Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
sanspeur: Regarding souls, SuperSoul is really clutching at straws, isn't he? After all, it's part of his username.
I also love it when the Bible is quoted, as if the quotes are going to have a convincing effect on those who don't already believe it is divinely inspired. To the rest of us, it's just literature.
sanspeur: Regarding souls, SuperSoul is really clutching at straws, isn't he? After all, it's part of his username.
I also love it when the Bible is quoted, as if the quotes are going to have a convincing effect on those who don't already believe it is divinely inspired. To the rest of us, it's just literature.
I agree, I have said before that you cannot use the Bible to prove itself.
You don't even know WHO I'm talking about!
I am talking about the SOPHERIM, copyists of the Mosaic Law.
"It was in the days of Ezra the priest that the scribes (soh·pherim′, “Sopherim”) first began to come into prominence as a distinct group. They were copyists of the Hebrew Scriptures, very careful in their work and regarding mistakes with terror. As time went on they became extremely meticulous, going so far as to count not only the words copied but the letters also. Until centuries after Christ was on earth, the written Hebrew consisted only of consonants, and the omission or addition of a single letter often would have changed one word into another. If they detected the slightest error, the miswriting of a single letter, that entire section of the roll was rejected as unfit for synagogue use. Thereupon that section was cut out and replaced by a new and faultless one. They read aloud each word before writing.
To write even a single word from memory was regarded as gross sin. Absurdities of practice crept in. It is said that the religious scribes prayerfully wiped their pen before writing the word ’Elo·him′ (God) or ’Adho·nai′ (Sovereign Lord)." (Insight vol. 2 p. 877)
This practice does not make them sound ignorant, but, instead, quite wise.
I hope you use the same measuring rod when examining scientific integrity.
IAC, can you think of a better method of protecting textual integrity than the one they used? Their method was so effective, that every single scribal error, and every single substitution that was ever made, is known to Biblical scholars. They are thus able to arrive at original textual purity. Do you know of any other work that has undergone such intense scrutiny?
It is a serious mistake for you to quote scripture to me because I can prove that have no idea what you are talking about.
However, since you regard the book as fiction, why bother to quote it to me and what do you hope to prove by using such fiction? You simply cannot prove any truth by using a lie. You only manage to prove your desperation.
Two ways to look at that:
1. Naturally.
It is a FACT that a bad tree cannot produce good fruit. This is undeniable!
2. Spiritually.
It is also a FACT that bad men cannot produce good works.
When a good man turns to doing bad works, he has BECOME a bad man. Such a man can repent and return to doing good with no intention of repeating the offenses. He would be able to recognize that anything short of that would be trampling on God's mercy.
Were the Sopherim bad men? Has the God of heaven, according to the Scriptures, ever used bad men to handle His business?
Would you categorize the Sopherim's methods as bad works?
Can you show me a single case of scribal error, in the Scriptures, that has gone undetected and continues to deceive men to this day?
It has become quite clear that you readily condemn what you do not understand.
I have other, much more reliable, sources.
Give me a single instance when this "scientific" method has been used with Scripture.
NO! The Scriptures stretches far beyond the founding of Christianity. The Scripture canon was closed by then.
"Originally, the word “canon” referred to a reed used as a measuring rod. The Bible canon came to mean the set of books accepted as genuine, inspired of God and worthy of being used as a straightedge for measuring faith, doctrine, and conduct. Anything not measuring up was rejected. This was no democratic process.
The official listing for the Hebrew Scriptures (often called the Old Testament) was fixed by the end of the fifth century B.C.E. Jesus Christ and his apostles used only books from this catalog when quoting Scripture." (Insight)
There does not exist, in the Bible, a single quote by the early Christians from any other sources.
But....what was their "ideology and agenda?" Political power? Wealth? Social dominance? Where would it be written and where have YOU read it? I bet you have no idea!
Jehovah God himself!
“ALL scripture is inspired by God and can profitably be used for teaching, for refuting error, for guiding people’s lives and teaching them to be holy. This is how the man who is dedicated to God becomes fully equipped and ready for any good work.”— (2 Timothy 3:16,17 The Jerusalem Bible)
Since humans are unable to decide what is good and bad, or to guide themselves correctly, you have your answer in the text (above). When a traveling person is "fully equipped," he needs nothing else - does he?
How would you be able to tell what is the truth? What would YOU use as a "measuring rod?" You think that what sounds good is the truth?
If you are writing a book on the secretive nature and habits of snakes, would you include information on the extent of family deterioration? That has nothing to do with the theme and your book would be senseless.
See what I mean?
Well, for one thing, the title itself is a lie! The word "gospel" means "good news." From Judas? What good news does it contain and how can it sustain, strengthen and equip the Christian "for every good work?"
Do you believe what Judas is supposed to be saying? Why? What kind of man was he? Honest? Trustworthy? Truthful? Reliable? Or was he not a thief with a marked love for money?
“. . .He said this, though, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief and had the money box and used to carry off the monies put in it.” (John 12:6)
Would such a wicked man be likely to tell the truth? If a thief said to you:
"I know I'm a thief, but, at least I'm honest about it!" would you regard him as an honest man?
Did you read these words of Judas directly from his "book?" Or are you quoting someone else's review of it?
Nope! You claim to know more about it than I think, so this is your opportunity to show that you now understand how "somehow important" it (a theme) is.
So - tell me the overall theme of the Bible.
(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
Wilson
I'd been manfully resisting the urge to respond since I am not in discussion with you, but let's say it might be helpful to say how I see it - it's not a question of convincing you - nothing can do that, but why your arguments don't convince me.
Let's take the last point first. There are two overall themes of the Bible, because there are two Bibles, of course.
(1) God is the God of the Jews and God will (when he's not letting the Jews get stomped over some infraction or other) will make them to triumph over their enemies.
(2) God suddenly decided that the Jews were not his people after all and the Graeco - Romans were. And he sent his avatar for the Jews to kill (though the Romans actually did it) to justify his abandonment of them unless they believed in his avatar rather than Himself.
Of course the scripture Canon wasn't closed by the founding of Christianity, unless you claim the Gospels and Acts are non - canonical. They were not codified until the time of Constantine. However, that's hardly the point. The reason we don't believe in the Bible is not because it was copied erroneously - I don't doubt that it was generally meticulously reproduced - as the Qumran scrolls tend to show - but it was what was written down in the first place in both Old and New Testament that we disbelieve.
We don't even doubt the history. The Assyrian sack of Lacheish and the Maccabean wars are believable enough - though the Exodus story remains very doubtful - but we do not believe that God had anything to do with those events, anymore than He had anything to do with the battles of Borodino or Da Nang.
Similarly, we accept the census of Quirinus and the Jewish war - but Jesus was never born in Bethlehem and the Jewish war was not some punishment wished on the Jews for not believing in his avatar, Jesus any more that the Boudiccan sack of London (around the same time0 was anything to do with God.
So it is overdrawing the situation to say that we regard the Bible only as fiction. In fact it is a valuable source for showing that the theist claims for Biblegod and Jesus - as - god simply do not stack up.
"But....(you write) what was their "ideology and agenda?" Political power? Wealth? Social dominance?"
That's easily found in reading Paul and then Acts. The argument is that God, originally the god of the Jews and only of the Jews, has decided to send his messiah to reconcile all people to Him through a new covenant whereby faith in Jesus' atoning sacrifice, rather than through Torah observance, is the way to share in the promise of Abraham. And that becomes, by the time the Gospels and Acts were written, God favouring the gentiles over the Jews who, of course, had NOT abandoned the Law for Faith in Jesus. That is why the Jews are depicted in the gospels as legalistic, hard- hearted, scriptually deficient and conspiring against Jesus and essentially responsible for his death.
The ideology was twofold - to prove that Jesus was the risen messiah which Paul preached (though in a Jewish form rather than the Christian form) and that the Jews, by rejecting Jesus, had cut themselves off from God and, essentially deserved all they got thereafter. Which the Christians pretty much saw that they got.
Well, that's pretty much it and that's plenty for now.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-04-2011 at 09:15 AM..
Reason: the mandatory tidyng -up
But as you said OT historicity has nothing to do with evidence for a god. The bible, like most fiction, is simply set against a back drop of real places, people and events that existed at the time.
Take the books by R. Ludlum about Jason Bourne (there are films too).
All the places in those books exists. The political events in them mostly all happened. Many of the people, such as politicians, in those books are real and actually existed. If you read those books 2000 years from now much of it would be historically accurate.
Does that for ONE SECOND lend a modicum of credence to the idea that a super solider called Jason Bourne exists or ever existed? Not for a moment.
Anyone who establishes some historical accuracy in the bible have provided evidence for NOTHING except the claim that fiction is often set against real world places, events and people.
You only prove that you can argue, without really saying anything.
Maybe you can tell me why there has never been any claim, by any type of scientist, of having disproved anything in the Bible. At least, not to my knowledge.
Can you point me to one?
The Bible contains the genealogy of the entire Israelite nation from Adam to Jesus.
Can you show me a comparative history? What makes the Bible so unique?
There are many dated incidents in the Bible that can, and has been chronologically checked. (Judges 11:40; 1 Kings 6:1, 37; 14:25; 15:1,9. Etc, etc, etc.
Let me show you what I mean:
This is the Scripture.
“And it came about in the fourth year of King Hez·e·ki′ah, that is, the seventh year of Ho·she′a the son of E′lah the king of Israel, that Shal·man·e′ser the king of As·syr′i·a came up against Sa·mar′i·a and began to lay siege to it. 10 And they got to capture it at the end of three years; in the sixth year of Hez·e·ki′ah, that is, the ninth year of Ho·she′a the king of Israel, Sa·mar′i·a was captured.” (2 Kings 18:9-10)
This is the history:
“In 742 B.C.E. the Assyrian army under Shalmaneser V besieged Samaria. (2Ki 18:9, 10) When Samaria fell in 740 B.C.E., thus ending the ten-tribe kingdom, its inhabitants were taken into exile “in Halah and in Habor at the river Gozan and in the cities of the Medes.” (2Ki 18:11, 12; 17:6” (Insight vol. 1 p. 415) These dates have been verified.
Show me the fiction that has been subjected to and can survive such scrutiny!
You Jason Bourne comparison falls into the ridiculous!
These disputations are not constructive and they contain fiction all their own. Nozz asserts that the Bible is fiction without the slightest evidence that is so simply because he does not believe it. That is not the definition of fiction. The authors' intent defines fiction. Writing was such a tedious and arduous task reserved for important recordings at that time . . . that to assert that the Bible was merely a Rod Serling work of fiction is patently absurd. Its historicity is improperly assaulted because temporal sequentiality was NOT a feature of Hebrew writing or thinking. They were an event oriented people and correspondent timing and sequence AS WE USE IT TODAY especially in historical writing had no importance to them . . . merely significant content and order. You can dispute its historicity, timing and perceived lack of contemporary validation . . . but calling it a work of fiction is contemptuous and arrogant.
These disputations are not constructive and they contain fiction all their own. Nozz asserts that the Bible is fiction without the slightest evidence that is so simply because he does not believe it. That is not the definition of fiction. The authors' intent defines fiction. Writing was such a tedious and arduous task reserved for important recordings at that time . . . that to assert that the Bible was merely a Rod Serling work of fiction is patently absurd. Its historicity is improperly assaulted because temporal sequentiality was NOT a feature of Hebrew writing or thinking. They were an event oriented people and correspondent timing and sequence AS WE USE IT TODAY especially in historical writing had no importance to them . . . merely significant content and order. You can dispute its historicity, timing and perceived lack of contemporary validation . . . but calling it a work of fiction is contemptuous and arrogant.
How about we call it (the new testament) a highly embellished semi-historic work. And call the old testament, fiction based on some true events the authors had heard of from others who had heard the stories from a guy named Pete.
It's a bit amusing that Mystic is now standing up for the Bible when he declares that one must "properly divide" the contents of it.
Unless I don't get it, this translates (even though a bit crudely) into "take what you want and leave the rest".
Would it be acceptable to say that atheists have 'properly divided' it according to what we see as likely and not?
How about we call it (the new testament) a highly embellished semi-historic work. And call the old testament, fiction based on some true events the authors had heard of from others who had heard the stories from a guy named Pete.
Why not call it what it is. A sincere record of the oral traditions, legends, myths and beliefs about existence and the human purpose from a spiritual perspective . . . part of the "spiritual fossil record" of humanity's quest to understand God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
It's a bit amusing that Mystic is now standing up for the Bible when he declares that one must "properly divide" the contents of it.
Unless I don't get it, this translates (even though a bit crudely) into "take what you want and leave the rest".
Would it be acceptable to say that atheists have 'properly divided' it according to what we see as likely and not?
"Properly dividing" simply means using the right portions spiritually as they were intended . . . not for everything. Atheists divide it according to strictly historical and secular concerns which is completely inappropriate.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 07-30-2011 at 05:19 PM..
Its important to know that I am not a religious person. Lets say there is no God or that a God is not needed to explain the universe. Somthing that puzzles me is what exactly created or formed life itself. At no point in time has any scientist ever been able to create life from non living material, and furthermore, if a scientist were infact able to create an animate object from inanimate material, it would only strengthen the argument for a Creator God because it would prove that an inteligent mind is needed to create life
What do atheists think about this?
One problem is that if there is a Creator God, he seems to want to remain anonymous or unknown, so that leaves us searching for answers.
Perhaps we were created, perhaps life as we know just spontaneously erupted as a freak accident. We have the means and technology to know more than our predecessors, and we may not find out the answer in our lifetime.
Do you think this Creator wants to be known? If so, what prevents him from revealing himself?
Why not call it what it is. A sincere record of the oral traditions, legends, myths and beliefs about existence and the human purpose from a spiritual perspective . . . part of the "spiritual fossil record" of humanity's quest to understand God.
"Properly dividing" simply means using the right portions spiritually as they were intended . . . not for everything. Atheists divide it according to strictly historical and secular concerns which is completely inappropriate.
I have no problems saying the bible is nothing but legends and myths. Kind of like a Bullfinch's mythology for the gullible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After all, it's part of his username. 
