Logos made Sarx. The Bible contains the information about God-- his Revelation to us, everything he wants us to know is there, but the authors were human and what they put in there is there as well. With a little study and a lot of common sense we can begin to grow from this Revelation instead of using it to beat each other up.


----------



## Monadnock

fightingfat said:


> BTW some really wise posts on this. The Bible is not like the Qur'an-- it's not the literal dictation of God. It is a library (as someone wisely said) a collection of literature that reflects an *oral *tradition.
> 
> This is important I think. God creates the world through his _word_. He is revealed to us through this word made flesh. The Logos made Sarx. The Bible contains the information about God-- his Revelation to us, everything he wants us to know is there, but the authors were human and what they put in there is there as well. With a little study and a lot of common sense we can begin to grow from this Revelation instead of using it to beat each other up.


 
Yes, but it is much easier to be ignorant and carry on with the intolerance and insults.  (I'm kidding of course)


----------



## shesulsa

fightingfat said:


> With a little study and a lot of common sense we can begin to grow from this Revelation instead of using it to beat each other up.





Monadnock said:


> Yes, but it is much easier to be ignorant and carry on with the intolerance and insults.  (I'm kidding of course)


I  might make this my signature.  Perhaps we could put it as part of the frame text on the board here.

Just wanted to point out I liked this.


----------



## thardey

Ray said:


> What is the basis for the claim (or assumption) that Paul (then Saul) witnessed nothing of Jesus's life, sermons or any of the other events?  Is there evidence of where Saul was during this time?



It's widely believed that Paul was familiar with the life of Jesus, and his ministry -- that's why he hated it so much at first.

They guy's point (The author's name is unknown), is that none of the writers were witnesses to anything they wrote about:



> Know that all four gospels were written by men entirely absent from the events they attempt to record. Greeks, they were...students of the Apostle Paul.



How should we know it? There are claims from letters written about 150 AD that Matthew and John were eyewitnesses, and that Luke and Mark got their information from Peter, and the other disciples.

I would just like to see some evidence, other than "Know that". If he's claiming ghost writers, then say it, and present the arguments. He could do a lot better than "Know that". There isn't one single source listed on the entire page.


----------



## Lynne

An additional problem is interpretation.  Interpretation of the Bible can be used for evil.  A perfect example of this is the "Hamidic Hypothesis" that Bob Jones University used to bar blacks from admission  They still use the Hamidic Hypothesis to disallow interracial dating.  Bob Jones did lose their government funding due to their uncharitable attitude.

Dr. King and other civil rights leaders fought against the Hamidic Hypothesis during the 1960's.

You probably were not taught about the Hamidic Hypothesis in high school nor college; I wasn't.  Noah had three sons from which all tribes of the earth came from.  Noah's son, Ham, came upon Noah drunk and naked, which was a disgrace.  Noah cursed Ham, saying that his descendents would be cursed/enslaved.  His descendents are, supposedly, blacks and orientals.  I suppose this is how our forefathers of this country (USA)justified slavery up until 120 years ago. 

I do not believe the Bible is the literal Word of God.  Paul of Tarsus, in my opinion, was still the Pharisee of the Pharisees after he converted to Christianity.  The covering of women's heads and women being quiet in church was Jewish tradition.  I am not a feminist, but we can see that these traditions do not apply to Christian women today.  In some Eastern Orthodox churches, women still cover their heads to show submission to their husbands.  In the Jewish tradition today, there are female rabbis and many Jewish women do not cover their heads, especially in the Reformed Synagogues.  You could rant and say this is disobedience to God.  But is it?  Times change.  We can say that God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. But I see a huge divide between the God of the old covenant and the new covenant.  Under the old covenant, God swallowed whole tribes of people with earth and smote them from every direction.  Under the new covenant, the lesson is forgiveness.  I cannot reconcile the two, despite the fact that there are two different covenants.  I understand the mission of Jesus Christ and I also believe that Paul and Jesus' teachings are at odds at times.

I have never read the Revised Standard Version of the bible.  Supposedly, this is the direct translation of the Greek.  That could be interesting.  The New King James Version has an error in the Book of Revelation; the NIV version has a misleading word in the New Testament (sorry I cannot remember the errors/misleading translation).

What about Genesis?  Most fundamentalist Christian pastors teach "one day to equal a thousand years."  What does the Pentateuch say?  Does one day in that context mean a span of time or does it mean a literal 1000-year period?

What about eschatology, the doctrine of the end times?  Dispensationalists believe in a rapture of the church and the fulfillment of the Book of Revelation.  Many other Protestant denominations, as well as the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches believe differently, that the Book of Revelation was fulfilled in 70 AD when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed.

What about soteriology, the doctrine of salvation?  Some believe in predestination; others do not.  Some believe in free will; some do not.  Some believe once saved, always saved; some do not.


----------



## Ray

fightingfat said:


> Acts 22:6-11
> 
> While on the road to Damascus (c. A.D. 36) to annihilate the Christian community there, Saul was reportedly blinded by a brilliant light and heard the voice of Christ saying, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?...And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid, but they heard not the voice...."
> 
> 
> However Paul claims to have seen Jesus in 1 Corinthians 9-11


Amazing. Utterly amazing. Paul in 1 Cor 9-11 doesn't say whether he saw the Savior on the road to Damascus or on another occaison. It is wholly consistent with the office and calling of an apostle to have a testimony of Christ; and I don't know of a rule book that says they only get one chance at having a vision or a non-visionary visit by Jesus, or any other heavenly being.


----------



## heretic888

Just a few points I'd like to make.

1) "Paul" didn't know about the life of Jesus because Jesus never existed in the first place. The "Jesus Christ" referred to in the core Pauline corpus (the six or seven letters largely believed to be "authentic") is largely a docetic being that exists in the heavenly spheres. Of course, set aside all that, we know "Paul" is ignorant of the Gospel traditions because he flatly contradicts them time and time again (example: Christ appearing before "the twelve", obviously demonstrating ignorance of the tale relating to Judas Iscariot's suicide).

2) The author of the Gospel of Mark (the oldest of the canonical gospels) had knowledge of the Pauline corpus. His theology is thoroughly Pauline and he uses just the parts of the Old Testament to construct his narrative storyboard as "Paul" did to demonstrate prophetic "proofs" for Jesus Christ.

3) The authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke had knowledge of Mark, but not of Paul. Therefore they were only indirectly influenced by the Pauline corpus. The author of the Gospel of John probably had knowledge of both Mark and Paul, but it is difficult to say given his gospel is so radically different than the other three.

4) While it is cute that some bandy around the names attributed to the gospel authors as some sort of "proof" for their pedigree, the truth is that the gospels were all originally anonymous texts and did not acquire the names of their authors (with the notable exception of Luke) prior to Irenaeus in 190 CE.

5) Regardless of their authorship, none of the Gospel authors were natives of Israel nor did any speak Hebrew. These were almost certainly the work of Diaspora Jews at a time when "Jew" and "Christian" were at odds (thus placing them no earlier than around 95 CE or so).

6) The notion that the New Testament represents a singular oral tradition is naive and evinces an ignorance of form criticism. It is a conflation of numerous oral traditions that evolved parallel to one another, some originating in regions as disparate as Syria, Asia Minor, Rome, and Alexandria.


7) This has little to do with "faith" (which, quite frankly, is irrelevant in a discussion about history) and more to do about honest scholarship.


----------



## jim777

I'm always surprised by the number of people who say they believe in one God or another. But as Thomas Jefferson said, "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

jim


----------



## tellner

I heartily recommend "Misquoting Jesus". Anyone who can make textual criticism of early Church apologetics engrossing is a genius. And he raises excellent points about the "infallibility" of the Bible and the enormous amount of editing and changes in the texts over the centuries.


----------



## cstanley

This is sounding a lot like a sophomore college philosophy class. Read Timothy Luke Johnson's, "The Real Jesus," or Pope Benedict's, "Jesus of Nazareth." It is time to temper the Neo-Protestant stuff of the 19th and early 20th century. That tradition of theology is heavily influenced by German Idealism, historical positivism, and analytical philosophy. 

If you only see the Bible as literature, I recommend Dickens or Shakespeare for a better read. If you have "faith seeking understanding," you will enjoy Benedict and Johnson.


----------



## terryl965

Is the Bible 100% sure it is if you believe it to be and then it is not to those that do not believe this way. All I know is I'm confused by everybody so I will go ask my Mother.


----------



## heretic888

tellner said:


> I heartily recommend "Misquoting Jesus". Anyone who can make textual criticism of early Church apologetics engrossing is a genius. And he raises excellent points about the "infallibility" of the Bible and the enormous amount of editing and changes in the texts over the centuries.



QFT



cstanley said:


> This is sounding a lot like a sophomore college philosophy class. Read Timothy Luke Johnson's, "The Real Jesus," or Pope Benedict's, "Jesus of Nazareth."



Hey, if I wanted to read some Christian fiction, I'd at least pick up _The Chronicles of Narnia_. At least they're entertaining. 

Seriously, it still cracks me up that there are people in this day and age pretending to be scholars that are pontificating about the "reliability" of the Synoptics and delusions of eyewitness accounts. Literary-form criticism has so thoroughly deconstructed such archaisms that it's almost not worth bringing up. Hell, Markan Priority and the evangelists' mangling of Israeli geography and custom has been so well-established that its almost beyond repute at this point.

But, then again, even Crossan poignantly pointed (rather ironically, give the content of his own works) out that Biblical "scholarship" is more often than not a platform for promoting theology in lieu of genuine academic work. So, color me unsurprised.

Laytaz.


----------



## cstanley

heretic888 said:


> QFT
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, if I wanted to read some Christian fiction, I'd at least pick up _The Chronicles of Narnia_. At least they're entertaining.
> 
> Seriously, it still cracks me up that there are people in this day and age pretending to be scholars that are pontificating about the "reliability" of the Synoptics and delusions of eyewitness accounts. Literary-form criticism has so thoroughly deconstructed such archaisms that it's almost not worth bringing up. Hell, Markan Priority and the evangelists' mangling of Israeli geography and custom has been so well-established that its almost beyond repute at this point.
> 
> But, then again, even Crossan poignantly pointed (rather ironically, give the content of his own works) out that Biblical "scholarship" is more often than not a platform for promoting theology in lieu of genuine academic work. So, color me unsurprised.
> 
> Laytaz.


 
You clearly have an axe to grind. The point of many of the newer generation of scholars is just that it is time to take Biblical study back from the heavily biased and de-constructionist Neo-Protestant tradition with all of its own pre-conceived ideas about Biblical history. These scholars have been the route of the analysts, form critics, redaction critics, and the myriad other "scholarly" traditions and believe that these are heavily colored by certain philosophical views that are inherently hostile to Christian belief.

Now, I'm really sorry your Mama drug you to Church against your will and made you read all that Bible stuff. Get over it.


----------



## tellner

The problem is that, well, he's right. The inerrant seamless Bible is a complete fiction, and the people who've taken a good hard look at it over the centuries know it aside from the terminal Kool Aid drinkers. The stories of how the Christians got their Book are legion. Consider the times that it nearly ended up as any number of things like a broad spectrum of holy books or Luke, Paul and three or four apocalypses. There were influences from this that and the other and plenty ofblood shed to decide the questions. The stories stagger the imagination. They could fill volumes. In fact, they have.

cstanley, you're saying "I don't like what you say, so you must be a stupid poopy head." 

To quote your own words "Get over it."

The particular mythology you believe in is no better founded than anyone else's and rests on a lot shakier foundations than many.


----------



## tellner

heretic888 said:


> QFT



QFT?


----------



## shesulsa

tellner said:


> QFT?


QFT = Quoted For Truth


----------



## cstanley

tellner said:


> The problem is that, well, he's right. The inerrant seamless Bible is a complete fiction, and the people who've taken a good hard look at it over the centuries know it aside from the terminal Kool Aid drinkers. The stories of how the Christians got their Book are legion. Consider the times that it nearly ended up as any number of things like a broad spectrum of holy books or Luke, Paul and three or four apocalypses. There were influences from this that and the other and plenty ofblood shed to decide the questions. The stories stagger the imagination. They could fill volumes. In fact, they have.
> 
> cstanley, you're saying "I don't like what you say, so you must be a stupid poopy head."
> 
> To quote your own words "Get over it."
> 
> The particular mythology you believe in is no better founded than anyone else's and rests on a lot shakier foundations than many.


 
I am not a literalist or an inerrancy freak. I have graduate degrees in literature and philosophy. I am not saying that I "do not like what he says so he is a poopy head," I am saying he clearly has an axe to grind. We all live by certain myths: the myth of Biblical inerrancy, the myth of de-constructionism, the myth of egalitarianism, the myriad myths of science, and the myth of Political Correctness...which, by the way, brings me to another point...Sukerkin seems to think I have made some rude remarks. I notice that mods on here make them all the time, and choose to overlook rude remarks made by popular members. There seems to be a myth of "moderator inerrancy," as well.


----------



## heretic888

Hi guys,

Seems as if I stepped on the toes of a self-appointed Cultural Warrior. Whoops. My bad.

Now I could go on a rant about the invoking of pseudo-intellectualism and the bandying about of one's education as some sort of litmus for validity. I could go on a rant about the projecting of psychosocial shortcomings on to others for no other reason that they hold a contrary opinion ("you disagree with me, so there *must* be something wrong with you!"). I could go on a rant about the pepper spraying of terms like Neo-Protestantism, German Idealism, and Logical Positivism as if you're the only one who knows what they mean.

But, I won't because, quite frankly, its beneath me.

Sorry to disappoint, but I danced the sophistry dance with Dr. Robertson on these forums quite a few years ago and I have no intention of reliving that experience. As such, I'm just gonna stick to the secular historiography side of the discussion here. Because, that's what we're really talking about here. As much as you and others may like to make this about theology, its not. We're talking about historiography and critical methodologies regarding the interpretation of certain faux-historical texts.

Markan Priority is well established. The textual evidence for it is copious and the refutations of it are weak. The Markan evangelist's knowledge of the fall of Jerusalem (circa 70 CE), his blatant errors concerning period Judean geography, un-fluent handling of the Hebrew language, and ignorance concerning first century Jewish divorce laws are also well attested and generally accepted in the academic community. 

Whoever wrote the Gospel of Mark was not a native of Judea, did not fluently speak Hebrew, and was clearly writing *no earlier* than 80 CE. Of course, this all belies the fairly obvious recognition that Mark's gospel has the same narratical structure of a *play*, which is almost assuredly how it was understood and interpreted by its original audience (i.e., as the script for a mystery play practiced by initiates of the early Christ cult). That this "play" makes repeated use of conventions of popular Greek fiction of the time (such as "riding on an ***" and "empty tomb" motifs) and its storyboard is culled *almost word for word* from (mistranslated) Old Testament stories is just icing on the cake.

And, of course, if there is no genuine history in Mark, there is no genuine history in *any* of the Gospels. Matthew and Luke are heavily dependent on Mark (especially Matthew) and John wrote far too late to be anything remotely resembling an eyewitness. Don't bother looking to "Paul", either, as he flatly contradicts Gospel narrative and doctrine time after time (for good reason, as they hadn't been invented yet).

Sorry, but this has less to do with me "having an axe to grind" and more to do with the fact that I'm not retroactively projecting my religious beliefs onto history. 

Laterz.


----------



## tellner

Heretic888, a few choice quote from Ambrose Bierce which may variously apply:

*CYNIC*, _n. _A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.

*RELIGION*, _n. _A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.

*SCRIPTURES*, _n. _The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based.


----------



## Sukerkin

"Well said!" to both of the above gentlemen :rei:.


----------



## Ray

heretic888 said:


> We're talking about historiography and critical methodologies regarding the interpretation of certain faux-historical texts.


Why didn't you just say "swag?"  That's all it really is.


----------



## Xue Sheng

I am not trying to get into this but I have 1 question; Outside of say the dictionary is any book, particularly those about history and/or religion *100%* true?

My thought is no... and I have my doubts about the dictionary too


----------



## thardey

Well, Ive avoided the meat of this argument, for reasons which may become clearer as I write, but Heretics post is just such a perfect starting point for what I would like to say, that I just couldnt pass it up. 

This may surprise a lot of you, coming from a Christian, but a lot of what Heretic said is actually true. That is, as I hope to demonstrate, the basic data he is working from appears to be the same data I am. For instance, Mark was not a native of Judea, he was a Greek-speaker, not Hebrew, the narrative of Mark is incredibly simplistic, and it has long been remarked in Christian literature that it reads like a story, or an Action-movie. It is very easy to envision it actually intended to be in a Play format. Markian Priority, meaning that the Gospel of Mark was probably the first Gospel written, is widely accepted in Christian Churches. Paul was teaching a radically different religion than what was taught in the Gospels, and his theology was almost certainly formed apart from reading them. (Jesus was teaching a new perspective on Judaism, Paul was teaching a new religion, Christianity.) And so on. I recently read a Christian review on an Atheistic book, where the reviewer gives kudos for clearly and accurately portraying the facts about what we _know_ about the compilation of the New Testament.

Well then, some of you may be wondering why I am a Christian, if all the above is true? Simple - the answer is in the _interpretation_ of those basic facts. Not to ignore, or explain away or justify the facts, but in taking these relatively abstract bits of data and combining them into a whole lump of belief. Depending on what rules of interpretation you set at the beginning, youll be required to organize and weigh the facts according to those rules. The heart of the debate will always lie here: 

_What rules are appropriate for the interpretation of data?_

What I am going to try to do, is to provide some of the basic facts that I believe are accepted in general, not all of them, but some of the more pertinent ones, (according to my bias, of course.) It will be very difficult to avoid a straw man argument here, so I will need help from guys like *Tellner* and *Heretic* to keep me honest. If I over-simplify your views, please post a correction.

Basic Facts will be in Brown, Critical Interpretations that Ive heard will be in Green, and my interpretations, as a Christian, will be in Blue. Make sense?

First the basic starting points:
Critics: Starting from a skeptical standpoint, because of the supernatural material, the New Testament should be first regarded as a book of myth, subject to the same basic interpretation and belief as any book of religious myths of any other religion, such as Homers Iliad and Odyssey, The Epic of Gilgamesh, etc. The compilation was obviously intended to promote a certain agenda, and is not reliable as an independent source of history or fact. Any recorded Miracles cannot be taken at face value, and should first be attempted to be explained by natural, as opposed to super-natural means. Basically, the natural reading is one of fiction, and the burden of proof lies on anyone attempting to claim otherwise. See  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism for more information. (This is in my own words, so please feel free to post your thoughts on this to make it clearer, or correct any misunderstandings I may have put here.)


Myself: Starting from a perspective of belief, I am looking for proof of what not to accept. That is, starting from a basic desire, I want there to be a God, particularly one who is different from humans, and one who has the potential to be involved in my personal life. Any god, no matter how interesting, is nothing more than academic if it is not interacting with my life in any way. The deified passions of the Greek and Latin gods are nothing more than humanity boiled down, distilled, and given power. Any god created in mans image holds no draw for me. However, the God that is introduced in the Tanach, (commonly known as the Old Testament) and revealed more clearly in the New Testament fits that desire. Having found what I was desiring, I am now examining the basis for belief in this God, that is, are there any obvious reasons not to pursue this God. So then, being honest enough to admit that I am starting from a desire (as many Theologians do, including men like C.S. Lewis, who often used the phrase A God-shaped hole in our hearts) I now have to guard against the tendency of stopping there, but should push on and test to see whether I am a fool for not for allowing myself to follow these desires. Therefore, while admitting that not everybody is starting from this same desire, the burden of proof is on those wanting to prove the impossibility of supernatural intervention as depicted in the Bible, particularly the New Testament.

You can see, if the argument is framed this way, why the debate rages on. I can not simply erase this desire, for to remove it would be to completely change my reason for existing. Perhaps something will happen someday that will remove this belief, but I cannot make it go away on my own, nor do I desire that. On the other hand, no amount of arguing is going to awaken this desire in the skeptic. Again, something could occur to change his/her mind, but its not something to just decide. (In fact, this desire could be the basis for what many consider faith.) Because of this, each perspective places the burden of proof, and logically so, on the others. The weight of this burden must be agreed on before any resolution can be achieved. However, the very foundations of each perspective require the burden of proof be on the other, so we have an eternal dilemma.

Now that this is settled, On to the data! (This is by no means comprehensive, but is intended to review some of the facts brought up here, and use them as an example of how they could be interpreted differently based on ones own perspective.)

In no particular order:

Basic Facts: Paul, born as Saul, of Tarsus traveled throughout the Roman Empire in the latter half of the 1st Century, preaching a radical off-shoot of Judaism. He recorded a large part of his new theology in the form of letters to the churches he established and others. The most reliable of these letters (sometimes called the Undisputed Epistles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_Epistles#The_undisputed_epistles) are known today as: Romans, I, II, Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, I Thessalonians, and Philemon. These are listed, among other New Testament books by 170 C.E. Pauls teaching are the foundation of theology for the Christian Church. 

Critics: There is no basis that Paul learned directly from Jesus. Paul himself claims that his theological training came from a supernatural source, and that his conversion to being a follower of Jesus occurs in a miraculous event. Moreover, Pauls basic theology is not found in Jesus teachings. Pauls theology is radically different from the Judaism he claims as his background, and is hostile to the Jewish religion in his writings. After removing any supernatural insight, his theology appears to be designed by his own thinking, and that he inserted spiritual elements to provide a basis for this new religion.

Myself: Paul never received any physical benefits from this new religion. He received no wealth or profit from his teaching. On the contrary, he was constantly beaten, often poor, and eventually killed for his teachings. This was not a short era of Pauls life. He chose to enter into, and to continue with this teaching. Whether right or wrong, Paul appeared to believe what he taught. Also, if he did create this system out of thin air, so to speak, it is a remarkable system, that is able to be studied and dissected on a multitude of levels. Paul showed amazing insight into humanity, and constructed a systematic theology that has intrigued scholars for centuries. However, Pauls writings require (self-admittedly) a specific miracle to have occurred, the resurrection from the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Without the acceptance of this miracle, all of his other teachings have no basis.

Basic Facts: Mark, and his Gospel. While the Church traditionally dated the Gospel of Mark as the second to be written, and so placed after Matthew, modern scholarship believes that the Gospel of Mark was used as a source for some of the material in Matthew and Luke, and so was probably the first Gospel to be written. Mark was written in Greek, and probably not written in the area of Judea, but probably written somewhere within the Roman Empire, perhaps Rome, itself. Traditionally it was attributed to Mark, sometimes called John-Mark, who was a disciple of Peter, according to Eusibius of Cesarea, Irenaus, Origen, and Tertullian. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Authorship)    

Critics: Since the first gospel was written by a non-eyewitness, and other gospels appeared to copy from it, the whole story is suspect. Furthermore, since it describes the destruction of Jerusalem, which didnt happen until 70 C.E., the book couldnt have been written until after that event. Since Paul died around 64 C.E., the Gospel of Mark would have been clearly influenced by Pauls writings, and could have been written as proof of the miracle of Jesus resurrection, to give weight to Pauls religion.  

Myself: The key passage for the dating of Mark, according to the critics, is the description of the destruction of Jerusalem. (Most believe post 70 C.E., some after 135 C.E.) However, this description is in the form of a prophecy. Since my beliefs allow for the existence of prophecy and supernatural communication, this is not a requirement for dating Mark. Instead, drawing from the Markian Priority the dating of Mark is connected to the dating of the other two synoptic Gospels. Since Luke was written before the book of Acts (Acts is part II to the book of Luke, beginning where Luke left off, and apparently written by the same author.) It follows that Mark must have been written before either. The history of the Book of Acts ends about 60 C.E., before the death of Paul. It stands to reason, then, if prophecy is indeed possible, that the Gospel of Mark could well have been written several years before 60 C.E. Since the Church would have started in c.33 C.E., and didnt gain momentum in the Roman Empire until Paul began his Second and Third missionary journeys around 50 C.E. this would have been an appropriate time to record the Gospels.


Thats about all I have time for today. So far this discussion has been involving Higher Criticsm. I would like to deal with the idea of the Bible being edited over the centuries, and the textual accuracies (A.K.A. Lower Criticism), but to be honest, while Im familiar with the sources for Modern Translations and the debates held there, most of it is in reference to the My Translation in Divine, yours is crap kind of arguments, so Ill let them be for now. Maybe another thread for that, someday.

So, I did my best to present the critical view in a fair manner, but I realize that I am biased, and so I may have misrepresented you guys. If you can help me to clarify the critical point of view, I would appreciate it.


----------



## Sukerkin

That was very well compiled and presented, *Thardey* :tup:.  As has been said elsewhere, it is refreshing to have the Christian viewpoint put across with calmness and rationality.


----------



## thardey

Sukerkin said:


> That was very well compiled and presented, *Thardey* :tup:.  As has been said elsewhere, it is refreshing to have the Christian viewpoint put across with calmness and rationality.



Thanks, I'm slowly getting bolder. 

BTW, I've seen you write "tup" and "rei" as though I should be seeing smileys. Is it just my computer, or do they mean something specific?


----------



## Sukerkin

You are not the first to ask that question, my friend.  One should show up as a smiley but it depends upon the particular board software whether it does or not.  The other (and it's variation) are my own invention and will only be immediately obvious to Japanese speakers or Japanese martial arts practitioners:

:tup: is the standard code for "Thumbs up"

:rei: is the Japanese word for Bow and I use it to show I respect what a person has just posted or to show gratitude for a compliment

:sensei rei: is an even more respectful sign and I use it when I think someone has shown either commendable insight or has dealt with a matter in a manner befitting someone worthy of high regard.

I'm considering using a few others (such as :reigi: ) but I reckon I'm causing enough confusion as it is :lol:.


----------



## tellner

An excellent post as usual thardey. You remind me a lot of another passionate, intelligent Christian, Todd Erven, who isn't afraid to look reality in the face.


----------



## thardey

tellner said:


> An excellent post as usual thardey. You remind me a lot of another passionate, intelligent Christian, Todd Erven, who isn't afraid to look reality in the face.



Looks like a fun blog- the kind of guy I would like to meet. Someday when in Portland, you and I'll have to meet face-to-face and get a drink somewhere.


----------



## tellner

Works for me even though Todd E ("No, the other Todd E") lives in Seattle


----------



## Bodhisattva

shesulsa said:


> We've all heard that saying ... "Either it all applies or none of it applies."
> 
> What say you?


Study religion and you come to find many of the stories in the Bible are just retold version of stories and concepts that exist in other, previously existing religions.

There is much in the bible in coded format referring to the enlightenment process/experience and the personal changes and understandings that occur as a result of it.

But most of this is mis-interpreted by religious figures that want to maintain their positions in society.

And much of the rest of it is mere superstition.

--

If the bible is 100% truth, and we lived by it, it would be horrible to be a woman.


----------



## SageGhost83

Bodhisattva said:


> Study religion and you come to find many of the stories in the Bible are just retold version of stories and concepts that exist in other, previously existing religions.
> 
> There is much in the bible in coded format referring to the enlightenment process/experience and the personal changes and understandings that occur as a result of it.
> 
> But most of this is mis-interpreted by religious figures that want to maintain their positions in society.
> 
> And much of the rest of it is mere superstition.
> 
> --
> 
> If the bible is 100% truth, and we lived by it, it would be horrible to be a woman.


 
Amen!


----------



## Xue Sheng

Bodhisattva said:


> Study religion and you come to find many of the stories in the Bible are just retold version of stories and concepts that exist in other, previously existing religions.
> 
> There is much in the bible in coded format referring to the enlightenment process/experience and the personal changes and understandings that occur as a result of it.
> 
> But most of this is mis-interpreted by religious figures that want to maintain their positions in society.
> 
> And much of the rest of it is mere superstition.
> 
> --
> 
> If the bible is 100% truth, and we lived by it, it would be horrible to be a woman.


 
Don't have to study much just read The Epic of Gilgamesh (from sometime around 2150-2000 BC) and you will see that


----------



## thardey

Bodhisattva said:


> Study religion and you come to find many of the stories in the Bible are just retold version of stories and concepts that exist in other, previously existing religions.
> 
> There is much in the bible in coded format referring to the enlightenment process/experience and the personal changes and understandings that occur as a result of it.
> 
> But most of this is mis-interpreted by religious figures that want to maintain their positions in society.
> 
> And much of the rest of it is mere superstition.
> 
> --
> 
> If the bible is 100% truth, and we lived by it, it would be horrible to be a woman.




At first reading, I was about to dismiss/ignore this, but on a second look, I really have to agree with the middle two paragraphs. 

There's a lot of "Christianity" out there that isn't based on the Bible, or at least, it's based on the surface reading of it, without regard for the "enlightenment process" as you put it. In fact, the whole story is a picture of enlightenment from the beginning to the end. In the beginning, you have people "worshiping" God because of much of the same reasons that other people worshiped God. The stories that were important to them, and their understanding of God wasn't much different than the cultures around them. God was just another God, generally considered a god of the Desert, then later, a god of the Mountains. 

Eventually, (with the influence of King David, and his Psalms) God is introduced to be a God of the heart, but even that is not understood. Later, Jesus introduces God as a God of attitudes, not actions. Next Paul understand him as a God of the soul. The Bible itself is a journey of enlightenment. It goes from an Impersonal God of action, to a personal God of inner "completeness." 

That's why Christians today don't follow the commands of Moses - they're not appropriate anymore. In fact, the more you begin to understand Paul's writing, the less rules there are, until there is only one left - Love God as he loves you, and love others in the way that God does. How that love is shown isn't a system of "Flow-chart" Religion, but an "enlightened" person will be able to learn how to do that. In that way, the entire law is "fulfilled."

But, of course, you can't "Sell" that, it has to be a personal journey. Which is bad for many "Professional" Religious leaders. They want to teach you a version of Christianity that doesn't empower, but rather causes fear. This keep the professional in a position of power. That's why religion and politics work so "well" (in a horribly destructive way) together. Create fear, then offer protection, and you have a following!

As for being a woman in the Bible, a lot of it is in the bias of the translators, and the society in which the translation is made. There are actually some interesting debates about what the Greek actually said, and how that is to be interpreted. They just don't reach the public eye very often.

Gotta go, I'll talk more later.


----------



## Ray

Xue Sheng said:


> Don't have to study much just read The Epic of Gilgamesh (from sometime around 2150-2000 BC) and you will see that


I don't the story of Gilgamesh to be all that similar to Noah as some have suggested (although I have to read both in English because I don't know the original languages).  I also don't accept the deluge stories of accounts of the Annanuki (sp?) who live on the planet that orbits close to the sun and then back into the Ort Cloud.


----------



## celtic_crippler

_Gilgamesh_ is the oldest existing piece of literature we have at the moment. It includes a "flood story" just like the bible. 

However, there are many more "religious" writings that have "flood stories" that were written *before* the bible.....WWAAAAYYYYY before the bible. 

It's important to understand, and feel free to ask your English Lit professor about this, that prior to written stories everything was passed by word of mouth. Traders, etc would exchange stories passed down through the generations with others they met in their travels. 

So....when scribes actually started to write more things down it's only natural that they would incorporate all the "stories" they had been told. 

This is actually also believed to be the case with _Gilgamesh_. That work is thought to be a compilation of tales passed down over the generations...

...so that begs the quesion....just HOW old do you think the flood story is? 

It also begs the question, If the bible is 100% truth why wasn't it written prior to all the other religious writings? Did "man" forget about the Garden of Eden (also correlates to another part of _Gilgamesh_ by the way) and had to be reminded centuries later when the Old Testement was written? 

Something to ponder.


----------



## thardey

celtic_crippler said:


> _Gilgamesh_ is the oldest existing piece of literature we have at the moment. It includes a "flood story" just like the bible.
> 
> However, there are many more "religious" writings that have "flood stories" that were written *before* the bible.....WWAAAAYYYYY before the bible.
> 
> It's important to understand, and feel free to ask your English Lit professor about this, that prior to written stories everything was passed by word of mouth. Traders, etc would exchange stories passed down through the generations with others they met in their travels.
> 
> So....when scribes actually started to write more things down it's only natural that they would incorporate all the "stories" they had been told.
> 
> This is actually also believed to be the case with _Gilgamesh_. That work is thought to be a compilation of tales passed down over the generations...
> 
> ...so that begs the quesion....just HOW old do you think the flood story is?



At least as old as the Flood, itself?  :ultracool



> It also begs the question, If the bible is 100% truth why wasn't it written prior to all the other religious writings? Did "man" forget about the Garden of Eden (also correlates to another part of _Gilgamesh_ by the way) and had to be reminded centuries later when the Old Testement was written?
> 
> Something to ponder.


Most Bible Scholars (not the Higher-Criticism types, like the JEPD scholars, but the Pastor/Priest types.) Believe that Genesis is a compilation by Moses of the Oral histories passed down through the generations, similar to _Gilgamesh_. As far as the book of Genesis goes, no one (who's educated, anyway) thinks that Moses simply came up with all the stories in Genesis while out communing with God, but rather compiled many of the stories into one written record. Some even think that he may have begun the compilation process while still living as Pharaoh's Daughter's son, when he had access to the royal libraries, but there's no way to really know, aside from conjecture.

So, to answer your question (just an aside, "begging the question" means "begging off a question" so as to avoid answering it - not "begging for a question.") no one forgot about it, it just was passed down orally, just like you suggested above. 

Since Abraham's (the father of the Israelites) homeland was in the same area of Babylon (Ur, the land of which Gilgamesh was king), it's very possible/probable that the "Flood Story" has a common origin, one branch got recorded in the _Epic_, and one was recorded in the Tanackh (A.k.a "Old Testament").  One took over a year, and one took two weeks. In one, Noah is "favored by God" and in the other, Utnapishtim is made immortal. The stories about the birds released (The Bible includes a dove and a raven, the Epic adds a swallow) definitely indicate some sort of common origin.




Gilgamesh ruled Ur about 2,600 BCE. Abraham left Ur somewhere around 2,000 BCE. After a couple of generations, the Israelites ended up as slaves in Egypt.
The Epic was first started around 2,000 BCE (The incomplete Sumerian Version), with the oldest complete version (the "standard" Akkadian Version.) completed about 1,300 BCE.
Moses would have compiled the book of Genesis sometime between 1,300 BCE and 1,200 BCE.
However, "First" does not automatically mean "most reliable." There are many other factors involved, such as the message behind the stories. In these areas, the Epic, and the Bible are drastically different.

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

If, on the other hand, you are one from the JEPD crowd, then the flood story was added to the Bible during the Babylonian captivity almost 1,000 years after Moses, when the Jews came in contact with the Epic of Gilgamesh, and adapted it for their own, new "rediscovered" history. In that case, the flood story wasn't forgotten at all, because the Jews never would have known about it in the first place. Of course, in that theory, the entire Tanackh  is a hoax.


----------



## GBlues

This is my take on it. 

First and Foremost I would like to address the whole god created the earth in 6 days bit. Alot of people misinterpret the bible on this, IT IS NOT, a literal day. Not a 24 hour period on earth. Later in the bible if your read, ( and don't ask for the passage been along time since I've read it, but it is in the old testament, I'm pretty sure, and I know it's there read it with my own two eyes), furthere in to the bible, it states, 'that a 1,000 years to man is as one day to god, and one day to god is as a thousand years to man'. So that being said it would have actually taken god six-thousand years to create the earth. Ok, still a monumental task to a human to even fathom, but if your an almighty god, maybe not.

Second if you believe the bible to be true, then you would have to believe the bible when it says, " That god can not lie'. So if we go on that premise, that god can not lie, then when he says that the bible is his ' inspired word, as written by man' then you would have to believe that god would not allow his words to be changed. Now in my mind that doesn't mean that it can't be changed, it just means that the message won't be changed. How could he allow that? If he can not lie, then he wouldn't, because otherwise you could say, "Well, over here you say this, but now you say this, therefore you have lied, and should let me into the kingdom of heaven." So, I mean it can get pretty complicated. 

Do I believe in the bible. Yes, I believe it to be a factual document, personally, that is my belief. I believe, however, that man made religion not god. I believe that the christian faith was getting very big and drawing a large following and the romans decided that it would be easier if they made one singel christian religion while interjecting some of there own beliefs, so as to keep some of there faith alive, and they saw this as a much easier way to control the christian people, than to just slaughter them all. In other words they used this as a way to control the masses.

As an example I watched on the history channel, how the idea of hell, came about, and basically during the midle ages, the church was losing alot of paritioners and had to find a way to keep the money rolling in so they invented the idea of hell. They made a pretty compelling argument that I personally found to be very valid. 

And as far as not following moses' teachings, you must remember that Jesus said, on several occasions, " if you wish to get into the kingdom of heaven follow the commandments", this meaning the ten commandments. That's how important he thought they were.

ANyways, not wanting to turn this into a preaching session, I think that pretty much stamps my belief. The bible for me, is 100% true. Thank you for reading and everybody have a wonderful day.


----------



## Ray

GBlues said:


> And as far as not following moses' teachings, you must remember that Jesus said, on several occasions, " if you wish to get into the kingdom of heaven follow the commandments", this meaning the ten commandments. That's how important he thought they were.


could you cite the reference?  I believe that there were about 613 commandment...the 10 are pretty famous though...


----------



## Kacey

Ray said:


> could you cite the reference?  I believe that there were about 613 commandment...the 10 are pretty famous though...



There are 613 mitzvot (lit. "good deeds") of God for behavior in Judaism (equivalent to the number of bones and significant organs in the body) - but about 1/3 cannot be kept any more, as they refer to events that can only occur in the long-destroyed Temple in Jerusalem, and some are gender-specific (men only).  These are mitzvot for behavior, and most non-Jews do not follow them.  A complete list can be found on Wikipedia.


----------



## Ray

Kacey said:


> There are 613 mitzvot (lit. "good deeds") of God for behavior in Judaism (equivalent to the number of bones and significant organs in the body) - but about 1/3 cannot be kept any more, as they refer to events that can only occur in the long-destroyed Temple in Jerusalem, and some are gender-specific (men only). These are mitzvot for behavior, and most non-Jews do not follow them. A complete list can be found on Wikipedia.


What is the reference that Christ said it was not necessary to follow them?


----------



## Kacey

Ray said:


> What is the reference that Christ said it was not necessary to follow them?



I don't know... I'm Jewish, and haven't read the New Testament in particular detail.  Perhaps someone else knows.


----------



## lemon_meringue

Ok, I feel a little weird jumping in at page 25- I don't want to get into a whole big debate, I just want to share something I found recently.

I know very little about Judaism, but I have studied aspects of the New Testament and I seem to remember doing an essay about Jesus and Jewish law. The following is an extract of some of the notes I made while researching- I can't find the bibliography and can't remember where it came from, so I apologise for not quoting my sources:



> Jewish law is the focus of many passages in the Gospels. According to one set, especially prominent in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5&#8211;7), Jesus advised against his followers observing the law unwaveringly (Matthew 5:17&#8211;48). According to another set, he did not adhere strictly to the law himself and even transgressed current opinions about some aspects of it, especially the Sabbath (e.g., Mark 3:1&#8211;5). It is conceivable that both were true, that he was extremely strict about marriage and divorce (Matthew 5:31&#8211;32; Mark 10:2&#8211;12) but less stringent about the Sabbath.
> 
> The study of Jesus and the law is, like any other study of law, highly technical. In general, the legal disputes in the Gospels fall within the parameters of those of 1st-century Judaism. Some opposed minor healing on the Sabbath (such as Jesus is depicted as performing), but others permitted it. Similarly, the Sadducees regarded the Pharisees' observance of the Sabbath as too lax. There also were many disagreements in 1st-century Judaism about purity. While some Jews washed their hands before eating (Mark 7:5), others did not. It is worth noting that Jesus did not oppose the purity laws. On the contrary, according to Mark 1:40&#8211;44, he accepted the Mosaic laws on the purification of lepers (Leviticus 14).
> 
> In one statement in the Gospels, however, Jesus apparently opposed Jewish law as universally understood. Jews agreed not to eat carnivores, rodents, insects, and weasels, as well as pork and shellfish (Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14), and the last two prohibitions set them apart from other people. According to Mark 7:19, Jesus &#8220;declared all foods clean.&#8221; If he did so, Jesus directly opposed the law of God as given to Moses. This seems to be only Mark&#8217;s inference, however, and is not in the parallel passage in Matthew 15. More importantly, Peter seems to have first learned of this after Jesus&#8217; death, by means of a heavenly revelation (Acts 10:9&#8211;16). Perhaps Jesus did not, then, directly oppose any aspect of the sacred law.
> 
> He probably did, however, have legal disputes in which he defended himself by quoting scriptural precedent, which implies that he did not set himself against the law (Mark 2:23&#8211;28). His willingness to make his own decisions regarding the law was probably viewed with suspicion. Jesus was autonomous; he interpreted the law according to his own rules and decided how to defend himself when criticised. He was by no means the only person in ancient Judaism who struck out on his own, acting in accord with his own perception of God&#8217;s will, and so he was not uniquely troubling in this respect, but such behaviour might be suspicious nonetheless.


Sorry if this is irrelevant.....just my 2 cents


----------



## GBlues

Ray said:


> could you cite the reference? I believe that there were about 613 commandment...the 10 are pretty famous though...


 Well I found one passage in the bible for you it's Mark 10:17-22. It reads as such. I'll be typing verbatim from the bible I have on me at the moment. It reads, " 17 Now as He was going out on the road, one came runnint, knelt before Him, and , asked Him, 'Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?' 18 So Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. 19 You know the commandments:' Do not commit adultery,Do not murder, Do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother'. 20 And he answered and said to Him, 'Teacher, all of these things I have kept from my youth.' 21 Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, ' One thing you lack: go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and tou will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.' 22 But he was sad at this word, and went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions."

I hope that was helpful if I have to look up anymore scriptures it will be a task, haven't read it in awhile. You get rusty like anything else.


----------



## Ray

GBlues said:


> Well I found one passage in the bible for you it's Mark 10:17-22. It reads as such. I'll be typing verbatim from the bible I have on me at the moment. It reads, " 17 Now as He was going out on the road, one came runnint, knelt before Him, and , asked Him, 'Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?' 18 So Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. 19 You know the commandments:' Do not commit adultery,Do not murder, Do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother'. 20 And he answered and said to Him, 'Teacher, all of these things I have kept from my youth.' 21 Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, ' One thing you lack: go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and tou will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.' 22 But he was sad at this word, and went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions."
> 
> I hope that was helpful if I have to look up anymore scriptures it will be a task, haven't read it in awhile. You get rusty like anything else.


It is very helpful. The 10 commandments are a good start to being able to do (or give up) anything and everything that God asks of us--to love him and our neighbors. Otherwise the great possessions would have been the young ruler's to keep to obtain eternal life.

I heard him referred to as the "13th dicsiple."  Almost the guy who forsook all else to follow the savior.


----------



## YinYang

The bible is whatever you want it to be, its by faith anyway.  If it contains truth or lies, then it does.

Much peace,
Andrew


----------



## GBlues

Here is something else to remember about the bible. And it is very important. That being that if you read the old testament as if it were a history book. Which is the way most religions view it, in reality. Moses parted  the red sea, (reed sea actually,  the history channel did a great doc. on this one), noah and the flood, etc, etc,etc....You get the point?

So if your reading a history book, you don't interepret what happened, you read the facts. For some reason though we get to the new testament, and we have to interpret everything. The reality is there isn't much to interpret. As an example, Jesus, spoke in parrabels. I forget the scripture but one of the apostles asked him bluntly, " Teacher why do you speak in parrabells?" and his reply was, " So that those who are not of my flock will not understand until they have seen these things come to pass." In other words Jesus was a carpenter. Basically he was a working class individual. So that if even in todays time, if I said something like, " When you are painting your house, you don't leave the floor uncovered, for if you did the paint would stain the carpet. So to when you renovate your heavenly fathers house do not forget to do the same for it as you would your own house." Ok, so most of us would understand that when we paint the walls of our house we need to lay down a drop cloth, or cover the floors with plastic because we don't want to get overspray, or roller drops on the carpet. Pretty simple to understand then that hey, " When you take a shower don't forget to wash the bottoms of your feet, because your body is considered to be a temple to god, which therefore would be his house, and we should keep it clean, yeah? See where I'm going with this? But to a priest who has never done anything but preach and has never done any kind of hard labor he probably won't get what I'm saying without a little difficulty. That was the reason for the parrabels. Not to be interpretted but, more to be understood, by those that wanted to listen and learn, for heartfelt reasons.

So then you get to Revelations, and this is really where my point is going. You read the whole bible, and really it's meant to be literal, but then we get to the final book of the bible, and all of a sudden we say, "Well, it's got to be symbolical." WHy? If the rest of the bible was meant to be read literally, and it was. This happened, this happened, so and so forth, but then we aren't to believe that there may one day really be bugs with long hair, and faces of men, with arms and torso of man, but the lower body, a horse and tail of a scorpion, and they have wings to fly. Now somebody, says, " Well, he's talking about an Apache Helicopter." WHa???? Really???? How do you come to that conclusion? "Well, JOhn was seeing the future and didn't know what he was seeing and described it the only way he knew how." Really?? Cause that doesn't sound like a man made machine to me??? Especially not when it says, " And they would have the power to harm man for six months, and they would pray and beg for death but it would not come." Uhm....that sounds like a poisonous sting to me?! Doesn't it to you?

So this is my point if you believe in the bible, then read it like a book. A book of how to live your life, because that really is what it was meant for. Which is what the new testament is really all about. A way to live your life in accordance with god's commands. If you choose to worship the god of the bible. The final chapter is only a warning of the things to come that we might be prepared, and when you see these things coming, you know that your deliverance is near. God never created religion, man did. God gave us guidelines to live our life in accordance with the way he wants to live. So that none may perish. :asian:


----------



## Yoshiyahu

The Question should be do you live your life by the Bible?

If the Answer is No then we know you don't believe it?

But if you do live your life by the bible than obviously you feel it is something worth studing and modeling!


----------



## zeeberex

Yoshiyahu said:


> The Question should be do you live your life by the Bible?
> 
> If the Answer is No then we know you don't believe it?
> 
> But if you do live your life by the bible than obviously you feel it is something worth studing and modeling!



Actually there is potential "Abrahamic" overlap, there are bits of the torah in the old testament, and gospels and other things biblical in the Quran, it represents a long tradition and at least three religions....


----------



## GBlues

Yoshiyahu said:


> The Question should be do you live your life by the Bible?
> 
> If the Answer is No then we know you don't believe it?
> 
> But if you do live your life by the bible than obviously you feel it is something worth studing and modeling!


 
I do my best to live my life by those principles in the bible. I fall far short disgracefully so, but do make an attempt. It's hard to live by those values. The spirit is strong but the flesh is weak. We all have our own trials and tribulations. Please don't think any less of me for my honest answer.


----------



## theEXxman

From my studies I have come to believe as far as the Old Testament is concerned that is a heavily edited document based and a mishmash of the egyptian, canaanite, and mesopatamian religions that may have been combined with zoroastrianism during the times of the captivity that reflect the proto-Jewish and Jewish beliefs in Mono-theism.   Basically the study of what they believe is a study on how religion evolves and can evolve over a period of time.     The text's that Abraham probably used where most likely the Enuma Elish which was the Sumerian Creation tablets and then you get to the time of Moses which he would have studied the egyptian religion as well as the canaanite gods(land of median),then when the Jews were taken to the land of persia, they mingled with the various indiginous religions including zorastrianism.   Then you get to the New Testament.  The big thing to remember is the Council of Nicea which basically said this is what is acceptible scripture and this is what isn't.  So the claptrap that you get from sunday school is not as clear-cut as they would like you to believe.    But I will say that I'm not an Indiana Jones and don't have a Phd and am not on official expert, but I've come to this conclusion through various sources to numerous to mention and spending to much time in various libraries.  Basically I'm a geek


----------



## theEXxman

And I don't agree with Sitchin's idea of the Annunaki being aliens.   I just basically believe that religion evolves as man evolves.


----------



## kaizasosei

Then who created the annunaki?? Kindof downplaying the simple wonder of life with exotic ideas of some kind of superior yet frightfully discomforting theories of something possibly irrelevant, never mind reeking of fraudulence. 


IGNORABIMUS

There are limits to our knowledge but at least we can trust our instincts.

Sitchin is great if you are into babylonian mythology or sci-fi paradigm mindwarp. However, i without being religious, i find it insulting to downplay the worth of life and mankind that already has it's mind in the gutter enough.

j


----------



## Ray

theEXxman said:


> And I don't agree with Sitchin's idea of the Annunaki being aliens. I just basically believe that religion evolves as man evolves.


As I understnad it, his translation of ancient texts has been found to be lacking in correctness.


----------



## kaizasosei

If the bible is 100% true, nowadays, you'd be looking at a lot of time.

j


----------



## TigerCraneGuy

GBlues said:


> I do my best to live my life by those principles in the bible. I fall far short disgracefully so, but do make an attempt. It's hard to live by those values. The spirit is strong but the flesh is weak. We all have our own trials and tribulations. Please don't think any less of me for my honest answer.


 
Less of you?

Never happen, my friend.

To believe in the God of the Bible is to strive for moral and spiritual excellence; not doing so to 'earn' salvation, for that is the false gospel of works, but doing so out of love and gratitude for the gift we have already recieved.

All fall short, myself included. Realizing this and repenting and continuing to run the race, to fight the good fight; that... is what matters.

Keep on striving!

In Christ,
TCG


----------



## astrobiologist

Talking snakes?  I missed that on the Discovery Channel...

Water turning into wine?  We definitely don't teach that in organic chemistry...


I don't want to hate on anyone for their religion.  You're are free to believe what you want to believe.  If the christian bible gives you hope or helps you to be a better person, then I have no direct qualms.  But to say that the bible is 100% truth is to blind yourself to reason and rationality.

Some may say that Santa Clause is 100% truth, but do you believe that?
How about the zodiac?  Or visits from extraterrestrial beings who, for some reason, only like to anal probe people from a few select countries?

This is one of those topics that always draws a lot of heat...  Like I said, I'm not trying to directly attack any of you who are christians.  I just don't think you can really accept the christian bible as 100% truth in today's society.


----------



## elder999

astrobiologist said:


> Talking snakes? I missed that on the Discovery Channel...


 
That's 'cause it's allegorical.




astrobiologist said:


> Water turning into wine? We definitely don't teach that in organic chemistry...


 
There are several ways to perform that trick today, but archaeologists have found these, made of clay on Egyptian digs-so the trick is at least 4,000 years old, and would certainly have been known to someone educated in Egypt and the "east" as the historical Jesus must have been......
......and,hey-it was a *party,* right? :lol:


----------



## astrobiologist

Back in college, if I could have turned water into Coors Light I would have been everyone's favorite guy I guess...


----------



## astrobiologist

elder999 said:


> That's 'cause it's allegorical.


 
That's my point, though.  Allegory is, inherently, not 100% truth.  It's a representation, a metaphor, a symbolic or figurative way to demonstrate some other (usually more important) issue.

I actually haven't read the bible in a long time, but I recall the story of Jonah and the whale...  that was allegory, yet there are many people who seriously believe that Jonah survived in the stomache of a whale.

Likewise, there are those who honestly believe that everything in the bible is meant to be the literal truth, 100%.  I guess that just kind of floors me...


----------



## elder999

astrobiologist said:


> I actually haven't read the bible in a long time, but I recall the story of Jonah and the whale... that was allegory, yet there are many people who seriously believe that Jonah survived in the stomache of a whale.


 
Actually, it says "great fish," and it might have be physically possible, but, yeah, it's allegory as well......


----------



## thardey

astrobiologist said:


> That's my point, though. Allegory is, inherently, not 100% truth. It's a representation, a metaphor, a symbolic or figurative way to demonstrate some other (usually more important) issue.
> 
> I actually haven't read the bible in a long time, but I recall the story of Jonah and the whale... that was allegory, yet there are many people who seriously believe that Jonah survived in the stomache of a whale.
> 
> Likewise, there are those who honestly believe that everything in the bible is meant to be the literal truth, 100%. I guess that just kind of floors me...


 

Jonah is nothing. Crucify a guy, and have him spontaneously come back to life 3 days later, then have him levitate himself into the sky. (That's what the Jonah story is "allegory" for, BTW)

If you can't accept that miracle, then the whole New Testament is nothing. Water into wine, Feeding the 4,000, and the 5,000, and the rest are nothing compared to that.

And that's the point, it's a miracle. God intervening in normal, established, cause and effect, for a specific purpose. If you can't accept miracles, then the whole New Testament has to be thrown out -- because that means the gospels would have to be written after events that were prophesied (another miracle), which means they would be revisionist history to back up Paul's letters, which would have to be nothing more than a scam which turned out very badly for Paul (Saul).

The whole belief of Christianity starts with the biggest miracle of all. If you accept that, then the other stuff is kid's play.

If you can't accept miracles, then no amount of allegory is going to help.

There are a lot of allegories in the Bible: parables, prophecies, poetry, etc. But they're obviously intended to be allegories. The story of Easter is clearly written to be interpreted as history. To call it allegory is patronizing. Either call it a lie, call it a mistake, or call it history.

At least let's be honest.


----------



## elder999

thardey said:


> Jonah is nothing. Crucify a guy, and have him spontaneously come back to life 3 days later, then have him levitate himself into the sky. (That's what the Jonah story is "allegory" for, BTW)
> 
> If you can't accept that miracle, then the whole New Testament is nothing. Water into wine, Feeding the 4,000, and the 5,000, and the rest are nothing compared to that..


 
Well, what if he wasn't "dead," but in a coma, or a very low metabolic state-or he was "dead," but started breathing again after he was buried? These are all commonly accepted medical occurences today, but would have been "miraculous" back then, especially after all that he'd so publicly suffered.

Additionally, while tradition has it that he "levitated himself into the sky," Biblical verse isn't so exact at all:



> *Luke 24:50-51*
> 50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
> 51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, *he was parted from them*, and *carried up into heaven*.


 
It almost implies that-tradition notwithstanding-the Ascension wasn't even witnessed, never mind how it took place physically, or whether it took place "physically" at all......I'm not even going to get into how it reads in Greek...


----------



## thardey

elder999 said:


> Well, what if he wasn't "dead," but in a coma, or a very low metabolic state-or he was "dead," but started breathing again after he was buried? These are all commonly accepted medical occurences today, but would have been "miraculous" back then, especially after all that he'd so publicly suffered.


 
Ah, but then the whole teaching about suffering for our sins (by death), and being raised from the dead through "the power of an indestructable life (Heb. 7 16). To wash us in his blood, and to re-open the path to a relationship with God is all useless.

If he didn't die, then the whole thing is a mistake. If he did die (a goal at which the Romans were fairly skilled), but didn't raise to life, then the whole thing is a hoax. Either way, nothing I'd want to base my life on. (Now or eternal.)

If he did die, for most of three days, and came back to life, then the other miracles are easy to believe.




> Additionally, while tradition has it that he "levitated himself into the sky," Biblical verse isn't so exact at all:
> 
> 
> 
> It almost implies that-tradition notwithstanding-the Ascension wasn't even witnessed, never mind how it took place physically, or whether it took place "physically" at all......I'm not even going to get into how it reads in Greek...


 
It's a bit clearer in Acts 1:


> 9After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. 10They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11"Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."


 
Levitated, or vanished into the sky, either one is quite a feat. But apparently there were witnesses. A miracle was claimed. 

Whether you believe it or not, or whether you explain it away, you still are only given the options that the disciples were either mistaken, deceived, deceivers, or accurate. The idea that the above verses were meant to be read as allegory is quite a stretch.

Compare the reading to some of the Gnostic Gospels, like Thomas, Mary, and Judas. The reading there is obviously written to be read as allegory, to be explained by a teacher who knew the secret meanings.

Luke tries to be as plain as day.

And it was read that way. Josephus talks about the early Christian church, who claimed that Jesus had died, and risen on the third day, and done many other "miraculous things."


----------



## Ken Morgan

Honestly boys and girls? Believe what you want to believe. Just dont shove it down the throats of others.

I have a core group of friends who are Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Hindu and many Atheists. We all get along fine. Do your own thing and dont preach to others.


----------



## elder999

thardey said:


> And it was read that way. Josephus talks about the early Christian church, who claimed that Jesus had died, and risen on the third day, and done many other "miraculous things."


 
Don't have enough time now, but-

References to Jesus in Josephus have been pretty much discredited as later additions.

References to Jesus's ascension have been shown from the earliest extant manuscripts to _also_ be later additions, _especially_ those in Mark and Luke. Interstingly, the one in Acts _predates_ the ones in the Gospels-which is, of course, chronologically unlikely, unless......

As for both possible scenarios for the resurrection, well-the first case of not being "quite dead" could be seen as "miraculous" *today*, even if medically and physically feasible. (Definition of a "miracle": occurrence lacking scientific explanation. Medical definition of  a "miracle": see _misdiagnosis_. :lol: ) One can only imagine the reaction to such a scenario 2,000 years ago. Not saying that either one is what happened-and recognize your "belief in the resurrection" as "faith," but the topic here isn't the nature of faith, it's whether the Bible is 100% accurate-as I posted earlier, the Bible is full of beauty and truth-but often short on historical facts, and thus not 100% accurate.

We can't even be sure that the resurrection wasn't meant as allegory-*men* decided what the "real story" was some 300-odd years after the "facts"-such as they were at that point in time-and those same men started eradicating any other version of the story from that point onward.


----------



## thardey

elder999 said:


> Don't have enough time now, but-
> 
> References to Jesus in Josephus have been pretty much discredited as later additions.


 
That's too bad -- I haven't seen anything concrete on that, and I would really like to.



> References to Jesus's ascension have been shown from the earliest extant manuscripts to _also_ be later additions, _especially_ those in Mark and Luke. Interstingly, the one in Acts _predates_ the ones in the Gospels-which is, of course, chronologically unlikely, unless......
> 
> As for both possible scenarios for the resurrection, well-the first case of not being "quite dead" could be seen as "miraculous" *today*, even if medically and physically feasible. (Definition of a "miracle": occurrence lacking scientific explanation. Medical definition of a "miracle": see _misdiagnosis_. :lol: ) One can only imagine the reaction to such a scenario 2,000 years ago. Not saying that either one is what happened-and recognize your "belief in the resurrection" as "faith," but the topic here isn't the nature of faith, it's whether the Bible is 100% accurate-as I posted earlier, the Bible is full of beauty and truth-but often short on historical facts, and thus not 100% accurate.
> 
> We can't even be sure that the resurrection wasn't meant as allegory-*men* decided what the "real story" was some 300-odd years after the "facts"-such as they were at that point in time-and those same men started eradicating any other version of the story from that point onward.


 
I don't disagree with that at all. And you're quite clearly stating a non-supernatural interpretation of the miracles. Thank you. Believe what you'll believe, and be honest about it. You've studied enought that I respect your position, and I know that you haven't come to it through ignorance.

It's the "_everybody is right -- all religions are the same, I can't disagree with anyone's personal belief system_" idea that, when applied to what we now have as Christianity, which is in reality pretty exclusive, shows ignorance.

There are a few religions out there that embrace all religions as "correct" and that's fine, I'm curious to know more about how they actually work. (How do they reconcile disagreements?) Christianity is not one of them. When you (not you, *Elder) *simply allegorize anything that doensn't fit into your worldview, then the message of the New Testament becomes worthless. 

Even if it is left as something to disagree about, it still has merit, because it will stimulate personal growth. If it's allegorized beyond recognition, then it's not saying anything, and there's nothing to disagree with, or agree with. It would be like arguing over the Sunday comics -- who cares?

It becomes "fluffy bunny" philosophy, which doesn't help me, or anybody. That's what I'm trying to avoid.


----------



## elder999

thardey said:


> That's too bad -- I haven't seen anything concrete on that, and I would really like to.


 
I know it's Wikipedia, but it has the basics right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus


----------



## arnisador

I thought it was pretty much agreed that one one of the references as indeed to "that" Jesus but that it had been aggrandized by later scribes.


----------



## gardawamtu1

"Yes, I believe all of the Bible is true and correct, even in symbolism
No, the Bible contains skewed opinions and is filled with fabrications
Not sure"

I have to say as a biblical scholar, the way this poll is worded bothers me (with all due respect to the original poster).   True and correct are very positive terms, but not all truth is factual.  For instance, we know from Babylonian chronicles that Belshazzar is the son of Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon, not Nebuchadnezzar as Daniel 5 suggests.  THat does not negate the truths that Daniel proclaims about trust in human power. The term "fabrication" has highly negative connotations.  Many of the narratives in the Bible contain historical facts, while others do not.  The presence or absence of "fact" does not tell one whether or not the narrative contains truth.

While there is a "not sure" option, that really isn't a mediating position.

Moreover, there are so many voices within the Bible with different theological perspectives.  Should one divorce their foreign wives as Ezra and Nehemiah suggest, or can a foreign wife be an asset to the community as in the book of Ruth?  Can a foreigner or eunuch be banished from worship as in Deuteronomy 23? Or should they be allowed to participate as full members of the community in Isaiah 56.

Did Jesus come to abolish the law?  According to Ephesians 2:15 Christ nullified the law.  But if you read Matt 5:17, Christ did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.  No matter how you parse these Greek words, fulfillment can not be the same as nullification.

These questions are much more complex than the simple "Is the Bible true or not?"  That kind of question leads to the kind of absolutism that ushers in diatribes and does not invite respectful dialogue.  It also moves those of us who hold these scriptures as sacred to become adversaries rather than believers in cooperative fellowship.

Again, I don't mean any offense, I would just like there to be an "its much more complicated than that" option.


----------



## JDenver

thardey said:


> There are a lot of allegories in the Bible: parables, prophecies, poetry, etc. But they're obviously intended to be allegories. The story of Easter is clearly written to be interpreted as history. To call it allegory is patronizing. Either call it a lie, call it a mistake, or call it history.
> 
> At least let's be honest.



That's your opinion, not honesty.

The teachings in the Bible were initially taught orally, passed down from a teacher to a student.  When the teacher felt the student was ready, he would begin to reveal the secrets codified into the allegories.  There is deep wisdom held in the stories, riddled into the allegories; in numbers, animals, weather, seasons, food, etc.  Confusion arises from the positioning of the Old Testament with the New Testament as they were written under completely different circumstances, by very different groups of people.

To really understand the Bible, you need to understand the cultural context from which it was written.  For example, many early Christians believed that the Christ story was about your individual relationship to the universe, and that it is your aim in life to engage your 'christ'.

Those aren't mistakes or lies.  It's human wisdom.  Just as there is wisdom in the Quran, or the I Ching, or anything else.  Is the I Ching full of lies and mistakes?


----------



## Ken Morgan

JDenver said:


> When the teacher felt the student was ready, he would begin to reveal the secrets codified into the allegories. There is deep wisdom held in the stories, riddled into the allegories; in numbers, animals, weather, seasons, food, etc.
> 
> many early Christians believed that the Christ story was about your individual relationship to the universe, and that it is your aim in life to engage your 'christ'.


 
_Really? Interesting. Whats your source?_


----------



## elder999

Ken Morgan said:


> _Really? Interesting. What&#8217;s your source?_


 

As far as the New Testament, there are numerous elements from ancient mystery schools of Greece, Egypt and the greater Levant, as well as elements from earlier Hebraic texts, that are clearly recognizable to scholars, and numerous papers and books have been written on the subject. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote (largely _plagiarized_, but from solid material at the time ) one such paper, _The Influence of Mystery Religions on Christianity_


----------



## Ken Morgan

_Thanks Elder, I know that many of the myths in the NT came from other ancient cultures. Osiris for example._

_Im interested in finding evidence for, (__When the teacher felt the student was ready, he would begin to reveal the secrets codified into the allegories. There is deep wisdom held in the stories, riddled into the allegories; in numbers, animals, weather, seasons, food, etc.  many early Christians believed that the Christ story was about your individual relationship to the universe, and that it is your aim in life to engage your 'christ) __from the Old Testament._

_Yes I am an Atheist but I do consider myself a bit of a historian, and biblical evidence and such, is quite fascinating.   _


----------



## elder999

Ken Morgan said:


> _Thanks Elder, I know that many of the &#8220;myths&#8221; in the NT came from other ancient cultures. Osiris for example._
> 
> _I&#8217;m interested in finding evidence for, (&#8220;__When the teacher felt the student was ready, he would begin to reveal the secrets codified into the allegories. There is deep wisdom held in the stories, riddled into the allegories; in numbers, animals, weather, seasons, food, etc. many early Christians believed that the Christ story was about your individual relationship to the universe, and that it is your aim in life to engage your 'christ&#8221 __from the Old Testament._
> 
> _Yes I am an Atheist but I do consider myself a bit of a historian, and biblical evidence and such, is quite fascinating. _


 
Well, not so much the Old Testament, but the bridge between the two: the Dead Sea Scrolls, other Q'umran material and the so-called Gnostic Gospels all say as much in one way or another. The Gospels of Mary Magdalene and Gospel of Thomas both come right out and say as much, and can be seen as the source of some of Christ's quotes in the canonical gospels to "things unseen." There is also a direct quote in the canon (think it's Matthew, give me moment) where he says as much when asked by the apostles why he speaks in parables......

here ya go:



> *Matthew 13:10-13*: "And _the disciples came and said to Him_, "_Why do You speak to them in parables?_" {11} He answered and said to them, "_*Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven,* but to them it has not been given_. {12} "For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. {13} "Therefore _I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand."_


 
As for the Old Testament, all of the creation story of Genesis, with its Adam ("_the man_") and Eve ("_the woman_), Tree of Knowledge, Tree of Life, and serpent, is largely allegorical. Later Hellenized Hebrews, like Philo of Alexandria, linked these allegorical images to Platonic mystery schools, but they also had their own symbolism and mysteries...later chapters of Genesis and later books, like the prophets and Psalms, contain various allegorical imagery associated with mysteries, especially when one has an opportunity to examine some of the source documents, rather than poor translations like the KJV....


----------



## JDenver

There is a stark difference in the engagement of each Testament.  

The Old Testament was written thousands of years before the New.  It was written by a Jewish sect, and what was, at the time, seen as a fairly intractible one.  God was projected as spiteful and foreboding.

The New Testament writings were, in some ways, a reaction to the Old writings.  Jesus was peaceful and loving.  Actually, now thinking about this, I'm always intrigued that more Christians either refuse to see or see but don't 'see' the incredibly stark differences between the God of the Testaments.

So, anyways, early Christians were, in many ways, Gnostic.  They believed that Christ was an allegorical figure and that the stories weren't specific to christianity but were focussed from similar stories of the age.  For example, if you wanted your god to be powerful, you'd make him come back from the dead.  Alexander the Great was born of a virign, and so forth.

At the time of the stories, literacy rates were extremely low.  Stories were passed orally.  In fact, you could say the writing of the New Testament was an issue of preservation, a tactic in stemming the potential loss of the stories (and, of course, they bear such striking resemblence to other stories from neighbouring cultures that it could not be coincidential).

As for the codified messages, you couldn't believe that the stories were allegorical WITHOUT believing that there are deeper messages hidden in the stories.  Why 12 apostles?  Why walk on water or be resurrected?

What proof do I have of any of this?  I dunno, it stems from research into early christian doctrine, writings, and greek, egyptian and latin stories from the age.  There are loads of books on the subject, of course.


----------



## girlbug2

Jeez guys, 28 pages in and you STILL haven't settled the question once and for all??

Shocked, I am!


----------



## arnisador

Well, it's settled from a scientific or rational viewpoint...but once one rejects reason, anything's game!


----------



## The Last Legionary

You have a book that has been written over hundreds of years, by different authors, repeatedly mistranslated, with parts removed based on the whims of the people assembling it, with little to no reliable historical verification, with numerous contradictions contained within itself, with numerous debunking of historical 'fact' based on recognized records from the Roman, Greek, and Chinese, where key people show no knowledge of local geography that they should know, whose key figures are recorded only in this book, and you ask if it's 100% true?

Maybe the question to ask is, _is any of it at all true_?


----------



## Xue Sheng

WOW!!!!

Thread Resurrection

how apropos... or is it Irony


----------



## shesulsa

Xue Sheng said:


> WOW!!!!
> 
> Thread Resurrection
> 
> how apropos... or is it Irony



Is this part of your coup?  This won't distract us from your basement thread.

:btg:


----------



## seasoned

shesulsa said:


> Is this part of your coup? This won't distract us from your basement thread.
> 
> :btg:


Or pictures.


----------



## Mark Jordan

Yes, but one should be careful in interpreting it.


----------



## Bruno@MT

For a while, Moses was said to have had horns because of a translation error.
http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/662,2068869/Did-Moses-have-horns.html
And I have read other parts where it was argued that Jesus was not standing on water but above water (which is a significant difference).
Slight nuances in translation can have vastly different meanings.

Given that fallible humans have written / edited / translated the contents of the bible multiple times, potentially biased by their own beliefs and predjudice, it is beyond me how anyone can believe that the English language document we refer to as the bible can be considered a 100% accurate rendition of the words and intent of the original.

Additionally, even the original aramic writings (which were written down by fallible humans as well) were at odds with other accounts from the same time, which were discarded by other fallible people deciding what should or should not be considered true or not.


----------



## kungfu penguin

i guess i will just say this  if i offend i am sorry
1]God wrote it [thru human vessels]
2] i believe it
3] enough said!!!


----------



## Bruno@MT

kungfu penguin said:


> i guess i will just say this  if i offend i am sorry
> 1]God wrote it [thru human vessels]
> 2] i believe it
> 3] enough said!!!



First of all, there is nothing that wouldbe deemed offensive. You don't have to feel the need to apologise.

Now, I have already shown you the moses with horns thing, so you can't say that what we read today is 100% what was written down originally. How do you reconcile that knowledge with your statement that you believe (everything in?) it?

I also wonder: do you believe it in a literal sense or not? For example do you believe everything was created in 6 days, or do you believe (as I do) that it is a metaphor for describing the creation of th euniverse in a way that could be understood by people from that era?


----------



## seasoned

kungfu penguin said:


> i guess i will just say this if i offend i am sorry
> 1]God wrote it [thru human vessels]
> 2] i believe it
> *3] enough said!!!*



 I think the "*enough said*" part brings in the "*by faith*" thing, of which the whole thing (Christianity), is based on. To some the bible is truth, to others it is not, that is fact. Now, if we consider the complexities of how the heavens and earth were formed, this gets very deep. Now, this is where the faith thing comes into play. As our faith in anything grows, we see that particular thing in a different way. Now to the question (Re: Is the Bible 100% truth?) *Yes*. Now to the question (Re: Is the Bible 100% truth?) *No*. You see, it depends on the individuals "FAITH". To have faith, is to beleive in things not seen. If one sees things through faith, and another does not, then to reach common ground, one must lose some faith while the other gains some faith. By doing this we attack the very foundation that Christianity is built on. "for it is by faith". There for, this begs the above number 3, *enough said!!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


*


----------



## elder999

seasoned said:


> [/b]
> I think the "*enough said*" part brings in the "*by faith*" thing, of which the whole thing (Christianity), is based on.


 
Which brings us back to the _*68 degree* rule_, again, as I posted here, on page 10 of this very thread, _five years ago._ :lol:




elder999 said:


> At John 18:37, 38 we find this interchange of words between Jesus and Pontius Pilate (which started when Jesus was on trial):
> Pilate: You arent a king, are you?
> Jesus: You are saying that Im a king. This is why I was born and why I came into the world, *to testify to the truth*. *Everyone who is on the side of truth listens to my voice*.
> Pilate: *What is truth?*
> 
> 
> _What *is* truth?_
> 
> Im in a room at 68 degrees Fahrenheit-thats a *fact.*
> 
> I say Its _cold_ in here, which, for me, is the truth.
> 
> My co worker gets up from his chair sweating, walks right over to the thermostat, turns it down even more and says, Its too *hot* in here, which, for him, is the truth.
> 
> And there we have it: one fact, two truths, all valid.
> 
> Ive found-as a former Christian- former seminarian, son, grandson and great- grandson of ministers who has studied most of the worlds greater religious scriptures, and several different versions of the Bible-and Im a person with a deep love and respect for the teachings of the rabbi Yeshua, faith (or lack thereof) notwithstanding--that _all the religious scriptures of the world contain much beauty and truth,_
> 
> *Facts,* however, are..well, up for discussion, if not often dubious.
> 
> Errors-in translation, interpretation and intent, are everywhere.
> 
> Starting with Genesis-the literal interpretation of the creation myth contained therein is pretty much a dark ages phenomena-early Hebrew commentary, and even some early Christian commentary (ala Augustine) pretty much make it apparent that prior to 1200 A.D. or so, the creation myth of Genesis was seen as allegory-thusly doing away with any scientific inconsistencies it contains, like, where Cains wife came from, or how long the days were before the sun was created, or how plants managed to survive before the sun was created-its simply someones way of explaining the universes existence, mans place in it and his evolving relationship with the Creator.
> 
> While some of the events and people of the Old Testament can be found to have some basis in factual event and people, the relationship of the stories to facts is open to debate. Thus, we have a city called Jericho that archaelogical evidence points to having fallen after a long siege, but no support at all for its demise as the target of supernatural sonic weaponry. Doesnt mean it didnt happen that way, and it doesnt mean it did. And, while we can be pretty sure that there was a great flood, and that at some point, somebody was on a boat with some animals, the storys been told and retold in so many versions in the region that we can be fairly certain that his name didnt become Noah until the Hebrews got a hold of the tale, and that the boat probably just had some livestock on it, and not two of every kind of beast on earth-in fact, since the world at the time was pretty much as far as one could walk in a couple of days, for most of the people of that region, at any rate, and since we know that the flood was pretty much confined to that region, the phrase two of each kind of beast takes on a radically different meaning to the literal interpretation so often imposed on the tale.
> 
> Im not even going to get into the whole New Testament thing in this kind of detail (several different potential debates there,starting with, say, _Nazareth_) except to point out that most accepted Biblical scholarship-and by that I mean academics in the field of religion, and not necessarily of the faith-have pretty thoroughly discredited every account or mention of Jesus ever held to be contemporaneous with the Gospels. Josephus mention of him is generally accepted as a later addition by translators. The Gospels themselves-well, *theyre full of beauty and truth*, for those who can see it, but theyre also full of a lot of other stuff, and a lot of it is simply not historically reliable, but, speaking as a scientist, Ive pretty clearly demonstrated that just because somethings not a fact, doesnt mean its not true, and vice versa.


----------



## seasoned

elder999 said:


> Which brings us back to the _*68 degree* rule_, again, as I posted here, on page 10 of this very thread, _five years ago._ :lol:


Amen.


----------



## Bruno@MT

seasoned said:


> *
> To have faith, is to beleive in things not seen.*



It is one thing to believe in things not seen.
It is quite another to believe in something one *can* see, and which are clearly different from what one believes. Like the age of the universe, whether moses had horns or not, etc.

To tie this back to the 68 degree rule: I agree that we can argue about what something means.
However, there are things in the bible which -when taken literally- go against things we know to be true.
Therefore you cannot take the bible as literal truth without also denying the things we know to be true. That is like closing your eyes and ears and pretending those uncomfortable realities do not exist.

There is truth and beaty in the bible, but not in the literal sense.
Just like there is in the Koran, the Torah, etc.


----------



## seasoned

I think I will focus on the "*68 degree* rule", I like that.


----------



## fangjian

Hot and cold are subjective concepts used by our brains. The fact that it's about 68 degrees F, though, is NOT debatable.


----------



## seasoned

Very correct, but discernment is important. Is the 68 degrees coming from the thermostat or a fire burning in the corner. Truth is they are both lets say "68 degrees, but, discernment points us to a certain pertinent action.


----------



## seasoned

Side note, horns are not pertinent to discernment.


----------



## elder999

fangjian said:


> Hot and cold are subjective concepts used by our brains. The fact that it's about 68 degrees F, though, is NOT debatable.


 
*Facts* are *objective* and, generally, indisputable.

_Truth_ is _subjective_, and often disputable.

*Facts* are *true*, but _truths_ aren't necessarily *facts*.


----------



## seasoned

elder999 said:


> *Facts* are *objective* and, generally, indisputable.
> 
> _Truth_ is _subjective_, and often disputable.
> 
> *Facts* are *true*, but _truths_ aren't necessarily *facts*.


:asian:


----------



## Indie12

This is kind of a 'sensitive' topic isn't?


----------



## elder999

Indie12 said:


> This is kind of a 'sensitive' topic isn't?



So? 

Believe what you want to, or don't believe-other people's opinions should have no more effect on this than facts have ever been shown to.

Merry Christmas!

*Numbers 24:17*
I see him, but not now; I behold him, but now near. A star will come out of Jacob; a scepter will rise out of Israel.

*Genesis 3:15*
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.

*Luke 1:35
*And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy-- the Son of God".


*Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Micah 5:2
But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.

Matthew 2:2-3
The Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him." When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him.

Luke 2:13-14
      And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, (14) "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!" "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!"
*


----------



## Makalakumu

I believe in the 69 rule.  Apparently, the temperature increases exponentially in the one degree interval from 68.


----------



## Xue Sheng

:hmm: this post appears to have been resurrected.. ironic isnt it


----------



## Indie12

elder999 said:


> So?
> 
> Believe what you want to, or don't believe-other people's opinions should have no more effect on this than facts have ever been shown to.
> 
> Merry Christmas!
> 
> *Numbers 24:17*
> I see him, but not now; I behold him, but now near. A star will come out of Jacob; a scepter will rise out of Israel.
> 
> *Genesis 3:15*
> And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.
> 
> *Luke 1:35
> *And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy-- the Son of God".
> 
> 
> *Isaiah 7:14
> Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
> 
> Isaiah 9:6
> For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
> 
> Micah 5:2
> But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.
> 
> Matthew 2:2-3
> The Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him." When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him.
> 
> Luke 2:13-14
> And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, (14) "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!" "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!"
> *



True! I just was questioning if it would offend some of the more fundamental extreme christians as to rather or not the bible was real?


----------



## Indie12

Xue Sheng said:


> :hmm: this post appears to have been resurrected&#8230;.. ironic isn&#8217;t it



2012 is coming up! Well need all the "truth" we can get!!


----------



## Xue Sheng

Indie12 said:


> 2012 is coming up! Well need all the "truth" we can get!!



Nope...we just need to find a Mayan to make a new calender

and now it appears we have roopled back the stone on this post


----------



## clfsean

We just did a Mayan Calendar last night & seem to be ok. One calendar ended & a new one started. 

BTW... There are plenty of Mayan descended peeps on the Yucatan & Southward. Trick is... Do they know the base20 math like the guys who did the calendar.

Sent from my Thunderbolt on Tapatalk. Excuse the auto-correct spelling errors.


----------



## seasoned

shesulsa said:


> We've all heard that saying ... "Either it all applies or none of it applies."
> 
> What say you?



IMHO there is always an element of discernment where the Bible is concerned. 
At face value it could tend to contradict itself in many places. I feel it is one of those books that needs to be read many times over to begin to reach an understanding of how it pertains to the readers individual life. Just my thoughts................


----------



## Yondanchris

shesulsa said:


> We've all heard that saying ... "Either it all applies or none of it applies."
> 
> What say you?



I have a more pertinent question... "it's either religion or a relationship" 
and by religion (which I hold as a dirty word) is "Man's attempts to please or reach God" 

I believe in the inerrant verbal-plenary inspiration of scripture 
(in everyday language we would say "every word is authoritative")
 that it is composed of 66 books written by over 40 authors over 
thousands of years and it is a tool by which God has chosen to 
communicate with mankind for thousands of years. 

Disclaimer: all *highlights*, underlines, _Italics, and (brackets)
_ are my own and are not in the original text. 
*
2 Timothy 3:16-17 NIV*
"All Scripture is _*God-breathed*_ (also translated _inspired_) and is useful for 
teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" 

*2 Peter 1:20-21 NIV*
"Above all, you must understand that_* no prophecy of Scripture came about
 by the prophet&#8217;s own interpretation of things*_. For  prophecy _*
never had its origin in the human will*_, but prophets, though  human, 
_*spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."*_

*Romans 15:4 NIV* (Written by Saul/Paul of Tarsus a learned man)  
"For everything that was _*written in the past *_ was written to teach us, 
so  that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the 
encouragement they provide we might have hope"

_*Matthew 5:18 NIV (Jesus as recorded by his disciples)*_ 
"For truly I tell you, until heaven and  earth disappear, _not the smallest letter, 
not the least stroke of a pen_,  will by any means disappear from the Law 
until everything is  accomplished"

for more information here are some great websites:

www.blueletterbible.com

www.gotquestions.org

www.hopeandreason.org

Feel free to message me or post with any questions...it is my "job" after all! 

Chris


----------



## arnisador

Yondanchris said:


> _*Matthew 5:18 NIV (Jesus as recorded by his disciples)*_
> "For truly I tell you, until heaven and  earth disappear, _not the smallest letter,
> not the least stroke of a pen_,  will by any means disappear from the Law
> until everything is  accomplished"



So we're still supposed to be stoning women who aren't virgins and men who work on the Sabbath?


----------



## James Kovacich

I believe in the bible but we have to recognize that even though it is said to be Gods words, it was written by man. Something to think about...

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## elder999

And seven years later, I again invoke the _68 degree rule._ :lol:



elder999 said:


> At John 18:37, 38 we find this interchange of words between Jesus and Pontius Pilate (which started when Jesus was on trial):
> Pilate: You arent a king, are you?
> Jesus: You are saying that Im a king. This is why I was born and why I came into the world, *to testify to the truth*. *Everyone who is on the side of truth listens to my voice*.
> Pilate: *What is truth?*
> 
> 
> _What *is* truth?_
> 
> Im in a room at 68 degrees Fahrenheit-thats a *fact.*
> 
> I say Its _cold_ in here, which, for me, is the truth.
> 
> My co worker gets up from his chair sweating, walks right over to the thermostat, turns it down even more and says, Its too  *hot* in here, which, for him, is the truth.
> 
> And there we have it: one fact, two truths, all valid.
> 
> Ive found-as a former Christian- former seminarian, son, grandson and great- grandson of ministers who has studied most of the worlds greater religious scriptures, and several different versions of the Bible-and Im a person  with a deep love and respect for the teachings of the rabbi Yeshua, faith (or lack thereof) notwithstanding--that _all the religious scriptures of the world contain much beauty and truth,_
> 
> *Facts,* however, are..well, up for discussion, if not often dubious.
> 
> Errors-in translation, interpretation and intent, are everywhere.
> 
> Starting with Genesis-the literal interpretation of the creation myth contained therein is pretty much a dark ages phenomena-early Hebrew commentary, and even some early Christian commentary (ala Augustine) pretty much make it apparent that prior to 1200 A.D. or so, the creation myth of Genesis was seen as allegory-thusly doing away with any scientific inconsistencies it contains, like, where Cains wife came from, or  how long the days were before the sun was created, or how plants managed to survive before the sun was created-its simply someones way of explaining the universes existence, mans place in it and his evolving relationship with the Creator.
> 
> While some of the events  and people of the Old Testament can be found to have some basis in  factual event and people, the relationship of the stories to facts is open to debate. Thus, we have a city called Jericho that archaelogical evidence points to having fallen after a long siege, but no support at all for its demise as the target of supernatural sonic weaponry. Doesnt mean it didnt happen that way, and  it doesnt mean it did. And, while we can be pretty sure that there was a great flood, and that at some point, somebody was on a boat with some animals, the storys been told and retold in so many versions in the region that we can be fairly certain that his name didnt become Noah until the Hebrews got a hold of the tale, and that the boat probably just had some livestock on it, and not two of every kind of beast on earth-in fact, since the world at the time was pretty much as far as one could walk in a couple of days, for most of the people of that region, at any rate, and since we know that the flood was pretty much confined to that region, the phrase two of each kind of beast takes on a radically different meaning to the literal interpretation so often imposed on the tale.
> 
> Im not even going to get into the whole New Testament thing in this kind of detail (several different potential  debates there,starting with, say, _Nazareth_) except to point out that most accepted Biblical scholarship-and by that I mean academics in the field of religion, and not necessarily of the faith-have pretty thoroughly discredited every account or mention of Jesus ever held to be contemporaneous with the Gospels. Josephus mention of him is generally accepted as a  later addition by translators. The Gospels themselves-well, *theyre full of beauty and truth*, for those who can see it, but theyre also full of a lot of other stuff, and a lot of it is simply not historically reliable, but, speaking as a scientist, Ive pretty clearly demonstrated that just because somethings not a fact, doesnt mean its not true, and vice versa.



and what I consider the most important New Testament verses. In fact, Jesus pretty much says in them that you can toss the rest:



> [SUP]25 [/SUP]On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. Teacher, he asked, what must I do to inherit eternal life?
> [SUP]26 [/SUP]What is written in the Law? he replied. How do you read it?
> [SUP]27 [/SUP]He answered, Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind[SUP][c][/SUP]; and, Love your neighbor as yourself.[SUP][d][/SUP]
> [SUP]28 [/SUP]You have answered correctly, Jesus replied. Do this and you will live.
> [SUP]29 [/SUP]But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, And who is my neighbor?
> [SUP]30 [/SUP]In reply Jesus said: A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. [SUP]31 [/SUP]A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. [SUP]32 [/SUP]So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. [SUP]33 [/SUP]But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. [SUP]34 [/SUP]He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. [SUP]35 [/SUP]The next day he took out two denarii[SUP][e][/SUP] and gave them to the innkeeper. Look after him, he said, and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.
> [SUP]36 [/SUP]Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?
> [SUP]37 [/SUP]The expert in the law replied, The one who had mercy on him.
> Jesus told him, Go and do likewise.
> Luke 10:25-37


----------



## arnisador

elder999 said:


> what I consider the most important New Testament verses. In fact, Jesus pretty much says in them that you can toss the rest:



For me it's the triple repetition: _Peter, do you love me_...:


> So  when they had dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas,  love you me more than these? He said to him, Yes, Lord; you know that I  love you. He said to him, Feed my lambs.
> 
> He  said to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, love you me? He  said to him, Yes, Lord; you know that I love you. He said to him, Feed  my sheep.
> 
> He  said to him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, love you me? Peter was  grieved because he said to him the third time, Love you me? And he said  to him, Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you. Jesus said  to him, Feed my sheep.



Leave aside what it meant for Peter...if this isn't an entire basis for a beneficial philosophy of living then I don't know what is.


----------



## Cyriacus

arnisador said:


> So we're still supposed to be stoning women who aren't virgins and men who work on the Sabbath?



Also, theres a right and wrong way of breaking a babies head against a rock


----------



## ks - learning to fly

shesulsa said:


> we've all heard that saying ... "either it all applies or none of it applies."
> 
> what say you?



yes.


----------



## elder999

shesulsa said:


> We've all heard that saying ... "Either it all applies or none of it applies."
> 
> What say you?



*No.

(EIGHT YEARS???!!! :lfao: )*


----------



## Makalakumu

The fact that humans believe in such BS is the reason why the aliens don't want to talk to us. Lol.


----------



## elder999

Makalakumu said:


> The fact that humans believe in such BS is the reason why the aliens don't want to talk to us. Lol.



Really? Last time I talked to them, the aliens made damn sure I knew that it's one of the things they find most interesting about us.....:lfao:


----------



## MartialMellow

shesulsa said:


> We've all heard that saying ... "Either it all applies or none of it applies."
> 
> What say you?


Yes.


----------



## elder999

elder999 said:


> *No.
> 
> (EIGHT YEARS???!!! :lfao: )*



*.*


----------



## MartialMellow

Yes.


----------



## Makalakumu

elder999 said:


> Really? Last time I talked to them, the aliens made damn sure I knew that it's one of the things they find most interesting about us.....:lfao:



Those are just alien teens joy riding in the flying saucer and taking bets about which invisible sky monkey this primitive simian creature believes to exist.


----------



## wingchun100

I picked "no" because there are certain parts of it that just couldn't be true. First there was Adam and Eve. They had Cain and Abel. Then Cain slew Abel. Where did the rest of the humans come from? I haven't read the Bible in ages, but I don't remember there ever being an explanation for that. 

One preacher I knew once said, "Well, not all of the Bible is literal. Some of it is just allegories." Okay, so how are we supposed to judge which is which, and who is who? (Sorry...couldn't resist a Pink Floyd reference there.)


----------



## Buka

Of course it 100% truth. Wouldn't be written if it wasn't true. Just like in the newspapers. Or in your workplace, on your yearly evaluation - all truth. Or statements issued by a government, any government. Or on this, or any other forum. Or on Facebook.

The truth. The whole truth. Nothing but the God damn truth.


----------



## elder999

Again, eight years later, people: _the 68 degree _rule:



elder999 said:


> At John 18:37, 38 we find this interchange of words between Jesus and Pontius Pilate (which started when Jesus was on trial):
> Pilate: You arent a king, are you?
> Jesus: You are saying that Im a king. This is why I was born and why I came into the world, *to testify to the truth*. *Everyone who is on the side of truth listens to my voice*.
> Pilate: *What is truth?*
> 
> 
> _What *is* truth?_
> 
> Im in a room at 68 degrees Fahrenheit-thats a *fact.*
> 
> I say Its _cold_ in here, which, for me, is the truth.
> 
> My co worker gets up from his chair sweating, walks right over to the thermostat, turns it down even more and says, Its too  *hot* in here, which, for him, is the truth.
> 
> And there we have it: one fact, two truths, all valid.
> 
> Ive found-as a former Christian- former seminarian, son, grandson and great- grandson of ministers who has studied most of the worlds greater religious scriptures, and several different versions of the Bible-and Im a person  with a deep love and respect for the teachings of the rabbi Yeshua, faith (or lack thereof) notwithstanding--that _all the religious scriptures of the world contain much beauty and truth,_
> 
> *Facts,* however, are..well, up for discussion, if not often dubious.
> 
> Errors-in translation, interpretation and intent, are everywhere.
> 
> Starting with Genesis-the literal interpretation of the creation myth contained therein is pretty much a dark ages phenomena-early Hebrew commentary, and even some early Christian commentary (ala Augustine) pretty much make it apparent that prior to 1200 A.D. or so, the creation myth of Genesis was seen as allegory-thusly doing away with any scientific inconsistencies it contains, like, where Cains wife came from, or  how long the days were before the sun was created, or how plants managed to survive before the sun was created-its simply someones way of explaining the universes existence, mans place in it and his evolving relationship with the Creator.
> 
> While some of the events  and people of the Old Testament can be found to have some basis in  factual event and people, the relationship of the stories to facts is open to debate. Thus, we have a city called Jericho that archaelogical evidence points to having fallen after a long siege, but no support at all for its demise as the target of supernatural sonic weaponry. Doesnt mean it didnt happen that way, and  it doesnt mean it did. And, while we can be pretty sure that there was a great flood, and that at some point, somebody was on a boat with some animals, the storys been told and retold in so many versions in the region that we can be fairly certain that his name didnt become Noah until the Hebrews got a hold of the tale, and that the boat probably just had some livestock on it, and not two of every kind of beast on earth-in fact, since the world at the time was pretty much as far as one could walk in a couple of days, for most of the people of that region, at any rate, and since we know that the flood was pretty much confined to that region, the phrase two of each kind of beast takes on a radically different meaning to the literal interpretation so often imposed on the tale.
> 
> Im not even going to get into the whole New Testament thing in this kind of detail (several different potential  debates there,starting with, say, _Nazareth_) except to point out that most accepted Biblical scholarship-and by that I mean academics in the field of religion, and not necessarily of the faith-have pretty thoroughly discredited every account or mention of Jesus ever held to be contemporaneous with the Gospels. Josephus mention of him is generally accepted as a  later addition by translators. The Gospels themselves-well, *theyre full of beauty and truth*, for those who can see it, but theyre also full of a lot of other stuff, and a lot of it is simply not historically reliable, but, speaking as a scientist, Ive pretty clearly demonstrated that just because somethings not a fact, doesnt mean its not true, and vice versa.


----------



## Makalakumu

Truth is that which is confirmed by reason and evidence. 68 degrees is the only truth in the room. Peoples' experience of the truth reflect their preference. That is not truth. It is a subjective internal experience that may or may not incorporate truth.


----------



## shesulsa

So for you, a collection of data =truth. But what if not all pertinent data has been collected?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu

The truth will update in response to new information. Confirmation by reason and evidence is a process.

Also, this definition is not just the truth for me. This is how truth is arrived at no matter who you are. The truth for everyone is found by confirming it through reason and evidence whether they know about the process or not, whether they accept the process or not, or whether they are intelligent enough to understand the concept. To say that the truth "to me" implies that the truth can be different...and that's like saying that gravity can be different "to me" in this universe. 

Truth and existence are confirmed through reason and evidence. Deities do not pass the test. No religion passes this test. They are illusions, sometimes horrible, sometime beautiful, always illusions though.


----------



## elder999

Makalakumu said:


> Truth is that which is confirmed by reason and evidence. 68 degrees is the only truth in the room. Peoples' experience of the truth reflect their preference. That is not truth. It is a subjective internal experience that may or may not incorporate truth.



Nope. Sorry. 

Once again, from the _Merriam Webster English Language Technical Manual_ (that's _engineerspeak_ for "dictionary"...:lfao:  )



> *a* _archaic_ *:* fidelity, constancy
> *b* *:*  sincerity in action, character, and utterance
> 
> *2*
> *a *(1) *:*  the state of being the case *:* fact (2) *:*  the body of real things, events, and facts *:* actuality (3) _often capitalized_ *:  a transcendent fundamental or spiritual real*ity
> *b* *:*  a* judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as tru*e <_truth__s_ of thermodynamics>
> *c* *:*  the body of true statements and propositions
> 
> *3*
> *a* *:*  the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality
> *b* _chiefly British_ *:* true 2
> *c* *:*  fi*delity to an original or to a standard*




And:




> *:*  a thing done: as
> *a* _obsolete_ *:* feat
> *b* *:* crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> *c* _archaic_ *:* action
> 
> *2*
> _archaic_ *:* performance, doing
> 
> *3*
> *:*  the quality of being actual *:* actuality <a question of _fact_hinges on evidence>
> 
> *4*
> *a* *:*  something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> *b* *:*  an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 
> *5*
> *:*  a piece of information presented as having objective reality




I'll return, again, to the 68 degree rule example: if the person who claims "it's cold in here," shows the quite factual evidence of their goosebumps, then they are, in fact, displaying an autonomic reaction to what their body perceives as "cold," and that's a *fact*, on which their _truth_ is based-likewise for the person who says that "it's hot," if they are flushed or sweating. 

"Truth" is, by its very nature, subjetive, whereas facts are, by their own nature, objective. To assert otherwise is to likewise assume a subjective perception of reality: that there is nothing but "fact."

Likewise, to assert that "all religions" are "illusion" (rather than "all deities," which is another, separate discussion) is a subjective observation, and not one grounded in fact or truth-indeed, the autonomic reaction and benefits of Buddhist meditation, or shamanic ritual are grounded in fact and science-there is very little that could be said to be "illusory" about them at all-they are facts. What people have to say about their own experiences is, by nature, again, subjective, but no less true.


----------



## Makalakumu

That's why I changed my religion to the Odinic Rite. It's way cooler than Christianity and Odin spoke to me, telling me it was the best religion. How is that for Truth? Lol.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

elder999 said:


> "Truth" is, by its very nature, subjetive, whereas facts are, by their own nature, objective. To assert otherwise is to likewise assume a subjective perception of reality: that there is nothing but "fact."



So true!


----------



## elder999

Makalakumu said:


> That's why I changed my religion to the Odinic Rite. It's way cooler than Christianity and Odin spoke to me, telling me it was the best religion. How is that for Truth? Lol.



hMMM...The Nine Charges of the Odinic Rite strike me as pretty much true, issues of racism aside:



> To maintain candour and fidelity in love and devotion to the tried friend: though he strike me I will do him no scathe.
> Never to make wrongsome oath: for great and grim is the reward for the breaking of plighted troth.
> To deal not hardly with the humble and the lowly.
> To remember the respect that is due to great age.
> To suffer no evil to go unremedied and to fight against the enemies of Faith, Folk and Family: my foes I will fight in the field, nor will I stay to be burnt in my house.
> To succour the friendless but to put no faith in the pledged word of a stranger people.
> If I hear the fool's word of a drunken man I will strive not: for many a grief and the very death groweth from out such things.
> To give kind heed to dead men: straw dead, sea dead or sword dead.
> To abide by the enactments of lawful authority and to bear with courage the decrees of the Norns.


----------



## donald1

I don't know if I ever read the bible but I do know many stories in the Bible and hearing preacher tell of the bible at church.  I don't know whether it's all true or not maybe it is,  maybe it's not but ill put my faith to believe so.  It is good to have something to believe in naive or not it is a fact


----------



## Makalakumu

It's true that Odin speaks to me every night. It's true that he is the one and only god left. It's true that he thinks the truth is subjective and that the impreciseness of the word itself proof enough.

Or

Maybe the bipedal monkey things conflated some concepts when they invented English.


----------



## Makalakumu

I've thought of a different way of illustrating my point. We'll start with a question, what is the opposite of true?


----------



## elder999

Makalakumu said:


> I've thought of a different way of illustrating my point. We'll start with a question, what is the opposite of true?


_Misaligned?_ :lfao:


----------



## elder999

Makalakumu said:


> It's true that Odin speaks to me every night. It's true that he is the one and only god left. It's true that he thinks the truth is subjective and that the impreciseness of the word itself proof enough.



Of course, none of us has the means of*objectively* falsifying any of those statements. That they can be falsified is based entirely on subjective evidence: Odin hasn't spoken to any of us; there is no evidence of gods that can be objectively falsified.

I'll assert again, as elsewhere: all "evidence" of God is subjective, and only suitable for the subject who holds it to be true.

A story, posted by me earlier, for those of you who insist that "gods" are "imaginary friends."

When I was in boarding school, there were people there who might go unnoticed by some: the cafeteria workers, the janitors, the maintenance people....of course, being kids who interacted with them daily, we did notice them-we called them (for reasons lost to me) "wombats."

Some of them were cool. Some were ex-convicts and lunatics, I think. The guy who ran the cafeteria was named Lothar, and we named my first band after him, _Lothar and his Amazing Mayonnaise People_ :lfao:

I digress, though....

Two of the people I'm going to talk about here worked in the cafeteria-one fellow would come into the dining hall for his lunch break, sit down at one of the side tables, and carry on an extremely animated conversation with the empty chair across from him.

The other was a long-haired young fellow named Rick, who played some pretty excellent blues guitar and dealt what I was told was pretty bad-*** weed.....some of us would get together with him to jam, and, likely, smoke dope, which may or may not figure into this story.

One day, I had the temerity to ask Rick, _Hey-what's up with that guy who talks to himself all the time?_ To which Rick replied, _I dunno man, but I'll tell you what: one day we were loading trays of potatoes in the oven, and these things had to weigh like 200 pounds. That dude slid one out of the rack by the corner, looked over and said, "*Ya got that?*" and carried it over to the oven by the corner!!_

Now, already being of a certain bend of mind, I calculated that even including the weight of the tray, based on their observed size, and the size and weight of large russet potatoes, the tray didn't weigh 200 lbs.......though it likely weighed pretty close to 100 lbs-and carrying it that way was an impressive feat of strength...especially for such an unathletic, late middle aged, chain smoking mental patient, which is what this fellow seemed to be......of course, the story may have just been told to freak out some kids who were under the influence, but I like the metaphor:

When it comes to "god," I need my "imaginary friend to help "carry my tray" across the kitchen....and you cannot tell me he isn't there, after all-I've carried the tray with his help-I have all the evidence I need, though I can't prove a thing to you..

There may not be anyone at all there, but that *fact* (if it is a fact) doesn't make it any less_ true_ for me.


----------



## Makalakumu

elder999 said:


> _Misaligned?_ :lfao:



False! Lol!


----------



## Makalakumu

elder999 said:


> Of course, none of us has the means of*objectively* falsifying any of those statements. That they can be falsified is based entirely on subjective evidence: Odin hasn't spoken to any of us; there is no evidence of gods that can be objectively falsified.
> 
> I'll assert again, as elsewhere: all "evidence" of God is subjective, and only suitable for the subject who holds it to be true.
> 
> A story, posted by me earlier, for those of you who insist that "gods" are "imaginary friends."
> 
> When I was in boarding school, there were people there who might go unnoticed by some: the cafeteria workers, the janitors, the maintenance people....of course, being kids who interacted with them daily, we did notice them-we called them (for reasons lost to me) "wombats."
> 
> Some of them were cool. Some were ex-convicts and lunatics, I think. The guy who ran the cafeteria was named Lothar, and we named my first band after him, _Lothar and his Amazing Mayonnaise People_ :lfao:
> 
> I digress, though....
> 
> Two of the people I'm going to talk about here worked in the cafeteria-one fellow would come into the dining hall for his lunch break, sit down at one of the side tables, and carry on an extremely animated conversation with the empty chair across from him.
> 
> The other was a long-haired young fellow named Rick, who played some pretty excellent blues guitar and dealt what I was told was pretty bad-*** weed.....some of us would get together with him to jam, and, likely, smoke dope, which may or may not figure into this story.
> 
> One day, I had the temerity to ask Rick, _Hey-what's up with that guy who talks to himself all the time?_ To which Rick replied, _I dunno man, but I'll tell you what: one day we were loading trays of potatoes in the oven, and these things had to weigh like 200 pounds. That dude slid one out of the rack by the corner, looked over and said, "*Ya got that?*" and carried it over to the oven by the corner!!_
> 
> Now, already being of a certain bend of mind, I calculated that even including the weight of the tray, based on their observed size, and the size and weight of large russet potatoes, the tray didn't weigh 200 lbs.......though it likely weighed pretty close to 100 lbs-and carrying it that way was an impressive feat of strength...especially for such an unathletic, late middle aged, chain smoking mental patient, which is what this fellow seemed to be......of course, the story may have just been told to freak out some kids who were under the influence, but I like the metaphor:
> 
> When it comes to "god," I need my "imaginary friend to help "carry my tray" across the kitchen....and you cannot tell me he isn't there, after all-I've carried the tray with his help-I have all the evidence I need, though I can't prove a thing to you..
> 
> There may not be anyone at all there, but that *fact* (if it is a fact) doesn't make it any less_ true_ for me.



Thanks for the story. I think you've captured mostly how I think of gods and goddesses. They are subjective experiences, unprovable to the outside world, but still meaningful nonetheless. 

That said, I don't believe in any of them. For some reason, when I was a young boy, I could remember questioning whether any of them existed and asking any adults I could find for any tangible evidence. I mean, come on, shouldn't we have a Mt. Olympus we could go to to actually find these guys! 

Anyway, what I left with was the realization that these beings were not real. They were not like rocks or anything that you could do anything with. They were just ideas in people's heads...imaginary friends...like Santa Claus for adults, but no one is ever going to spoil.

And IMHO, humanity desperately needs these illusions to be spoiled. When the rational mind is tainted by belief in superstitious phantasms, there is a line that is drawn where that mind is no longer capable reasoning. This line is like a choke on a highly tuned engine and it holds humans back from realizing there true cognitive potential. 

Also, that line represents the point at which words will fail to sway that human. Therefore, the fists will take over. Therefore, these imaginary friends, are probably the casus belli for most of the avoidable sorrow in the world.


----------



## Xue Sheng

The wisdom that is Futurama



> God Entity: Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch, like a safecracker or a pickpocket.


 


> God Entity: When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.


----------



## PhotonGuy

The Bible as it was originally written by God through men such as Paul and Peter is 100% true. The best version of the Bible in English that I like to use is the original King James Bible of 1611, actually your "original" KJB that you find in most stores today is a version written sometime in the 1700s but that evolved from the KJB of 1611. I find that to be much better than modern versions including the new King James Bible as well as NIV or any of the other modern Bibles.


----------



## K-man

PhotonGuy said:


> The Bible as it was originally written by God through men such as Paul and Peter is 100% true. The best version of the Bible in English that I like to use is the original King James Bible of 1611, actually your "original" KJB that you find in most stores today is a version written sometime in the 1700s but that evolved from the KJB of 1611. I find that to be much better than modern versions including the new King James Bible as well as NIV or any of the other modern Bibles.


How on Earth can you make the claim that the King James Bible is the 'best'? How do you know which version is the most accurate translation? What about the Jerusalem Bible or the New Jerusalem Bible. What makes one better than another?
:asian:


----------



## Touch Of Death

Makalakumu said:


> False! Lol!


No that isn't true when you consider there are different kinds of truth. Five I think, It has been a while since that class.


----------



## PhotonGuy

K-man said:


> How on Earth can you make the claim that the King James Bible is the 'best'? How do you know which version is the most accurate translation? What about the Jerusalem Bible or the New Jerusalem Bible. What makes one better than another?
> :asian:



The best would be the original Bible as it was written in greek and hebrew by men such as Paul and Peter, actually written by God through men such as Paul and Peter. So to get the best Bible would be to get one of those original manuscripts and be able to understand it.


----------



## Touch Of Death

PhotonGuy said:


> The best would be the original Bible as it was written in greek and hebrew by men such as Paul and Peter, actually written by God through men such as Paul and Peter. So to get the best Bible would be to get one of those original manuscripts and be able to understand it.


Everyone uses Paradise Lost these days anyway. Who cares? Bring on the aliens!!! LOL


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

K-man said:


> How on Earth can you make the claim that the King James Bible is the 'best'? How do you know which version is the most accurate translation? What about the Jerusalem Bible or the New Jerusalem Bible. What makes one better than another?
> :asian:



Damned good point, the OP should have specified which version they were asking about so we know which one we're voting on.

However it wouldn't change the fact that the answer is no.


----------



## RTKDCMB

PhotonGuy said:


> The Bible as it was originally written by God through men such as Paul and Peter is 100% true.



Holy Ghostwriting.


----------



## oftheherd1

K-man said:


> How on Earth can you make the claim that the King James Bible is the 'best'? How do you know which version is the most accurate translation? What about the Jerusalem Bible or the New Jerusalem Bible. What makes one better than another?
> :asian:



Briefly, there are two streams of Greek that have been used to translate the Bible into English; Antiochian and Alexandrian.  The Greek of Antioch was used by Tyndale, Matthews, those at Geneva, and the King James Translators (and others).  The Alexandrian Greek (as well as their Latin Vulgate) was used by the Catholic Church when they finally printed a Bible in English, and for all their subsequent English translations.  It was used as the basis for the 'newly made' Greek New Testament made by Wescott and Hort.  The Wescott and Hort newly made Greek New Testament was used for the majority of the translations since the late 1800s.  Obviously there are proponents of each stream.  I recommend you search on Antiochian and Alexandrian, as well as Wescott and Hort, for more information.  You will find people who are passionate in their defense of one system, and against the other.  But it will give you information to help make up your own mind.

I personally, as I have stated before, believe in the King James Bible as the inspired and infallible word of God in the English language.  Everyone however, gets to make up their own mind.



Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Damned good point, the OP should have specified which version they were asking about so we know which one we're voting on.
> 
> However it wouldn't change the fact that the answer is no.



I guess you mean for your beliefs, not others?



RTKDCMB said:


> Holy Ghostwriting.



Not the way you meant it I suppose, but in fact, I do believe the Holy Ghost inspired the Bible writers to use the words God intended, and then inspired the King James Bible translators to use the English words they used.  I understand not everyone believes that, and that is each person's choice.


----------



## crushing

oftheherd1 said:


> Not the way you meant it I suppose, but in fact, I do believe the Holy Ghost inspired the Bible writers to use the words God intended, and then inspired the King James Bible translators to use the English words they used. * I understand not everyone believes that, and that is each person's choice*.



It tends to be much more of an inherited trait than an actual choice.


----------



## oftheherd1

crushing said:


> It tends to be much more of an inherited trait than an actual choice.



Super busy day for me.  I think I am missing something in your reply.  Can you help me out here?


----------



## elder999

_Here we go again..._

The King James Bible, or, officially, the Authorized Version, is one of the worst translations of a lot-it was, given the circumstances, still quite an accomplishment-especially for the purely poetic quality of its prose. It's beautiful. 

It's also completely and dreadfully *wrong,* in several key places in the New Testament. These are chiefly due to the Oxford Company (the committee responsible for translation of the Gospels, Acts and Book of Revelation) being dependent upon two earlier English translations, the Great Bible and the Bishops Bible, along with the terms of the commission by James VI, and having truly execrable Greek, no Hebrew and no Aramaic knowledge.

1) The Gospels repeatedly speak of Jesus as being "of Nazareth," or "from Nazareth." Archaeologically speaking, it's unlikely-Nazareth was not only a place of no particular account at the time of the Gospels, it was, at that time, a necropolis-the home of a funerary cult of pagan origins. _Such a place would be_ *unclean* _to Hebrews at the time,_ and it's likely that no Jews lived there until after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. If one remembers, though, that the Gospel writers were _Hellenized_ Hebrews, and looks to the _Koine_ Greek of the time, each time the phrase _mistranslated_ as "Jesus of Nazareth" appears, it really reads "Jesus _the Nazarene_," or _Nazarite_. Rather than a person from Nazareth-a place which essentially did not exist in the Hebrew world at that time-a Nazarite was a member of a Hebrew sect who voluntarily took the vows described in Numbers 6:1-21, essentially, to not become ritually defiled by contact with the dead, to refrain from grapes, wine and vinegar, and to not cut one's hair. After following these vows, they would make several sacrifices in the Temple, including cutting off their hair and burning it.

I won't get into the specific exegesis, but it's likely that, in addition to being a Pharisee, Paul took a Nazirite vow. 

Jesus was almost certainly a Nazir himself.

2) Very little Aramaic remained in the New Testament-it was likely originally written in Greek, though some argue that it was translated to Greek from Aramaic-but what Aramaic _does_ remain is kind of important:

Jesus repeatedly refers to the Creator as _Abba_, including in the Lord's Prayer. Unfortunately, rather than translating it properly, the committee translated it as _Our father._ What _abba_ *really* means, though, is _daddy,_ which is simply _beautiful:_ Jesus refers to the Creator not as "my Father," or "our Father," but in very familiar and intimate terms, and encourages His followers to do the same.

Jesus also cries out on the cross, _Eli,Eli, lama sabacthani,_ commonly translated as _My God, my God, why hast thou_ *forsaken* _me?_ In addition to meaning "forsaken," though, the Aramaic verb form _shabacthani_ also means several other things in addition to _forsake_ or _divorce_, including _bequeath_ , _bestow_, _forgive_, and, most especially for our purposes here, _entrust_-the translation used in the Syriac and Coptic Bibles. Lest we remain thoroughly Eurocentric, the Syriac and Coptic Bibles are the oldest extant translations in continuous use of *ANY* translation of the Bible, and Syriac is, essentially, Aramaic-at least, its relationship to Aramaic is analogous to modern Greek's relationship to Koine Greek.

In any case, I put it to you: which makes more sense? That a man-who is more than simply a man-on a mission from God-should cry out at the fulfillment of that mission, _My God, my God! Why hast thou forsaken me?_ In seemingly utter despair?

Or, a cry of triumph, _My God. My God! This is_ *WHY* _I was_ *FORSWORN!!*

I actually could go on....and on...and on.....but I think all get the point: as full of beauty and truth as it is, the King James Bible kinda sucks-especially as a translation, full of fabrications and errors.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

oftheherd1 said:


> I guess you mean for your beliefs, not others?



Nope, I meant that whichever version of the bible you ask the question of, the correct answer will always be no.

That's a fact, regardless of what anyone else chooses to believe.


----------



## RTKDCMB

oftheherd1 said:


> Super busy day for me.  I think I am missing something in your reply.  Can you help me out here?



"It tends to be much more of an inherited trait than an actual choice." 

I think he means that most people get their religious views/beliefs from their parents/family/community rather than coming by them on their own.


----------



## RTKDCMB

oftheherd1 said:


> I do believe the Holy Ghost inspired the Bible writers to use the words God intended, and then inspired the King James Bible translators to use the English words they used.  I understand not everyone believes that, and that is each person's choice.



Then here's a question; why would an all powerful, all knowing, all seeing being who created the whole entire Universe need someone else to write his book for him? Couldn't he have just poofed it into existence?


----------



## elder999

RTKDCMB said:


> Then here's a question; why would an all powerful, all knowing, all seeing being who created the whole entire Universe need someone else to write his book for him? Couldn't he have just poofed it into existence?



Why would a mother carry a toddler, rather than let him walk for himself?


----------



## RTKDCMB

elder999 said:


> Why would a mother carry a toddler, rather than let him walk for himself?



So are you saying the Human race are akin to infants or that the Human race needs to be carried? Or maybe you are saying the Human race is getting carried away?


----------



## oftheherd1

elder999 said:


> _Here we go again..._
> 
> The King James Bible, or, officially, the Authorized Version, is one of the worst translations of a lot-it was, given the circumstances, still quite an accomplishment-especially for the purely poetic quality of its prose. It's beautiful.
> 
> It's also completely and dreadfully *wrong,* in several key places in the New Testament. These are chiefly due to the Oxford Company (the committee responsible for translation of the Gospels, Acts and Book of Revelation) being dependent upon two earlier English translations, the Great Bible and the Bishops Bible, along with the terms of the commission by James VI, and having truly execrable Greek, no Hebrew and no Aramaic knowledge.
> 
> 1) The Gospels repeatedly speak of Jesus as being "of Nazareth," or "from Nazareth." Archaeologically speaking, it's unlikely-Nazareth was not only a place of no particular account at the time of the Gospels, it was, at that time, a necropolis-the home of a funerary cult of pagan origins. _Such a place would be_ *unclean* _to Hebrews at the time,_ and it's likely that no Jews lived there until after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. If one remembers, though, that the Gospel writers were _Hellenized_ Hebrews, and looks to the _Koine_ Greek of the time, each time the phrase _mistranslated_ as "Jesus of Nazareth" appears, it really reads "Jesus _the Nazarene_," or _Nazarite_. Rather than a person from Nazareth-a place which essentially did not exist in the Hebrew world at that time-a Nazarite was a member of a Hebrew sect who voluntarily took the vows described in Numbers 6:1-21, essentially, to not become ritually defiled by contact with the dead, to refrain from grapes, wine and vinegar, and to not cut one's hair. After following these vows, they would make several sacrifices in the Temple, including cutting off their hair and burning it.
> 
> I won't get into the specific exegesis, but it's likely that, in addition to being a Pharisee, Paul took a Nazirite vow.
> 
> Jesus was almost certainly a Nazir himself.
> 
> 2) Very little Aramaic remained in the New Testament-it was likely originally written in Greek, though some argue that it was translated to Greek from Aramaic-but what Aramaic _does_ remain is kind of important:
> 
> Jesus repeatedly refers to the Creator as _Abba_, including in the Lord's Prayer. Unfortunately, rather than translating it properly, the committee translated it as _Our father._ What _abba_ *really* means, though, is _daddy,_ which is simply _beautiful:_ Jesus refers to the Creator not as "my Father," or "our Father," but in very familiar and intimate terms, and encourages His followers to do the same.
> 
> Jesus also cries out on the cross, _Eli,Eli, lama sabacthani,_ commonly translated as _My God, my God, why hast thou_ *forsaken* _me?_ In addition to meaning "forsaken," though, the Aramaic verb form _shabacthani_ also means several other things in addition to _forsake_ or _divorce_, including _bequeath_ , _bestow_, _forgive_, and, most especially for our purposes here, _entrust_-the translation used in the Syriac and Coptic Bibles. Lest we remain thoroughly Eurocentric, the Syriac and Coptic Bibles are the oldest extant translations in continuous use of *ANY* translation of the Bible, and Syriac is, essentially, Aramaic-at least, its relationship to Aramaic is analogous to modern Greek's relationship to Koine Greek.
> 
> In any case, I put it to you: which makes more sense? That a man-who is more than simply a man-on a mission from God-should cry out at the fulfillment of that mission, _My God, my God! Why hast thou forsaken me?_ In seemingly utter despair?
> 
> Or, a cry of triumph, _My God. My God! This is_ *WHY* _I was_ *FORSWORN!!*
> 
> I actually could go on....and on...and on.....but I think all get the point: as full of beauty and truth as it is, the King James Bible kinda sucks-especially as a translation, full of fabrications and errors.



First, I  don't want anyone to think Iam a Bible scholar.  I am not.  Things that I say below are my wordsfor which I alone am responsible, but taken from reading several books on the subject.  Do not take what I say as if I were an expert. I believe what I say is correct, but do look things up for yourselves.


There are something like 21 verses thatare translated &#8220;Jesus of Nazareth,&#8221; not &#8220;Jesus the Nazarene.&#8221; That is true of numerous translations, KJV, NIV, NKJV, Douay-Rheims, Reina Valera, Wycliffe, and others.  The translation I accept, as I have mentioned many times, is the King James Version (KJV).  I don't know what translation you have used Elder, to try to make your case.  Below are several verses you can look up in other translations.  Note that even Pilate is reported to have ordered a sign saying Jesus was from Nazareth, not a Nazarene (one who had taken a vow).


Matthew 21:11, Mark 1:9, Mark 1:24,Mark 16:6, Luke 4:34, John 1:45, John 19:19, Act 22:29


 I believe that considering that Wycliffe was translated from the Catholic Latin Vulgate, and that apparently, from the Bibles shown to Constantine, they and those Greek verses from the Textus Receptus were close enough to biblical times to have known if Nazareth was a place, and if the writings meant Jesus was from Nazareth rather than a person who had taken a specific vow.  


I also believe the translators of the KJV were very learned men.  They are reported as men who spoke and taught the languages they were to translate.  The Oxford Company you refer to was the 2nd Oxford Company, responsible for translating the Gospels, Acts, and Revelations.  You seem to want to blame any other supposed mis-translations on them.  They did have the Great (or Chained) Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Textus Receptus, translations of Tyndale, the Bishops Bible, the Latin Vulgate, Vaticanus, and more.  They weren't using the Great Bible nor the Geneva Bible for translation per se.  Those were already translated.


You did not mention the process of translation and verification.  Each person on each committee gave his translation to other members of his committee.  If any other disagreed with a translation, they discussed it until they agreed what was correct.  It then went to the other committees where the same process was used.  All translations were also offered to learned scholars who were not on the committees for comment.  Finally, select members made a final check of the translation before it waspublished.


I only know of three verses where the term abba is used.  Jesus only used it in one of those.  I personally believe the King James Version to be a correct translation.  Again, Idon't know what translation you use for your belief.


Again, considering Matt 27:46 and Mark15:34.  Numerous translations agree with &#8220;My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?&#8221;  Psalm 22:1, is accepted as prophetic about Jesus.  It is translated as &#8220;My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?&#8221;


I don't know on what you base yourstatement that Jesus had taken a nazarite vow. His first miracle is reported to have been turning water into wine.  He shared a cup of wine with His apostles before His death.  The Bible doesn't mention Him taking nor completing a nazarite vow, which surely would have been important enough to mention.

EDIT:  There are many words above that are stuck together.  I don't know why.  I have tried to correct them, but each time I do, another set appears.  It may have to do with the length of the post, or my browser.


----------



## oftheherd1

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Nope, I meant that whichever version of the bible you ask the question of, the correct answer will always be no.
> 
> That's a fact, regardless of what anyone else chooses to believe.



That is only from your perspective.  If any other person believes any translation of the Bible to be true and correct, their answer would not be in the negative.

Belief or non-belief in the Bible is a personal thing.


----------



## oftheherd1

RTKDCMB said:


> Then here's a question; why would an all powerful, all knowing, all seeing being who created the whole entire Universe need someone else to write his book for him? Couldn't he have just poofed it into existence?



Maybe you should ask Him.

I can't tell you why God does anything He does, unless He tells us in His word.  But as God and creator, He gets to do things the way He wishes.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

oftheherd1 said:


> That is only from your perspective.  If any other person believes any translation of the Bible to be true and correct, their answer would not be in the negative.
> 
> Belief or non-belief in the Bible is a personal thing.



Agreed that belief is a personal thing, but it doesn't alter the facts.

Even if the bible were 99% truth, then the correct answer would be no.

Just off the top of my head doesn't Genesis say that God created all the animals in one day? We know that is not correct, as evolution is a fact. If some people choose not to believe in evolution then that's their choice, but it doesn't change the fact that they're wrong.

There are countless other examples in this thread from people far more knowledgeable on the subject than I on why it cannot be 100% true.

Same as some people believe the earth is flat (again that's their choice) but the rest of us know for a fact that it isn't.

I'm not saying the bible is 0% true, but 100%? Definitely not.


----------



## elder999

oftheherd1 said:


> There are something like 21 verses thatare translated &#8220;Jesus of Nazareth,&#8221; not &#8220;Jesus the Nazarene.&#8221; That is true of numerous translations, KJV, NIV, NKJV, Douay-Rheims, Reina Valera, Wycliffe, and others. The translation I accept, as I have mentioned many times, is the King James Version (KJV). I don't know what translation you have used Elder, to try to make your case



Not "translations," the way you think of them. Among other sources, the Syriac Sinaiticus-in, you know, _Syriac_, dating to the 4th century. 



oftheherd1 said:


> I believe that considering that Wycliffe was translated from the Catholic Latin Vulgate, and that apparently, from the Bibles shown to Constantine, they and those Greek verses from the Textus Receptus were close enough to biblical times to have known if Nazareth was a place, and if the writings meant Jesus was from Nazareth rather than a person who had taken a specific vow.



Not only was it mistranslated from the various Greek manuscripts (some of whic I've read in, you know, _Greek_ :lfao: ), but archaeologically, Nazareth was not a Hebrew place at the time of the Gospels-barely closely: they've only recently discovered what's being called a "Jewish house" dating from just after the fall of Jerusalem there-all earlier archaeological finds are decidedly not Hebraic.




oftheherd1 said:


> I also believe the translators of the KJV were very learned men. They are reported as men who spoke and taught the languages they were to translate. The Oxford Company you refer to was the 2nd Oxford Company, responsible for translating the Gospels, Acts, and Revelations. You seem to want to blame any other supposed mis-translations on them. They did have the Great (or Chained) Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Textus Receptus, translations of Tyndale, the Bishops Bible, the Latin Vulgate, Vaticanus, and more. They weren't using the Great Bible nor the Geneva Bible for translation per se. Those were already translated.




It's here that I need to remind you that my dad was an Episcopal priest. My grandfather was an Episcopal priest. My early education was focused on my becoming an Episcopal priest, and all those men-with the exception of the thre "Greek scholars"- on the Second Oxford Company (the "First Oxford Company" translated some Old Testament books) were bishops or prelates of the Church of England-later to become the Episcopal Church  here in America. The three Greek scholars were Sir Henry Savile, John Perrins and Ralph Ravens-all of whom were learned men in _Homeric_ Greek, not _Koine_ Greek. They made mistakes.




oftheherd1 said:


> You did not mention the process of translation and verification. Each person on each committee gave his translation to other members of his committee. If any other disagreed with a translation, they discussed it until they agreed what was correct. It then went to the other committees where the same process was used. All translations were also offered to learned scholars who were not on the committees for comment. Finally, select members made a final check of the translation before it waspublished.



I'm reminded of a story of another committe, one made up of blind men describing an elephant......:lfao:






oftheherd1 said:


> I only know of three verses where the term abba is used. Jesus only used it in one of those.



That's 'cause you've only read it in English. Sorry.



oftheherd1 said:


> Again, considering Matt 27:46 and Mark15:34. Numerous translations agree with &#8220;My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?&#8221; Psalm 22:1, is accepted as prophetic about Jesus. It is translated as &#8220;My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?&#8221;



It's tranlated *wrong.*



oftheherd1 said:


> I don't know on what you base yourstatement that Jesus had taken a nazarite vow. His first miracle is reported to have been turning water into wine. He shared a cup of wine with His apostles before His death. The Bible doesn't mention Him taking nor completing a nazarite vow, which surely would have been important enough to mention.



The vow of a Nazirite could be taken for a term: if one declared themselves a "Nazirite like Samson," they could even touch the dead-assuming that they made them that way. The vow might be taken for life.....or  30 days........_or 40 days and nights in the wilderness_...it ended with the sacrifices in the Temple, and the cutting off of one's hair...

That wedding at Cana, and turning water into wine? Likely Jesus's *own *wedding....


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

elder999 said:


> Why would a mother carry a toddler, rather than let him walk for himself?



Just a thought, why did God just give Moses the 10 commandments and not inspire or influence him to get his chisel out?

It's no wonder there's so much debate on the subject when He has such an inconsistent approach.


----------



## elder999

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Just a thought, why did God just give Moses the 10 commandments and not inspire or influence him to get his chisel out?
> .



Considering that there are, in fact, something like 600 odd _mitzvot_, or commandments in Mosaic law, you could say that's exactly what happened! :lfao:


----------



## oftheherd1

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Agreed that belief is a personal thing, but it doesn't alter the facts.
> 
> Even if the bible were 99% truth, then the correct answer would be no.
> 
> *Just off the top of my head doesn't Genesis say that God created all the animals in one day? We know that is not correct, as evolution is a fact. If some people choose not to believe in evolution then that's their choice, but it doesn't change the fact that they're wrong.*
> 
> There are countless other examples in this thread from people far more knowledgeable on the subject than I on why it cannot be 100% true.
> 
> Same as some people believe the earth is flat (again that's their choice) but the rest of us know for a fact that it isn't.
> 
> I'm not saying the bible is 0% true, but 100%? Definitely not.



No.


----------



## crushing

elder999 said:


> _Here we go again..._
> 
> The King James Bible, or, officially, the Authorized Version, is one of the worst translations of a lot-it was, given the circumstances, still quite an accomplishment-especially for the purely poetic quality of its prose. It's beautiful.
> 
> It's also completely and dreadfully *wrong,* in several key places in the New Testament. These are chiefly due to the Oxford Company (the committee responsible for translation of the Gospels, Acts and Book of Revelation) being dependent upon two earlier English translations, the Great Bible and the Bishops Bible, along with the terms of the commission by James VI, and having truly execrable Greek, no Hebrew and no Aramaic knowledge.
> 
> [...]
> 
> I actually could go on....and on...and on.....but I think all get the point: as full of beauty and truth as it is, the King James Bible kinda sucks-especially as a translation, full of fabrications and errors.




Here is an interesting website where some people took the time to map out contradictions, historical inaccuracies, and scientific absurdities of the KJV Bible.

BibViz Project - Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized


----------



## elder999

*






			
				Hong Kong Pooey said:
			
		




 
Just off the top of my head doesn't Genesis say that God created all the animals in one day? We know that is not correct, as evolution is a fact. If some people choose not to believe in evolution then that's their choice, but it doesn't change the fact that they're wrong.
		
Click to expand...

*



oftheherd1 said:


> No.



Pretty much, actually: fish and birds on the fifth, animals and men on the sixth.....of course, Genesis has the sun being created on the fourth day, we can't really say that they're literal, 24 hr. days, can we? :lfao:


----------



## oftheherd1

elder999 said:


> Not "translations," the way you think of them. Among other sources, the Syriac Sinaiticus-in, you know, _Syriac_, dating to the 4th century.
> 
> 
> Not only was it mistranslated from the various Greek manuscripts (some of whic I've read in, you know, _Greek_ :lfao: ), but archaeologically, Nazareth was not a Hebrew place at the time of the Gospels-barely closely: they've only recently discovered what's being called a "Jewish house" dating from just after the fall of Jerusalem there-all earlier archaeological finds are decidedly not Hebraic.



Syriac Sinaiticus?  Thanks.  I hadn't heard of that before and had to look it up.  Is it in any way related to the Codex Sinaiticus discovered by Tischendorf?  Also discovered at the Monastery of Saint Catherine, on Mount Sinai.  That Codex doesn't agree with other Alexandrian texts, much less Textus Receptus texts.  It was found in a trash can at Saint Catherine's Monastery, so even the monks there apparently didn't think much of it, even though they tried to get money from Tischendorf for it.  Perhaps of the same provenance?

Mistranslated from what documents?  I am not a Greek scholar, only able to understand a few words, but I can pronounce the alphabet.  I looked at Stephanus 1550, Westcott and Hort's 1881, Scrivener's 1894, and the SBL Greek New Testament.  You may expect I am not a fan of the last three, but still, all show Nazareth.  I have looked at other English translations, Spanish translations, even Vietnamese translations.  All show Nazareth.  Surely there must have been a Nazareth that Bible-age people were aware of, that was inhabited by hebrews.



elder999 said:


> It's here that I need to remind you that my dad was an Episcopal priest. My grandfather was an Episcopal priest. My early education was focused on my becoming an Episcopal priest, and all those men-with the exception of the thre "Greek scholars"- on the Second Oxford Company (the "First Oxford Company" translated some Old Testament books) were bishops or prelates of the Church of England-later to become the Episcopal Church here in America. The three Greek scholars were Sir Henry Savile, John Perrins and Ralph Ravens-all of whom were learned men in _Homeric_ Greek, not _Koine_ Greek. They made mistakes.



Readings that I have done indicate that all members of the different committees were Biblical (Koine) Greek scholars.  Then before the final check by committee leaders, experts from outside the committees were invited to check the translation.  And there were certainly more than just three on the 2nd Oxford committee.



elder999 said:


> I'm reminded of a story of another committe, one made up of blind men describing an elephant......:lfao:



Your point on the blind men and an elephant fails.  The story never talks about the blind men having any animal expertise.  They did not consult with other blind men committees on what they understood.  They did not resolve differences on what they understood.  They did not offer other expert blind men an opportunity to comment on their observations.  There was no final committee of committee leaders who painstakingly went over the findings.




elder999 said:


> That's 'cause you've only read it in English. Sorry.



A search on the onlinebible for "abba" in the KJV shows the below three verses.  A search for "&#945;&#946;&#946;&#945;" in Stephanus shows the same three verses.

Mark 14:36 in Stephanus:  &#954;&#945;&#953; &#949;&#955;&#949;&#947;&#949;&#957; *&#945;&#946;&#946;&#945;* &#959; &#960;&#945;&#964;&#951;&#961; &#960;&#945;&#957;&#964;&#945; &#948;&#965;&#957;&#945;&#964;&#945; &#963;&#959;&#953; &#960;&#945;&#961;&#949;&#957;&#949;&#947;&#954;&#949; &#964;&#959; &#960;&#959;&#964;&#951;&#961;&#953;&#959;&#957; &#945;&#960; &#949;&#956;&#959;&#965; &#964;&#959;&#965;&#964;&#959; &#945;&#955;&#955; &#959;&#965; &#964;&#953; &#949;&#947;&#969; &#952;&#949;&#955;&#969; &#945;&#955;&#955;&#945; &#964;&#953; &#963;&#965;
Mark 14:36 in the KJV:  And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.
Romans 8:15 in Stephanus:&#959;&#965; &#947;&#945;&#961; &#949;&#955;&#945;&#946;&#949;&#964;&#949; &#960;&#957;&#949;&#965;&#956;&#945; &#948;&#959;&#965;&#955;&#949;&#953;&#945;&#962; &#960;&#945;&#955;&#953;&#957; &#949;&#953;&#962; &#966;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#957; &#945;&#955;&#955; &#949;&#955;&#945;&#946;&#949;&#964;&#949; &#960;&#957;&#949;&#965;&#956;&#945; &#965;&#953;&#959;&#952;&#949;&#963;&#953;&#945;&#962; &#949;&#957; &#969; &#954;&#961;&#945;&#950;&#959;&#956;&#949;&#957; *&#945;&#946;&#946;&#945;* &#959; &#960;&#945;&#964;&#951;&#961;
Romans 8:15 in the KJV:  For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
Galatians 4:6 in Stephanus:&#959;&#964;&#953; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#963;&#964;&#949; &#965;&#953;&#959;&#953; &#949;&#958;&#945;&#960;&#949;&#963;&#964;&#949;&#953;&#955;&#949;&#957; &#959; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; &#964;&#959; &#960;&#957;&#949;&#965;&#956;&#945; &#964;&#959;&#965; &#965;&#953;&#959;&#965; &#945;&#965;&#964;&#959;&#965; &#949;&#953;&#962; &#964;&#945;&#962; &#954;&#945;&#961;&#948;&#953;&#945;&#962; &#965;&#956;&#969;&#957; &#954;&#961;&#945;&#950;&#959;&#957; *&#945;&#946;&#946;&#945;* &#959; &#960;&#945;&#964;&#951;&#961;
Galatians 4:6 in the KJV:  And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

NOTE:  Abba in the Greek is surprisingly easy to see, but I underlined and bolded it nonetheless.



elder999 said:


> It's tranlated *wrong.
> *



Perhaps you could tell all of us what this verse from Stephanus means:  &#960;&#949;&#961;&#953; &#948;&#949; &#964;&#951;&#957; &#949;&#957;&#957;&#945;&#964;&#951;&#957; &#969;&#961;&#945;&#957; &#945;&#957;&#949;&#946;&#959;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#959; &#953;&#951;&#963;&#959;&#965;&#962; &#966;&#969;&#957;&#951; &#956;&#949;&#947;&#945;&#955;&#951; &#955;&#949;&#947;&#969;&#957; &#951;&#955;&#953; &#951;&#955;&#953; &#955;&#945;&#956;&#945; &#963;&#945;&#946;&#945;&#967;&#952;&#945;&#957;&#953; &#964;&#959;&#965;&#964; &#949;&#963;&#964;&#953;&#957; &#952;&#949;&#949; &#956;&#959;&#965; &#952;&#949;&#949; &#956;&#959;&#965; &#953;&#957;&#945;&#964;&#953; &#956;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#954;&#945;&#964;&#949;&#955;&#953;&#960;&#949;&#962;

Or even this one from Wescott and Hort?  &#960;&#949;&#961;&#953; &#948;&#949; &#964;&#951;&#957; &#949;&#957;&#945;&#964;&#951;&#957; &#969;&#961;&#945;&#957; &#949;&#946;&#959;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#959; &#953;&#951;&#963;&#959;&#965;&#962; &#966;&#969;&#957;&#951; &#956;&#949;&#947;&#945;&#955;&#951; &#955;&#949;&#947;&#969;&#957; &#949;&#955;&#969;&#953; &#949;&#955;&#969;&#953; &#955;&#949;&#956;&#945; &#963;&#945;&#946;&#945;&#967;&#952;&#945;&#957;&#953; &#964;&#959;&#965;&#964; &#949;&#963;&#964;&#953;&#957; &#952;&#949;&#949; &#956;&#959;&#965; &#952;&#949;&#949; &#956;&#959;&#965; &#953;&#957;&#945;&#964;&#953; &#956;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#954;&#945;&#964;&#949;&#955;&#953;&#960;&#949;&#962;



elder999 said:


> That wedding at Cana, and turning water into wine? Likely Jesus's *own *wedding....



Jesus's own wedding?  Wow.  I don't know how you come to that conclusion.  I have never heard anyone say that before, nor have my readings of the Bible suggested any such thing.  In John chapter 2, there is mention of Jesus being called to the wedding, not celebrating His own wedding.  There is also a bridegroom mentioned, but not identified as Jesus.  Not to mention the fact that there is never any mention in the Bible of Jesus having a wife; it would not be consistent with His nature, being God as well as man.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

elder999 said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much, actually: fish and birds on the fifth, animals and men on the sixth.....of course, Genesis has the sun being created on the fourth day, we can't really say that they're literal, 24 hr. days, can we? :lfao:



Apparently some people can.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary


----------



## elder999

oftheherd1 said:


> Readings that I have done indicate that all members of the different committees were Biblical (Koine) Greek scholars.  Then before the final check by committee leaders, experts from outside the committees were invited to check the translation.  And there were certainly more than just three on the 2nd Oxford committee.



And yet, it is as I said-the Second Oxford company had three "Greek scholars," all laymen-academics-and none with more than rudimentary knowledge of Koine Greek-their lessons, examinations and dissertations were in Homeric Greek.






oftheherd1 said:


> Perhaps you could tell all of us what this verse from Stephanus means:  &#960;&#949;&#961;&#953; &#948;&#949; &#964;&#951;&#957; &#949;&#957;&#957;&#945;&#964;&#951;&#957; &#969;&#961;&#945;&#957; &#945;&#957;&#949;&#946;&#959;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#959; &#953;&#951;&#963;&#959;&#965;&#962; &#966;&#969;&#957;&#951; &#956;&#949;&#947;&#945;&#955;&#951; &#955;&#949;&#947;&#969;&#957; &#951;&#955;&#953; &#951;&#955;&#953;&#945;* &#963;&#945;&#946;&#945;&#967;&#952;&#945;&#957;* &#955;&#945;&#956;&#953; &#964;&#959;&#965;&#964; &#949;&#963;&#964;&#953;&#957; &#952;&#949;&#949; &#956;&#959;&#965; &#952;&#949;&#949; &#956;&#959;&#965; &#953;&#957;&#945;&#964;&#953; &#956;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#954;&#945;&#964;&#949;&#955;&#953;&#960;&#949;&#962;
> 
> .




_ Around the ninth hour _ (three o'clock) _ Jesus called out (loud?), " Eli, Eli, *Lama sabachthani*-Which _(that) _means , "My God, My God, why did _(have) _you *leave* _(left)[_ me?"_

Interstingly, the transliteration of the verb form, of the past-plu perfect, to have, lama,  &#955;&#945;&#956;&#945; , should actually phonetically be more like "lema, "  &#955;&#949;&#956;&#945;, and "forsaken" is also all wrong-part of an attempt to tie it to Psalm 20, and thus to prophecy-not only a mistranslation and transliteration, but a bit of possible  deliberate revisionism-*Left*, of course, is completely wrong, though it does get wrangled about in the rather long-winded and ridiculous contortions about God's grace departing because Jesus had to go to hell.......

Now, do you really want to do this dance with me, or try accepting that I at least know what I say I know: I'm the victim, after all, of a classical education-I had to take Homeric Greek and Latin in high school, and I have a facility for languages-I didearn a degree in religious studies. I did drop out of seminary (and M.I.T., later, but what the hell :lfao: )-and, even if those things weren't true, I can use an online Greek concordance as well as you have......probably better...:lfao:






oftheherd1 said:


> Jesus's own wedding?  Wow.  I don't know how you come to that conclusion.  I have never heard anyone say that before, nor have my readings of the Bible suggested any such thing.  In John chapter 2, there is mention of Jesus being called to the wedding, not celebrating His own wedding.  There is also a bridegroom mentioned, but not identified as Jesus.  Not to mention the fact that there is never any mention in the Bible of Jesus having a wife; it would not be consistent with His nature, being God as well as man.



Interestingly, we now come to Hebrew...throughout all translations, Jesus is referred to as "Master," or *rabbi.*] "Rabbi" is  title reserved for married men, There is no mention of Jesus's beard, sword, or tools anywhere in the Bible, yet these are all things he surely had. As for the nature of God-well, I wouldn't even begin to speculate on the nature of the unknowable here, but Jesus was also a *man*, and men have wives-in the culture of that time, no one would have taken him at all seriously or called him "Rabbi"  if he were not married....there is a bridegroom mentioned, but not identified at all..


As for the wedding at Cana, it's purely speculation,but, if one  pays attention, Jesus's Mother (never identified by name in your version of John) is acting more like the mother of the groom-and hostess-than a simple guest when she tells her son they need more wine.

Now, it's bed for me,: 115 degrees or so tomorrow, and I have to be at work by 0530......and arguing about this is pretty boring after eight years-keep your book, and your faith, and get whatever you can from them: believe it to be the undisputed, divinely inspired, one true Bible all you like.

It's *not*, though. Not even close.

(I mean, _honestly_??  "it would not be consistent with His nature, being God as well as man???" Talk about a blind man, grasping the tail of an elephant, and telling me that it's nature is that of a snake......:lfao: )


----------



## crushing

If the Bible is 100% true, aliens are going to Hell.  Right?

Creationist Ken Ham Says Aliens Will Go To Hell So Let's Stop Looking For Them


----------



## RTKDCMB

crushing said:


> If the Bible is 100% true, aliens are going to Hell.  Right?
> 
> Creationist Ken Ham Says Aliens Will Go To Hell So Let's Stop Looking For Them



Ken Ham doesn't want aliens to be found because if and when they are the whole world will know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is wrong about everything.


----------



## Cirdan

Bah christianity stole hel(l) from Nordic Mythology. Truth is Odin and his brothers killed the giant Yme and created the world from his dead body, from his blood the ocean, from his bones the hills, from his hair the trees, from his brains the clouds, from his skull the heavens, and from his eyebrows the nothern lights. 100% fact. Then they created Valkyries and had a party.


----------



## elder999

crushing said:


> If the Bible is 100% true, aliens are going to Hell. Right?
> 
> Creationist Ken Ham Says Aliens Will Go To Hell So Let's Stop Looking For Them




Hey, now-we ALL might just be surprised if we do find an alien civilization-maybe they had Jesus, too?


----------



## elder999

Cirdan said:


> Bah christianity stole hel(l) from Nordic Mythology. Truth is Odin and his brothers killed the giant Yme and created the world from his dead body, from his blood the ocean, from his bones the hills, from his hair the trees, from his brains the clouds, from his skull the heavens, and from his eyebrows the nothern lights. 100% fact. Then they created Valkyries and had a party.



The Christian idea of "hell" ctually is a conflation of Nordic and Roman/Greek traditions with Hebraic ones.....


----------



## Cirdan

elder999 said:


> Hey, now-we ALL might just be surprised if we do find an alien civilization-maybe they had Jesus, too?



That dress wearing desert hippie is highly overrated. Allfather Odin on the other hand..


----------



## ballen0351

It's kind of funny a few months ago I posted a topic about the NSA would not listen in on mosques phone calls but would other Americans and I got an warning for being disrespectful towards muslims but this thread is full of disrespectful and ignorant comments about Christians and it funny right?  That's pretty interesting come Aug 1 other "controversial" sections of this forum will be removed I wonder if this gets to stay


----------



## Cirdan

Negative rep? Oh Thor willeth smitethet thee with lightning for this _disrespect_.


----------



## crushing

ballen0351 said:


> It's kind of funny a few months ago I posted a topic about the NSA would not listen in on mosques phone calls but would other Americans and I got an warning for being disrespectful towards muslims but this thread is full of disrespectful and ignorant comments about Christians and it funny right?  That's pretty interesting come Aug 1 other "controversial" sections of this forum will be removed I wonder if this gets to stay



Which comments do you find disrespectful and ignorant?  Please join in and counter the ignorance rather than wage some vague generalizations of persecution.


----------



## ballen0351

crushing said:


> Which comments do you find disrespectful and ignorant?  Please join in and counter the ignorance rather than wage some vague generalizations of persecution.



Calling Jesus a dress wearing over rated hippy, Putting up a photo of Jesus as an alien and that just this page. I wonder how understanding people would be if we did that when talking about other religions?  Not very I assume since if you did the same thing about Muhammad in say Egypt you would be killed.  Id rather not "Join in"  Im just wondering if this stuff gets to stay after Aug 1st?


----------



## crushing

ballen0351 said:


> Calling Jesus a dress wearing over rated hippy, Putting up a photo of Jesus as an alien and that just this page. I wonder how understanding people would be if we did that when talking about other religions?  Not very I assume since if you did the same thing about Muhammad in say Egypt you would be killed.  Id rather not "Join in"  Im just wondering if this stuff gets to stay after Aug 1st?



Not sure what the lack of civil rights in Egypt have to do with this discussion.  Anyway, this thread isn't about other religions, it's specifically about the rationalizing the Bible as truth.  If you are so compelled to find out, you may start another poll/thread asking the same of another religion's holy text.  I think it's a good question for you to follow up on, that is, if you are genuinely interested.

Cheers


----------



## Touch Of Death

ballen0351 said:


> Calling Jesus a dress wearing over rated hippy, Putting up a photo of Jesus as an alien and that just this page. I wonder how understanding people would be if we did that when talking about other religions?  Not very I assume since if you did the same thing about Muhammad in say Egypt you would be killed.  Id rather not "Join in"  Im just wondering if this stuff gets to stay after Aug 1st?


The answer is, yes.


----------



## ballen0351

crushing said:


> Not sure what the lack of civil rights in Egypt have to do with this discussion.  Anyway, this thread isn't about other religions, it's specifically about the rationalizing the Bible as truth.  If you are so compelled to find out, you may start another poll/thread asking the same of another religion's holy text.  I think it's a good question for you to follow up on, that is, if you are genuinely interested.
> 
> Cheers


I think people should be more respectful but I know that wont happen so whatever floats your boat


----------



## Touch Of Death

elder999 said:


> Hey, now-we ALL might just be surprised if we do find an alien civilization-maybe they had Jesus, too?
> 
> View attachment 18849


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUZE_AYUPmk&feature=share Now, lets pretend that there were no aliens, and all this was explained, plain as day, in the Bible.


----------



## crushing

ballen0351 said:


> I think people should be more respectful but I know that wont happen so whatever floats your boat



I've noticed that you have become more respectful in the last couple weeks.  You've really toned down the insults and personal attacks.  I appreciate that.  Maybe others you consider disrespectful will also come around to your view of respect.


----------



## ballen0351

crushing said:


> I've noticed that you have become more respectful in the last couple weeks.  You've really toned down the insults and personal attacks.  I appreciate that.  Maybe others you consider disrespectful will also come around to your view of respect.



So your saying you can't have a discussion about the bible without calling Jesus a dress wearing hippy alien?


----------



## crushing

ballen0351 said:


> So your saying you can't have a discussion about the bible without calling Jesus a dress wearing hippy alien?



Yep.  That's exactly what I said.  You pretty much quoted me verbatim.

:idunno:


----------



## ballen0351

crushing said:


> Yep.  That's exactly what I said.  You pretty much quoted me verbatim.
> 
> :idunno:



I didnt say thats what you said I asked a question.  See the ? at the end.  However you don't seem to think having an adult conversation with out name calling and making jokes about ones faith is possible.  In fact you deny it even happens.   Saying I was making vague reference to persecution.   You had no issue with what they say or do you?


----------



## oftheherd1

elder999 said:


> Originally Posted by oftheherd1  _Readings that I have done indicate that all members of the different committees were Biblical (Koine) Greek scholars. Then before the final check by committee leaders, experts from outside the committees were invited to check the translation. And there were certainly more than just three on the 2nd Oxford committee._
> 
> And yet, it is as I said-the Second Oxford company had three "Greek scholars," all laymen-academics-and none with more than rudimentary knowledge of Koine Greek-their lessons, examinations and dissertations were in Homeric Greek.


 
Well, as I said, the readings I have done indicate otherwise.  For anyone interested, Gipp&#8217;s Understandable History of the Bible has a section giving the identities of those who worked on the committees, and their qualifications.



elder999 said:


> Originally Posted by oftheherd1
> _Perhaps you could tell all of us what this verse from Stephanus means: &#960;&#949;&#961;&#953; &#948;&#949; &#964;&#951;&#957; &#949;&#957;&#957;&#945;&#964;&#951;&#957; &#969;&#961;&#945;&#957; &#945;&#957;&#949;&#946;&#959;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#959; &#953;&#951;&#963;&#959;&#965;&#962; &#966;&#969;&#957;&#951; &#956;&#949;&#947;&#945;&#955;&#951; &#955;&#949;&#947;&#969;&#957; &#951;&#955;&#953; &#951;&#955;&#953;&#945; &#963;&#945;&#946;&#945;&#967;&#952;&#945;&#957; &#955;&#945;&#956;&#953; &#964;&#959;&#965;&#964; &#949;&#963;&#964;&#953;&#957; &#952;&#949;&#949; &#956;&#959;&#965; &#952;&#949;&#949; &#956;&#959;&#965; &#953;&#957;&#945;&#964;&#953; &#956;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#954;&#945;&#964;&#949;&#955;&#953;&#960;&#949;&#962;_
> 
> .
> Around the ninth hour (three o'clock) Jesus called out (loud?), " Eli, Eli, Lama sabachthani-Which (that) means , "My God, My God, why did (have) you leave (left)[ me?"
> 
> Interstingly, the transliteration of the verb form, of the past-plu perfect, to have, lama, &#955;&#945;&#956;&#945; , should actually phonetically be more like "lema, " &#955;&#949;&#956;&#945;, and "forsaken" is also all wrong-part of an attempt to tie it to Psalm 20, and thus to prophecy-not only a mistranslation and transliteration, but a bit of possible deliberate revisionism-Left, of course, is completely wrong, though it does get wrangled about in the rather long-winded and ridiculous contortions about God's grace departing because Jesus had to go to hell.......
> 
> Now, do you really want to do this dance with me, or try accepting that I at least know what I say I know: I'm the victim, after all, of a classical education-I had to take Homeric Greek and Latin in high school, and I have a facility for languages-I didearn a degree in religious studies. I did drop out of seminary (and M.I.T., later, but what the hell   )-and, even if those things weren't true, I can use an online Greek concordance as well as you have......probably better...



That is interesting.  You at first appear to have cut and pasted my question on a verse from Stephanus (nothing from Wescort and Hort, but that is OK).  But in fact, it is not a cut and paste from either my Stephanus&#8217; or Wescort and Hort&#8217;s verses.

My post above of Staphanus on the first line, and what you listed as a quote of what I said on the next line:

Perhaps you could tell all of us what this verse from Stephanus means: &#960;&#949;&#961;&#953; &#948;&#949; &#964;&#951;&#957; &#949;&#957;&#957;&#945;&#964;&#951;&#957; &#969;&#961;&#945;&#957; &#945;&#957;&#949;&#946;&#959;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#959; &#953;&#951;&#963;&#959;&#965;&#962; &#966;&#969;&#957;&#951; &#956;&#949;&#947;&#945;&#955;&#951; &#955;&#949;&#947;&#969;&#957; &#951;&#955;&#953; &#951;&#955;&#953; &#955;&#945;&#956;&#945; &#963;&#945;&#946;&#945;&#967;&#952;&#945;&#957;&#953; &#964;&#959;&#965;&#964; &#949;&#963;&#964;&#953;&#957; &#952;&#949;&#949; &#956;&#959;&#965; &#952;&#949;&#949; &#956;&#959;&#965; &#953;&#957;&#945;&#964;&#953; &#956;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#954;&#945;&#964;&#949;&#955;&#953;&#960;&#949;&#962;
_Perhaps you could tell all of us what this verse from Stephanus means: &#960;&#949;&#961;&#953; &#948;&#949; &#964;&#951;&#957; &#949;&#957;&#957;&#945;&#964;&#951;&#957; &#969;&#961;&#945;&#957; &#945;&#957;&#949;&#946;&#959;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#959; &#953;&#951;&#963;&#959;&#965;&#962; &#966;&#969;&#957;&#951; &#956;&#949;&#947;&#945;&#955;&#951; &#955;&#949;&#947;&#969;&#957; &#951;&#955;&#953; &#951;&#955;&#953;&#945; &#963;&#945;&#946;&#945;&#967;&#952;&#945;&#957; &#955;&#945;&#956;&#953; &#964;&#959;&#965;&#964; &#949;&#963;&#964;&#953;&#957; &#952;&#949;&#949; &#956;&#959;&#965; &#952;&#949;&#949; &#956;&#959;&#965; &#953;&#957;&#945;&#964;&#953; &#956;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#954;&#945;&#964;&#949;&#955;&#953;&#960;&#949;&#962;_

Fonts aside, the words in Greek are different.  Did you substitute Greek words to match your desired translation?  Or maybe the Greek you used is Homeric? 

It seems unusual that you have translated &#949;&#947;&#954;&#945;&#964;&#949;&#955;&#953;&#960;&#949;&#962; as simply &#8216;left&#8217;.  Strong translates the word as forsaken, so does Wycliffe (who translated word for word from the Catholic Latin Vulgate).  Tyndale, Matthews and Coverdale used the word &#8220;forsaken&#8221; also. 

 I have never questioned your education.  I do sometimes question your understanding or interpretation of things I or others discuss.  I think that is normal in many sub-forums here.  I think you, just as am I or others, are capable of making mistakes.  That&#8217;s where friendly people like you and me and others, can come in and offer differing views, with as much justification as we can.  Or no justification at all.

As to using an online Greek concordance or Bible, I am sure you can do it as well as me, maybe even better.  But why type out something and possibly introduce errors if it can be cut and pasted.  Well, maybe cutting and pasting doesn&#8217;t always work either?



elder999 said:


> Originally Posted by oftheherd1  _Jesus's own wedding? Wow. I don't know how you come to that conclusion. I have never heard anyone say that before, nor have my readings of the Bible suggested any such thing. In John chapter 2, there is mention of Jesus being called to the wedding, not celebrating His own wedding. There is also a bridegroom mentioned, but not identified as Jesus. Not to mention the fact that there is never any mention in the Bible of Jesus having a wife; it would not be consistent with His nature, being God as well as man._
> 
> Interestingly, we now come to Hebrew...throughout all translations, Jesus is referred to as "Master," or rabbi.] "Rabbi" is title reserved for married men, There is no mention of Jesus's beard, sword, or tools anywhere in the Bible, yet these are all things he surely had. As for the nature of God-well, I wouldn't even begin to speculate on the nature of the unknowable here, but Jesus was also a man, and men have wives-in the culture of that time, no one would have taken him at all seriously or called him "Rabbi" if he were not married....there is a bridegroom mentioned, but not identified at all..



I think you are not taking into account that while most who were a rabbi by inheritance may have done as you describe, none of them were Jesus, who was God.  It may have been respectful honor, but perhaps not, even though Jesus wasn&#8217;t of the lineage of Aaron, he is called a priest, so could be called rabbi.  I never personally heard a rabbi had to be married.  But certainly Jesus did not need to, and was never married.




elder999 said:


> As for the wedding at Cana, it's purely speculation,but, if one pays attention, Jesus's Mother (never identified by name in your version of John) is acting more like the mother of the groom-and hostess-than a simple guest when she tells her son they need more wine.


 
I agree that it is speculation.  I don&#8217;t know what version of John you prefer, but the KJV identifies Mary as the Mother of Jesus in other places.  I don&#8217;t think John ever identifies her by name, not just not in this story.  Even so, for so important an occasion as a marriage of Jesus, I am sure there would have been much more written, and more specifics.  Do you have a version of John that does that?

As to Mary acting more like a mother of the groom, and a hostess, I don&#8217;t see that myself.  But granted, I haven&#8217;t attended a modern Jewish wedding, much less one from the time of Jesus.  However, as Jesus is quoted as saying, His time hadn&#8217;t come, and that is normally credited as His first miracle, so I would not think anyone else would know what he was capable of, nor feel confident to ask Him to perform a miracle, other than His mother.



elder999 said:


> Now, it's bed for me,: 115 degrees or so tomorrow, and I have to be at work by 0530......and arguing about this is pretty boring after eight years-keep your book, and your faith, and get whatever you can from them: believe it to be the undisputed, divinely inspired, one true Bible all you like.
> 
> It's not, though. Not even close.


 
I don&#8217;t find it boring, but indeed it seems to me to be wearying.  I do hope you stayed cool in that high a heat.  At least it will be cooler than how we think of Hell.  I guess your boredom is what keeps you from answering the other things I mentioned.

I will keep my faith and belief in my King James Bible thank you.  I do believe it to be divinely inspired and preserved in English. 

Because it is.  Not close, but the real preserved words of God.



elder999 said:


> (I mean, honestly??   "it would not be consistent with His nature, being God as well as man???" Talk about a blind man, grasping the tail of an elephant, and telling me that it's nature is that of a snake......  )
> Last edited by elder999; Today at 12:19 AM.



I don&#8217;t see the validity of your analogy. Are you trying to equate the nature of God with that of a snake in any way?  Nonetheless, I don&#8217;t make any claim to know the entire nature of God &#8230; except those parts of His nature He reveals in His word.  Do you think you see anything in the revealed divine nature of God that would require Jesus to take a wife?

To me it seems you only want to say anything that you think will discredit God  and/or Christianity, or a belief in God and/or Christianity.  From my perspective, you say some pretty outlandish things, and often with no apparent purpose other than to create controversy. I believe you when you say your father and grandfather were priests, and I am sure they were fine and honorable men.   I also believe you had training to be a priest, a career path you apparently really didn't want.  However, you seem to have left that career path with much bitterness against God and Christianity.  To me that is sad.  It may explain your attacks on God and the Bible.

But, to each his own.  I believe we can make choices as to what our actions are, and there will come a time when we will account for all our actions.

You or anyone else may believe and act as you may wish.


----------



## crushing

ballen0351 said:


> I didnt say thats what you said I asked a question.  See the ? at the end.



I saw the question mark, and it was as nonsensical as a question as it would be a statement.



ballen0351 said:


> However you don't seem to think having an adult conversation with out name calling and making jokes about ones faith is possible.



False.  I think we can have such a conversation.



ballen0351 said:


> In fact you deny it even happens. Saying I was making vague reference to persecution.



I deny that having an adult conversation happens?



ballen0351 said:


> You had no issue with what they say or do you?



Not really.  The alien Jesus was fitting as a response to conspiracy theorist/charlatan Ken Ham's comments about aliens going to Hell.   I thought the comparative Odin v. Jesus image was somewhat humorous, but wasn't at all nasty.  I suppose if you don't like hippies or dresses, than one could consider that comment insulting.


----------



## ballen0351

crushing said:


> I saw the question mark, and it was as nonsensical as a question as it would be a statement.
> 
> 
> 
> False.  I think we can have such a conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> I deny that having an adult conversation happens?
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  The alien Jesus was fitting as a response to conspiracy theorist/charlatan Ken Ham's comments about aliens going to Hell.   I thought the comparative Odin v. Jesus image was somewhat humorous, but wasn't at all nasty.  I suppose if you don't like hippies or dresses, than one could consider that comment insulting.



Ok. That's about what I expected from you anyway.


----------



## crushing

:lisafault:


----------



## elder999

oftheherd1 said:


> d. Do you think you see anything in the revealed divine nature of God that would require Jesus to take a wife?



Yes. He was a Hebrew man who other men called "Rabbi." Q.E.D.

I also see nothing in His "taking a wife" that would take anything away from his "revealed, divine nature," and, frankly,don't see how anyone else could.



oftheherd1 said:


> To me it seems you only want to say anything that you think will discredit God and/or Christianity, or a belief in God and/or Christianity.




I believe in God. I respect Christianity. I have a deep and abiding love for the teachings of the rabbi, Yeshua. I'm not interested in discrediting God or Christianiity. 


I don't respect a great deal of Christian dogma, however.

Or the dogmatic, for that matter.



oftheherd1 said:


> From my perspective, you say some pretty outlandish things, and often with no apparent purpose other than to create controversy. I believe you when you say your father and grandfather were priests, and I am sure they were fine and honorable men. I also believe you had training to be a priest, a career path you apparently really didn't want. However, you seem to have left that career path with much bitterness against God and Christianity. To me that is sad. It may explain your attacks on God and the Bible.



I have no bitterness against God or Christianity. I'm not attacking God or the Bible-except the execrable King James' version, and even that I have said was a fine piece of prose.

No, I didn't want to be an Episcopal priest-a profession that has a certain protection in my family trust, a protection I had no need of.

I wound up being another sort of priest anyway, though-what can you do? :lfao:

In terms of this discussion, I've already said that the Bible is full of beauty and truth-in addition to what are, _from my perspective_- rather obvious errors and mistranslations-and mine is a perspective that's shaped by a lifetime of scholarship. 

I'm reminded, though, of something my father frequently said: _This Bible has 1836 pages, and you can tear them all out but this one, and you'll be fine._

As for saying things that "create controversy," or stir the pot, isn't that precisely how so much of Yeshua's speech was?

Take that page my dad talked about, for instance:



> And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, "Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"He said unto him, _What is written in the law? how readest thou?_ And he answering said, "*Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself*."And he said unto him, ,_Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live_.,]
> But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, "And who is my neighbour?"And Jesus answering said,,_ A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, and went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves_?_._
> 
> And he said, "He that shewed mercy on him." Then said Jesus unto him, _Go, and do thou likewise.
> _





oftheherd1 said:


> But, to each his own. I believe we can make choices as to what our actions are, and there will come a time when we will account for all our actions.
> 
> You or anyone else may believe and act as you may wish.



Indeed.


----------



## Steve

Cirdan said:


> Bah christianity stole hel(l) from Nordic Mythology. Truth is Odin and his brothers killed the giant Yme and created the world from his dead body, from his blood the ocean, from his bones the hills, from his hair the trees, from his brains the clouds, from his skull the heavens, and from his eyebrows the nothern lights. 100% fact. Then they created Valkyries and had a party.


Heresy.  Next you'll tell us that Christmas was a pagan holy day.  Or, worse... that Easter wasn't a xtian holiday!


----------



## oftheherd1

elder999 said:


> Yes. He was a Hebrew man who other men called "Rabbi." Q.E.D.
> 
> I also see nothing in His "taking a wife" that would take anything away from his "revealed, divine nature," and, frankly,don't see how anyone else could.



I just think that Jesus being God, he would have no reason to marry.  I think it would be an example and distraction He would not want.






elder999 said:


> I believe in God. I respect Christianity. I have a deep and abiding love for the teachings of the rabbi, Yeshua. I'm not interested in discrediting God or Christianiity.
> 
> 
> I don't respect a great deal of Christian dogma, however.
> 
> Or the dogmatic, for that matter.



In the pejorative sense it is usually used, I would agree.  But the doctrines found in the Bible would be correct to use.



elder999 said:


> I have no bitterness against God or Christianity. I'm not attacking God or the Bible-except the execrable King James' version, and even that I have said was a fine piece of prose.
> 
> No, I didn't want to be an Episcopal priest-a profession that has a certain protection in my family trust, a protection I had no need of.
> 
> I wound up being another sort of priest anyway, though-what can you do? :lfao:



I am glad you are not bitter.  But I am sure you understand I do not agree with your use of the word execrable to describe the King James Bible.



elder999 said:


> In terms of this discussion, I've already said that the Bible is full of beauty and truth-in addition to what are, _from my perspective_- rather obvious errors and mistranslations-and mine is a perspective that's shaped by a lifetime of scholarship.
> 
> I'm reminded, though, of something my father frequently said: _This Bible has 1836 pages, and you can tear them all out but this one, and you'll be fine._
> 
> As for saying things that "create controversy," or stir the pot, isn't that precisely how so much of Yeshua's speech was?
> 
> Take that page my dad talked about, for instance:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, "Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"He said unto him,__ What is written in the law? how readest thou? __And he answering said, "_*Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself."And he said unto him, ,Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.,]
> But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, "And who is my neighbour?"And Jesus answering said,, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, and went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?.
> 
> And he said, "He that shewed mercy on him." Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
> *
Click to expand...


Yes, much of what Jesus said created controversy.  But I was saying I thought you were intentionally trying to create controversy for your own pleasure.  Jesus stated truth, which the Jews did not accept, and that was what created controversy over what he said.

If you weren't intentionally trying to create controversy, for instance using the word execrable to describe the King James Bible, so be it.

What you quoted from the Bible (apparently from the King James?), is indeed a principle worthy to live by.  I take the meaning of your father.  But personally I would never want to in any way confuse someone into thinking the rest of the Bible was not important, and did not have words from God to live by.  Just me of course.




elder999 said:


> Indeed.



I am just curious, if you don't mind telling me, what Bible version did your father and grandfather use to read and teach from?

EDIT:  I hope nothing I have said or asked will be taken by you as confrontational.  As I mentioned, I have a lot of respect for you learning and knowledge.  I just don't happen to agree with a lot of what you say about the Bible (King James Version).  Obviously, you feel the same about my views, as do others in this thread.  I can accept that.


----------



## Cirdan

ballen0351 said:


> Calling Jesus a dress wearing over rated hippy, Putting up a photo of Jesus as an alien and that just this page. I wonder how understanding people would be if we did that when talking about other religions? Not very I assume since if you did the same thing about Muhammad in say Egypt you would be killed. Id rather not "Join in" Im just wondering if this stuff gets to stay after Aug 1st?



Jesus the hippie, Buddha the fatty, and that Mohamad who likes little girls are all overrated because they don`t know how to party. With Valkyries. Pass the mead!


----------



## K-man

Cirdan said:


> Jesus the hippie, Buddha the fatty, and that Mohamad who likes little girls are all overrated because they don`t know how to party. With Valkyries. Pass the mead!


Where can I sign up? She seems like my kind of Goddess.


----------



## Cirdan

K-man said:


> Where can I sign up? She seems like my kind of Goddess.



You just need to be brave and live life to its fullest. You know, fight, drink, feast and enjoy the embrace of a woman. Killing a giant or two won`t hurt either. Then when you die a Valkyrie will ride her flying horse to pick you up and carry you to Vallhalla. Where there is fighting all day and feast all night with the valkyries serving mead.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

As there's been a post reported, please review our TOS regarding 'religion'  Thank you.
===

*Section 6 : MartialTalk Policy on Religious Tolerance
*

Religion is an important part of the  lives of many of our members, and we believe it is important that  people be given the opportunity to express their religious and spiritual  beliefs in their online lives. This goes for all faiths, equally. 

Our members are welcome to express themselves spiritually in all of our forums here.

At the same time, people must be aware that not everyone will share those same beliefs.

We expect our members to show tolerance of others beliefs in a non-judgmental manner.

Naturally this means that any kind of blatantly excessive religious  posting or attempts to convince other people that their religion
(or lack thereof) is wrong simply cannot be allowed. Such posts damage the community at large because they can be disruptive.

Our forums are full of a diverse group of people with many different beliefs, and people must respect that
diversity. To keep things as fair as we can we ask that people not make  large numbers of posts of a purely religious nature on non-religious  threads. 

At the same time, if people see threads that involve individuals praying  with each other or otherwise sharing to help each other deal with a  difficult situation, please remember that people who choose to share  their religious feelings in the context of providing support for others  should be given that opportunity (as long as it is not intentionally  disruptive to other non-religious threads). 

If you don't agree with their beliefs, then simply don't participate.

Some communities solve this "religious tolerance" issue the easy way.  They simply ban all cases of religious expression. While we could do  this also, it flies in the face of what we are trying to provide here &#8211;  an open forum for all kinds of dialogue, information and support. 

MartialTalk welcomes people of all faiths and does not condone the  wholesale condemnation of a faith or the defamatory general  characterizations of a faith, based on the actions of a few. 

Members are welcome to their opinions however we must insist that they  be posted in such a manner as to not condemn an entire group for the  negative actions of a few. 

Such actions may run afoul of our hate-speech policies and will be dealt with as such.

Please be respectful of your fellow members, who may believe differently  than you, yet are still human beings with the right to believe as they  do, the same as you and I.


----------



## crushing

ballen0351 said:


> Ok. That's about what I expected from you anyway.



Excellent.  I'm glad you understand that I don't see any ideas or memes as being above criticism.  I don't approach this subject from privilege or a sense of entitlement.  When the Ayatollah Khomeini issued the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, I went out and bought The Satanic Verses in support of free speech.  That's where I'm coming from.  I want the spell broken that makes discussions about religion so difficult to have.  Isn't this something you should expect from everyone?


----------



## ballen0351

crushing said:


> Excellent.  I'm glad you understand that I don't see any ideas or memes as being above criticism.  I don't approach this subject from privilege or a sense of entitlement.  When the Ayatollah Khomeini issued the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, I went out and bought The Satanic Verses in support of free speech.  That's where I'm coming from.  I want the spell broken that makes discussions about religion so difficult to have.  Isn't this something you should expect from everyone?



That's not what I ment about YOU.  Have a good day


----------



## elder999

oftheherd1 said:


> I just think that Jesus being God, he would have no reason to marry.  I think it would be an example and distraction He would not want.



"Distraction?" How can One who is omniscient, omnipresent and omniprescient be......._distracted?_ :lfao:

"Exapmple?" How is it that One who sent Man forth to "be fruitful, and multiply," could be setting an example that They did not want by......doing so?

Jesus being *Man* had ample reason to marry. 








oftheherd1 said:


> In the pejorative sense it is usually used, I would agree.  But the doctrines found in the Bible would be correct to use.



Sabbath day: Saturday or Sunday?

Salvation: Assured or not?


oftheherd1 said:


> I am glad you are not bitter.  But I am sure you understand I do not agree with your use of the word execrable to describe the King James Bible.



Without resorting to the _Merriam Webster English Language Technical Manual (that's engineerspeak for "dictionary" :lfao: ) hat word means "very bad." There simply *are* better translations. It simply is "very bad," prose quality notwithstanding.....




oftheherd1 said:



			Yes, much of what Jesus said created controversy.  But I was saying I thought you were intentionally trying to create controversy for your own pleasure.  Jesus stated truth, which the Jews did not accept, and that was what created controversy over what he said.
		
Click to expand...


In keeping with the 68 degree rule, I have stated truth and *fact*, which you do not accept-and that's created controversy.....



oftheherd1 said:



			I am just curious, if you don't mind telling me, what Bible version did your father and grandfather use to read and teach from?

EDIT:  I hope nothing I have said or asked will be taken by you as confrontational.  As I mentioned, I have a lot of respect for you learning and knowledge.  I just don
't happen to agree with a lot of what you say about the Bible (King James Version). Obviously, you feel the same about my views, as do others in this thread. I can accept that.
		
Click to expand...


"Confrontational?"

Nah. It's a small thing, what onbe person or another thinks of the Bible, after all......

A funny story: 

The Jehovah's Witnesses had my family marked for conversion.They really did.

Weekend after weekend, various members would show up on our doorstep, and, weekend after weekend, Dad would take up his Bible, and demonstrate, verse by verse, why he thought they were theologically F.O.S. 

One day, he came from the door, laughing, and handed me the Bible, saying, Son, they're here for *you*, now... and when I went to the door, there were three really lovely sisters on the porch!

The Bible he handed me was, of course, the King James-in the years to follow, I'd see numerous translations, and I have to say (again!) that while quite a few were more accurate, none was equal to the King James for language and poetry-another reiteration of the difference between *fact* and truth._


----------



## oftheherd1

elder999 said:


> "Distraction?" How can One who is omniscient, omnipresent and omniprescient be......._distracted?_ :lfao:
> 
> "Exapmple?" How is it that One who sent Man forth to "be fruitful, and multiply," could be setting an example that They did not want by......doing so?
> 
> Jesus being *Man* had ample reason to marry.




Distraction and example to those of us on earth, in the sense that it would distract us away from His reason for coming to earth.  I think it also helped helped set Him apart as not the being same as the rest of us.  You could just as easily say being *Man* he had ample reason to sin.  But in fact the Bible tells us he did not.




elder999 said:


> Sabbath day: Saturday or Sunday?
> 
> Salvation: Assured or not?



Sabbath day &#8211; the seventh day of the week.  Sunday is the day chosen by Christians to meet and worship; it does come every seven days.  Considering your dislike of dogma, would you like to defend the likelihood that with all the chaos in calendars, and dark ages peasant/serf work requirements, we even know for sure if we are still on the same schedule as the Jews of biblical times? Even so, worshiping on Sunday is worshiping every seven days.

Assured. 

John 10:28-29  and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.   My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father&#8217;s hand.

1 John 5:13  These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. 



elder999 said:


> Without resorting to the _Merriam Webster English Language Technical Manual (that's engineerspeak for "dictionary" :lfao: ) hat word means "very bad." There simply *are* better translations. It simply is "very bad," prose quality notwithstanding....._


_

Or wretched &#8230; neither definition I believe, accurately describes the King James Bible. I don't believe there are better translations.
But perhaps you could share some English translations that you think are more correct? 




elder999 said:



			In keeping with the 68 degree rule, I have stated truth and *fact*, which you do not accept-and that's created controversy.....
		
Click to expand...


LOL  First of all, your 68 degree rule describes a fact with two different perceptions of reality.  You need to define your &#8220;truth&#8221; it you want to say that you have stated truth and fact which I don&#8217;t accept.  I or anyone else can as easily say that to you about my/our own beliefs. But in fact, we, as you, would be using your rule to simply mask what is going on; experiencing two different perceptions of a fact, not two different truths.



elder999 said:



			"Confrontational?"

Nah. It's a small thing, what onbe person or another thinks of the Bible, after all......

A funny story: 

The Jehovah's Witnesses had my family marked for conversion.They really did.

Weekend after weekend, various members would show up on our doorstep, and, weekend after weekend, Dad would take up his Bible, and demonstrate, verse by verse, why he thought they were theologically F.O.S. 

One day, he came from the door, laughing, and handed me the Bible, saying, Son, they're here for *you*, now... and when I went to the door, there were three really lovely sisters on the porch!

The Bible he handed me was, of course, the King James-in the years to follow, I'd see numerous translations, and I have to say (again!) that while quite a few were more accurate, none was equal to the King James for language and poetry-another reiteration of the difference between *fact* and truth.

Click to expand...


I wouldn't say belief in a Bible that was not accurate is a small thing. I think Bibles that are not in fact God's inspired words, can cause doubt and lead people astray, and perhaps keep them from being saved. 

Interesting story on the Jehovah's Witnesses. Did you in fact talk to them and show them how you thought they were misguided? Would you still think them misguided, or do you think your father was? Where do you think your father and grandfather are now? Where do you think you will be when you die? Did you at any time sincerely accept Jesus into your heart and ask God to save you?

Again I would appreciate you listing some of the &#8220;quite a few&#8221; English translations that you say are more accurate.  I don&#8217;t think that is a correct statement, but can&#8217;t properly evaluate it without knowing what translations you are referring to._


----------



## elder999

oftheherd1 said:


> Distraction and example to those of us on earth, in the sense that it would distract us away from His reason for coming to earth. I think it also helped helped set Him apart as not the being same as the rest of us. You could just as easily say being *Man* he had ample reason to sin. But in fact the Bible tells us he did not.



He didn't need to be unmarried to be set apart, and His being married would be no more distracting than his wearing sandals, or having a sword, or having tools-all things that are likely, but not mentioned in the Bible.

And some would say that, at the time, His speaking to the woman at the well might be viewed as "sin," in the strictly Hebraic definition of the word, as would His overturning the moneylender's tables at the Temple, and beating them.






oftheherd1 said:


> Sabbath day &#8211; the seventh day of the week. Sunday is the day chosen by Christians to meet and worship; it does come every seven days. Considering your dislike of dogma, would you like to defend the likelihood that with all the chaos in calendars, and dark ages peasant/serf work requirements, we even know for sure if we are still on the same schedule as the Jews of biblical times? Even so, worshiping on Sunday is worshiping every seven days.



Saturday is the seventh day of the week. Not to be "dogmatic" or anything, but that's why Jews *still* use it as the Sabbath, and it was the day that Jesus kept: the "Last Supper," Holy Communion, was, in fact, a Passover Seder..... No matter.




oftheherd1 said:


> Assured.
> John 10:28-29 and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father&#8217;s hand.
> 
> 1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.



*Not* assured:

See then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God&#8217;s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; _otherwise you too will be cut off_" Rom. 11:22





oftheherd1 said:


> Or wretched &#8230; neither definition I believe, accurately describes the King James Bible. I don't believe there are better translations.
> But perhaps you could share some English translations that you think are more correct?



I never said there was a better _English_ translation.





oftheherd1 said:


> LOL First of all, your 68 degree rule describes a fact with two different perceptions of reality. You need to define your &#8220;truth&#8221; it you want to say that you have stated truth and fact which I don&#8217;t accept. I or anyone else can as easily say that to you about my/our own beliefs. But in fact, we, as you, would be using your rule to simply mask what is going on; experiencing two different perceptions of a fact, not two different truths.



No, two different truths: one person is sweating, and the other has goose bumps. 

One *is* _"hot."
_
One *is* _"cold."

Truth_ *is* perception.The temperature *is 68 degrees.*


Two _truths_, one *fact*.




oftheherd1 said:


> I wouldn't say belief in a Bible that was not accurate is a small thing. I think Bibles that are not in fact God's inspired words, can cause doubt and lead people astray, and perhaps keep them from being saved.



I believe that none of them are, in fact, God's inspired words.

"Inspired words." Sure. "Inspired by God?" Maybe. Does it matter? 

Nope. Look again at Luke 10:25-37, the Good Samaritan story. Answer these questions: _What was a Samaritan? Can a man never have heard of Jesus and be assured of salvation? What does this story mean?_



oftheherd1 said:


> Interesting story on the Jehovah's Witnesses. Did you in fact talk to them and show them how you thought they were misguided?



Even worse: I used scripture to talk them right out of their panties!

I mean, they were "there for* me*," right? :lfao: 

Not too much later on, I used the same strategy on Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, a Mennonite (SCORE!), Catholics and more Catholics....never did get anywhere near a Mormon girl to try it.....a Maronite Christian from Lebanon, though....etc., etc., etc.....



oftheherd1 said:


> Would you still think them misguided, or do you think your father was?



My father had, as you do, the strength of his belief. In the end, that's *not* a small thing, and all I think that matters.



oftheherd1 said:


> Where do you think your father and grandfather are now?



Wherever they believed they deserved to be.




oftheherd1 said:


> Where do you think you will be when you die?



Precisely where I believe I deserve to be.



oftheherd1 said:


> Did you at any time sincerely accept Jesus into your heart and ask God to save you?



For most of my childhood, with death mere rattly breaths away, every day....



oftheherd1 said:


> Again I would appreciate you listing some of the &#8220;quite a few&#8221; English translations that you say are more accurate. I don&#8217;t think that is a correct statement, but can&#8217;t properly evaluate it without knowing what translations you are referring to.




Quite a few translations. Not English-still interested?


----------

