Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Neon Genesis

Question For Christians About Biblical Inerrancy

Recommended Posts

One needs only to find a single error in the Bible to prove that the book is NOT the infallible Word of God. That part is easy. The hard part is for believers to accept historical and scientific facts, and to resist the temptation to torturously twist verses to support the positions they have been told by their leaders to maintain at all cost. It is impossible for the true believer to agree that if God inspired the authors word by word, he could just as easily prevented translation errors - which often become an excuse for troublesome verses. Faith is indeed blind.

 

For a few examples of Biblical problems, this is a place to start: LINK

 

An interesting read - but again, he defines inerrancy according to his own rules - and he wants answers on his own terms of what he presupposes constitutes real evidence - and he is entitled to do so. However, Christian scholars and pastors have long understood and taught that the Bible uses poetry (Psalms, Song of Solomon), allegory (Ezekiel, Revelation), metaphors (Jesus said "I am the door..." "I am the bread..." the Church is the body of Christ, the bride of Christ, etc); hyperbole (Paul said "If I speak with the tongues and men & angels and know all mysteries, faith to move mountains, etc); and uses idiomatic speech (sun rising and setting, rounded numbers, etc). Therefore, various Scripture are to be interpreted naturally - in accordance with the genre of its literature. Despite his "rules of evidence" many of his cases are simply answered by understanding that fact.

 

Re: the various resurrection accounts - and other events with multiple accounts in the Gospels could be mentioned as well - no one disputes that not all the details are presented in all the accounts. He is wrong on some counts (the Bible doesn't say that the earthquake was witnessed by any of the women). But the lack of agreement is simply the focus or purpose of the writer. Each writer chose to emphasize different aspects. Was there 1 or 2 angels? Two, but only one angel spoke so some writers focussed on just the one.

 

Remember as well - if there were perfect agreement from all writers, then the Gospel writers would be charged with collusion (which is the level of agreement that this gentleman seems to be looking for); because we all understand that 4 people giving their truthful account of an event they all witnessed or researched would write accounts with some differences. But do the differences contradict? That is the real issue. If John said ONLY Mary Magdalene went to the grave - then there's an issue. Or if one Gospel stated there was ONLY 1 angel - problem. But the fact that the various writers focussed on different aspects is no problem. The point of the passage is that Jesus Christ rose from the dead - fulfilling OT Messianic prophecy, fulfilling His own prophecy, and proving His Deity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're correct - cults do spring up all the time. But do these cults then become world religions, with billions of followers throughout history, forming the basis for societieal mores and governmental laws? Christianity is unique in how it has survived repeated persecutions and attacks, yet still reaches out all over the planet to bring personal deliverance/salvation - and elevates society wherever its teachings are accepted and followed.

 

Are you still going on about this? Yes, cults DO sometimes become world religions, basically all of the world religions we have came from cults. We have pointed this out a number of times. Do you eat stupid for breakfast or something?

 

Please supply one objective proof against any Biblical statement being demonstrably false.

 

Archeology is not a 'hard science' - it is an inexact science in which the actual data is susceptible to subjective conclusions. Therefore - as I stated - Christians use archeology only to confirm or show the high plausablity of Biblical writings - not as proof of Biblical accuracy.

 

So you are asking us to give you definitive proof against Christianity using a science that does not give definitive proof. Stop making such absolute statements if you understand that archeology isn't absolute.

 

 

I have been a student of the Bible, philosophy, history - and I have an MS in Biochemistry. Though there are some Biblical difficulties and some inconsistencies that require more research, I have not come across anything to disprove Biblical inerrancy. SO if you have something solid, something objective - please offer that info. Thnx for your reply.

 

Wow, sorry but I don't believe it. The internet is a wonderful place where any idiot can claim to have a degree int "X." However, the proof is in the pudding so that say. The ignorance and inability to grasp simple logical concepts you have displayed here makes it difficult to believe you have a MS in anything much less biochemistry. Unless of course you got your degree from some unaccredited Christian School, like the famous "Dr. Dino"

 

Look, you are starting from an A-priori belief that the bible is right and seeing only the information that fosters that belief. Conflicting information is ignored or twisted into weird shapes until you mange to get it to fit then you declare that there is nothing that "proves" the bible is wrong, because you need absolute proof to abandon your belief. Of course, no knowledge, except for logical and mathematical tautologies perhaps, is absolute so you have the perfect cover to make it look like you are being rational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kcdad
I have been a student of the Bible, philosophy, history - and I have an MS in Biochemistry. Though there are some Biblical difficulties and some inconsistencies that require more research, I have not come across anything to disprove Biblical inerrancy. SO if you have something solid, something objective - please offer that info. Thnx for your reply.

 

What exactly do you mean by "inerrancy"? Do you include mistakes, inconsistencies, errors... lies? What constitutes being inerrant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Re: the various resurrection accounts - and other events with multiple accounts in the Gospels could be mentioned as well - no one disputes that not all the details are presented in all the accounts. He is wrong on some counts (the Bible doesn't say that the earthquake was witnessed by any of the women). But the lack of agreement is simply the focus or purpose of the writer. Each writer chose to emphasize different aspects. Was there 1 or 2 angels? Two, but only one angel spoke so some writers focussed on just the one.

 

*shakes head* This is like watching a psychological experiment on cognitive dissonance.

 

Perhaps you would like to deal with the conflicting stories of Judas' death next? I brought that up earlier but you avoided speaking about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've piqued my curiosity - how does fear of new diseases help Christianity in particular over other available religions?

 

Unlike other religions and cults of the time...christianity was the Great Adopter. It thrived by re-shaping itself according to the needs and desires of the cultures in encountered. Your religion adopted holidays already celebrated (your Christmas and Easter), and invented "defenses" for the bogeymen of the age (vampires, werewolves, and other supernatural baddies all "convinently" have pro-christian defenses...never bothered to wonder why?), and they did the SAME thing with the Big Killer diseases that started sweeping the European Continent. NOTHING in your religion is original. It was all adopted from previous belief systems over time. That's why it's taken so long to die. It used to be adaptable for the ages it's survived through. But no longer.

You cannot be serious about Christianity being in decline since 1000AD.

Yes I can.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages

 

Religion was king. The teachings of Paul encouraged all to toil, and think not of tomorrow because the apocalype was immenent. Why bother with culture? Why teach kids to read? Why bother recording history? The world was going to end soon, so what would have been the point?

 

What ended the Dark ages? The assumed apocalypse of revelations did not occur when everyone assumed it would.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=kbLAPgcPA...=result#PPP1,M1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kcdad
Remember as well - if there were perfect agreement from all writers, then the Gospel writers would be charged with collusion (which is the level of agreement that this gentleman seems to be looking for); because we all understand that 4 people giving their truthful account of an event they all witnessed or researched would write accounts with some differences. But do the differences contradict? That is the real issue. If John said ONLY Mary Magdalene went to the grave - then there's an issue. Or if one Gospel stated there was ONLY 1 angel - problem. But the fact that the various writers focussed on different aspects is no problem. The point of the passage is that Jesus Christ rose from the dead - fulfilling OT Messianic prophecy, fulfilling His own prophecy, and proving His Deity.

 

IF they were eyewitnesses... 1 angel, or 2 young men... that's isn't a misunderstanding.

 

IF they were eyewitnesses... was Jesus there or not? Was it a physical resurrection? How come no one recognized Jesus? A gardner?

 

IF they were eyewitnesses... were there guards or not? An earthquake or not... that isn't something you would forget.

 

They didn't focus on different aspects, but related different events. If you read these objectively, you would conclude there were three resurrections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The part the fascinate me most in the resurrection story--which also very few ever mention in a sermon--is that one of the stories (Matthew) claim that the streets were filled with zombies after the earthquake. Basically, the ground was shaken so hard that even the dead saints woke up, and started to walk around like zombies in the city and preached to people. Now, one might consider this to be extremely strange, but what I find even more strange is... how did these people die again? And if they were resurrected just like Jesus, does it mean all of them were saviors? Are we all cleansed in the blood of the unnamed and anonymous dead zombies who walked Jerusalem after the earthquake? Who can say if it really was Jesus' blood who clean us. Maybe it was the other dead guy in the tomb next to Jesus who really was the one, and Jesus was just one of the other dead dudes? And why didn't every scholar in the city write about this extraordinary event? Dead people walking downtown and preaching... it must have been a rare sight... someone non-Christian must have written about it. Why is there no accounts of this event outside of the Bible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Re: the various resurrection accounts - and other events with multiple accounts in the Gospels could be mentioned as well - no one disputes that not all the details are presented in all the accounts.

 

The problem is that there are conflicting accounts of the same events.

The birth narrative of Jesus is one example.

The genealogy of Jesus is another.

The author of Luke claims to be providing an accurate verification of important events yet failed to mention the mass resurrection of the dead when Jesus died.

The author of John portrays Jesus being arrested prior to Passover Seder and the Synoptics have him arrested after the Passover.

The author of Matthew has the resurrected Jesus first appearing to the 11 disciples in Galilee, while Luke has that event happening in Jerusalem.

 

Remember as well - if there were perfect agreement from all writers, then the Gospel writers would be charged with collusion (which is the level of agreement that this gentleman seems to be looking for); because we all understand that 4 people giving their truthful account of an event they all witnessed or researched would write accounts with some differences. But do the differences contradict? That is the real issue.

 

It depends on how low you want to set the bar so that "God" can step over it.

 

The point of the passage is that Jesus Christ rose from the dead - fulfilling OT Messianic prophecy, fulfilling His own prophecy, and proving His Deity.

 

What OT messianic prophecy states that a king messiah would come once, be killed, and need a second coming to accomplish what he failed to do the first time?

How does being raised from the dead by God prove that the dead person was God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Re: miracles - moving mountains by prayer is obviously hyperbole - when Jesus ascended into heaven, He didn't command His followers to move mountains - He commanded them to preach the Gospel of forgiveness of sins thru faith in Jesus ALL OVER THE WORLD. SO that's what we have endeavored to accomplish.

 

You omitted the promise made by Jesus that those who believed would display amazing powers, which would confirm to the world that they were indeed true believers rather than false teachers.

Mark 16:17-18

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

 

How many hospitals and nursing homes have you put out of business with the power that Jesus said you would have?

 

Also re: miracles - many were performed by the Apostles throughout the Book of Acts. But miracles are referred to as "acts of the Apostles" in II Corinthians, meaning that they had the specific calling to perform miracles in order to validate their calling and message.

 

There are no qualifiers on the promise made by Jesus that a believer could ask for anything in his name and it would be granted.

John 14:12-14

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

 

The failure of Christians to fulfill this promise either means Jesus was lying or there are no qualified believers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please supply one objective proof against any Biblical statement being demonstrably false.

 

Jesus was supposed to have declared all food clean in Mark 7:18.

Paul declared that all foods were clean and it was a matter of personal preference about what could be eaten.

 

Rom 14:14

I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

 

However, God "the Father" declared that consuming unclean food was a form of abomination, a very unholy thing to do.

Which position is in error?

Is it a matter of personal preference or is it a command from God not to eat pork or shellfish?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps ray can explain how Jesus' father Joseph could have two different fathers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kcdad
Perhaps ray can explain how Jesus' father Joseph could have two different fathers.

 

matrilineal and patrilineal geneologies... easy. If you want to play "Stump the Fundie" you have to do better than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kcdad
The Bible does not claim the world is flat - the Bible states the world is spherical and "hangs on nothing" in Job 26:7-10.

 

However, it was Christians in England (Wilberforce) and in America (John Brown) who were abolitionists and led the fight to outlaw slavery.

 

1) The Bible states categoprically there are three layers: the waters below, the earth and the waters above. Can you explain this in terms of a sphere?

 

2) It was SOME Christians in England and the United States that were against slavery.

There were nearly as many Chrisitans in favor of Christianity... even Lincoln said that the Africans might be better off as slaves than freed into American society.

 

Those same Christians refused women equal rights. Those same Christians refused to allow Chinese the right to enter this country except as cheap labor

(like the immigrants flowing in from our southern border today)

 

(John Brown was a crazy lunatic... I love the guy, but he was a homocidal maniac)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kcdad
The part the fascinate me most in the resurrection story--which also very few ever mention in a sermon--is that one of the stories (Matthew) claim that the streets were filled with zombies after the earthquake. Basically, the ground was shaken so hard that even the dead saints woke up, and started to walk around like zombies in the city and preached to people. Now, one might consider this to be extremely strange, but what I find even more strange is... how did these people die again? And if they were resurrected just like Jesus, does it mean all of them were saviors? Are we all cleansed in the blood of the unnamed and anonymous dead zombies who walked Jerusalem after the earthquake? Who can say if it really was Jesus' blood who clean us. Maybe it was the other dead guy in the tomb next to Jesus who really was the one, and Jesus was just one of the other dead dudes? And why didn't every scholar in the city write about this extraordinary event? Dead people walking downtown and preaching... it must have been a rare sight... someone non-Christian must have written about it. Why is there no accounts of this event outside of the Bible?

 

Exactly.. and if Jesus was bodily, physically resurrected.. where is his body now? It did not go up into the sky into heaven because we have been there... its not there. So where did the body go? Fine, his spirit is in heaven... fine, I'll concede that. WHERE IS THE PHYSICAL BODY?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps ray can explain how Jesus' father Joseph could have two different fathers.

 

matrilineal and patrilineal geneologies... easy. If you want to play "Stump the Fundie" you have to do better than that.

 

Yeah that doesn't really work. Many fundies try to play this off like one genealogy traces Mary and the other through Joseph, except the clearly do no such thing. Matthew claims that Joseph's father was named Jacob and Luke claims his father's name was Heli.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly.. and if Jesus was bodily, physically resurrected.. where is his body now? It did not go up into the sky into heaven because we have been there... its not there. So where did the body go? Fine, his spirit is in heaven... fine, I'll concede that. WHERE IS THE PHYSICAL BODY?????

Good point... he could walk through walls, and even make his appearance change, so it sounds like the new Jesus was some angel like creature, but the cells, matter, bones, brain, all that junk left behind still would have to be somewhere then. Unless it's like some sci-fi stories where a guy gets his body's "frequency" changed and is out of phase with the world (whatever that means). One thing which is also odd with the story is that Jesus ascended to the sky in a cloud. Why was that necessary? If the kingdom of God is within us and around us (according to Jesus), and it's a matter of "phased quantum frequency," wouldn't it be enough to just dim away into the other dimension? Does the intra-dimensional portal for 9th, 10th, and 11th dimension exist like a portal 1,000 feet up in the sky over Jerusalem? Wait... maybe it was a spaceship after all. Jesus becomes an alien for every minute I think of it! :HaHa:

 

Oh, and I thought about the zombies in the city a bit more, and not only is it strange that no one in the city wrote about it, but did the other Gospel writers write about it? Only one apostle saw the zombies flooding the streets. How can that be? Or maybe those kinds of events were so common that it was completely forgotten by the other apostles? They saw it too, but thought it was so ordinary that they didn't care, but then again, the authors wrote a whole lot about minor and ordinary things, so why leave this miracle out?

 

And another strange thing, the guards... they were told to watch the grave of a person who claimed he was the son of God. Here they are. There is an earthquake. Angels come down and strike them as dead (knock them out... that mus be a miracle, a human can never do anything like that... knock someone out so he's out cold while you steal the body? No, impossible!) They hear later about zombies in the street. They hear about the veil in the temple ripped apart. Miracle and wonders everywhere. And they the body is gone. They hear rumors that the guy who called himself Son of God was resurrected. So they go and tell the priests, and the priests tell them (very convincingly) to lie about it. Eh... wha...??? Wait! How can that be? Well... the priests must have had their families captured and threaten to torture and kill them... for why otherwise would they lie about what they had experienced? I mean, people becomes obsessed about things they believe even WITHOUT a day full of wonders. Amazing! Those guards were really easy convinced to lie by the priests, seemingly for nothing, and to lie about a truckload of amazing miracles they had witnessed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing which is also odd with the story is that Jesus ascended to the sky in a cloud. Why was that necessary? If the kingdom of God is within us and around us (according to Jesus), and it's a matter of "phased quantum frequency," wouldn't it be enough to just dim away into the other dimension? Does the intra-dimensional portal for 9th, 10th, and 11th dimension exist like a portal 1,000 feet up in the sky over Jerusalem? Wait... maybe it was a spaceship after all. Jesus becomes an alien for every minute I think of it! :HaHa:

Well, rationally of course this is explained easily as an element of myth, since the sky would have held mystery to those in the ancient world, never able to leave the ground and ascend to the clouds and above them themselves.

 

But of course, since the Bible should be understood in the "Plain Reading", this is not a metaphor, but in fact literal. We therefore need to ignore these thoughts of "common sense", and only apply that reasoning to other religions! If that came, say from Islam, where Mohamed leapt up into the sky on his horse going up to the clouds and heaven above, then of course it is reflective of a myth-making process. But seen in Christianity, then it's a fact, and to question it risks your salvation!

 

The general rule when it comes to this stuff (said for the benefit of our apologist) is this: If it looks like a myth, sounds like a myth, smells like a myth, then the chances are exceedingly high that it is in fact a myth! How is it that you can recognize myth in other religions but not your own? Answer that, and you will impress me as insightful.

 

Care to answer? Is Mohamed leaping to heaven on his horse a myth? Is Jesus leaping to heaven on a cloud a myth too, or is it somehow different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But of course, since the Bible should be understood in the "Plain Reading", this is not a metaphor, but in fact literal. We therefore need to ignore these thoughts of "common sense", and only apply that reasoning to other religions! If that came, say from Islam, where Mohamed leapt up into the sky on his horse going up to the clouds and heaven above, then of course it is reflective of a myth-making process. But seen in Christianity, then it's a fact, and to question it risks your salvation!

 

The general rule when it comes to this stuff (said for the benefit of our apologist) is this: If it looks like a myth, sounds like a myth, smells like a myth, then the chances are exceedingly high that it is in fact a myth! How is it that you can recognize myth in other religions but not your own? Answer that, and you will impress me as insightful.

 

Care to answer? Is Mohamed leaping to heaven on his horse a myth? Is Jesus leaping to heaven on a cloud a myth too, or is it somehow different?

Sounds like you're directing the question to me, but I assume that it's really intended for our Christian guest, correct? :scratch:

 

Btw, if it looks like a myth, smells like a myth, then it's a duck... :grin: (at least after logic according to Christian apologetic is applied)

 

And I still don't know how the authors knew the details of events that transpired when they were not around. Like the temptation in the desert or the Sanhedrin hearing behind closed doors. Or just Gethsemane, when they all fall asleep, but somehow the author knows what Jesus prayed. And it's not like Jesus had time to tell them, because in the moment later they get attacked, they flee, and Jesus is apprehended. So did Jesus tell them this "important" details after his resurrection? Maybe. But it definitely sounds more like a fiction story than the eyewitness account. If I'm in a car accident, and I make my deposition, I won't start telling them about what the people said and did in the other cars in the accident, because I didn't witness those things. But the Gospels are full of those situations, where the narrator knows more than the people in the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But of course, since the Bible should be understood in the "Plain Reading", this is not a metaphor, but in fact literal. We therefore need to ignore these thoughts of "common sense", and only apply that reasoning to other religions! If that came, say from Islam, where Mohamed leapt up into the sky on his horse going up to the clouds and heaven above, then of course it is reflective of a myth-making process. But seen in Christianity, then it's a fact, and to question it risks your salvation!

 

The general rule when it comes to this stuff (said for the benefit of our apologist) is this: If it looks like a myth, sounds like a myth, smells like a myth, then the chances are exceedingly high that it is in fact a myth! How is it that you can recognize myth in other religions but not your own? Answer that, and you will impress me as insightful.

 

Care to answer? Is Mohamed leaping to heaven on his horse a myth? Is Jesus leaping to heaven on a cloud a myth too, or is it somehow different?

Sounds like you're directing the question to me, but I assume that it's really intended for our Christian guest, correct? :scratch:

I think when I said what is in red, my thinking just shifted to talking to him. What can I say? Sometimes I derail the flow of speech, but usually I fix it in a post. You should see what it's like living with me! I know what I mean and who I'm talking to, it's just everyone else who's screwed. It's just only get worse with age, LR. :HaHa:

 

And I still don't know how the authors knew the details of events that transpired when they were not around. Like the temptation in the desert or the Sanhedrin hearing behind closed doors. Or just Gethsemane, when they all fall asleep, but somehow the author knows what Jesus prayed.

Well you see, in other religions that's a sign it was an embelished story as part of the myth-making process. But in Christianity, the Holy Spirit revealed it to them (never mind the fact that that itself is part of the myth - let's not look at the man behind the curtain).

 

But it definitely sounds more like a fiction story than the eyewitness account. If I'm in a car accident, and I make my deposition, I won't start telling them about what the people said and did in the other cars in the accident, because I didn't witness those things. But the Gospels are full of those situations, where the narrator knows more than the people in the story.

Well that in and of itself negates the argument that it's an eye-witness account. It's not. Something like that, things they could not have seen, are either revealed stories through some sort of mystical experience, or they were made up (or made up through some sort of ecstatic experience, and therefore validated in their minds as real because of emotions). So the bottom line is the best that could be said of any of the Gospels is parts of it might be eyewitness accounts, but certainly includes information from some other non-direct witness means.

 

It's like claiming the Pentateuch was written by Moses when it records his own death! Duh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are a plethora of recognized Biblical scholars that teach at a number of Christian seminaries all over our planet - they are experts in ancient world history, ancient languages such as Akkadian, Koine Greek, Biblical Hebrew, Hieroglyphics, etc. and also archeology and ancient religions - their study has confirmed their Evangelical Biblical faith.
Which scholars are recognized? Just because you say there are recognized scholars who believe in fundamentalism doesn't make it so unless you give us examples so we can check their credentials. Why are you dodging my questions? Are you really such a coward that you can't face the facts you have no evidence for your beliefs?

 

The statement about salvation from sin was simlpy meant to communicate the import of Biblical inerrancy for many Christians. If God cannot move upon human authors to produce a book without error in history, geography, etc - then how can I believe God when He reveals that salvation results from faith in Jesus Christ as God Incarnate, dying in my place for my sin, and rising from the dead to show His Deity and as promise that He will raise all His followers? It would be utter nonsense & foolishness to follow a God incapable of inerrancy. As Paul says - without the resurrection of Jesus Christ - Christians are to be pitied more than all other people.
So, in other words, you only care about living in a fairytale world of magic and make believe and you don't really care about the teachings of Jesus? Some follower of Jesus you are. You're also cherry picking the words of Paul and ignoring what the rest of 1 Cor 14 says. In Cor 14:50 Paul writes
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption.
He says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom. But if Jesus was literally resurrected in a flesh and blood body, how can Jesus return to heaven then? So you must admit either that Paul didn't believe in a literal resurrection of the body of Jesus but a spiritual resurrection or the bible is contradictory.

 

Jesus believed in Creation (Mark 13:19); Adam & Eve (Matthew 19:3-6); Abel's murder (Matt 23:35); Flood (Matt 24:38,39); Moses & the serpent (John 3:14); destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah (Luke 17:28,29); Jonah and the great fish (Matt 12:40).
How does Jesus quoting these stories proves he believed they were literally true? That's like saying if I quote Lord Of The Rings, then that's somehow magically proof that I believe Sauron is a real person.

 

The Bible does not claim the world is flat - the Bible states the world is spherical and "hangs on nothing" in Job 26:7-10.
The bible does not claim the Earth is spherical. In Job 26:10, it says that the Earth is a circle which is not the same thing as a sphere.
He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters,

At the boundary of light and darkness.

Just because it describes the Earth as a circle does not mean that it's describing the Earth is spherical as circles can be flat, too. Ever seen a frisbee? Frisbees are circles too but they're as flat as a pancake. Pancakes are also examples of round things that are also flat. You're also cherry picking again and ignoring what it says in the next verse. Verse 11 says that the heavens are held up by pillars:
11 The pillars of heaven tremble,

And are astonished at His rebuke.

How could the heavens be held up by pillars if the bible authors believe the Earth is round? Besides, the Earth isn't even a sphere, it's more of an egg shape.

 

The verse you quoted does not teach slavery; but certainly from a historical perspective, slavery has not been a shining point for Christianity. However, it was Christians in England (Wilberforce) and in America (John Brown) who were abolitionists and led the fight to outlaw slavery.
How does the verse I quoted not teach slavery? Just because you say it doesn't teach it doesn't suddenly explain how it doesn't teach slavery. And what about the book of Philemon? Why does Paul write for the slave to return to his master but does not stand up against slavery?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps ray can explain how Jesus' father Joseph could have two different fathers.

The easy answer: They got married in California before Prop 8 was passed...

 

Joseph was a clone, and Jesus was androgyny (One X-chromosome from Mary, and some strange X or Y Chromosome from the Holy Spirit).

 

...

It's like claiming the Pentateuch was written by Moses when it records his own death! Duh!

Exactly. What it really is, is a misuse of the word "eyewitness account," if it is anything, it would rather be a compendium of recollections of many different eyewitnesses. Not one eyewitness, or necessarily the authors own recollection of things. If the story/Gospels were true, the best argument is to say that some author wrote down the stories of the ones who actually did see the events. More like a historian. But this incessant demand to accept the stories as direct observations of the authors, is just beyond comprehension. My message is: give it up already. Take up new arguments, and adjust them to modern thinking and knowledge. It's impossible to believe the Gospels are the stories of each apostle, but is obviously (at best, if true) the collected stories of many. But with that said, too many details in the story screams fiction rather than someones memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have just one question for Christians to answer. Why must the bible be the 100% literally true and perfect, inerrant word of god for the bible to have any value to it?

 

The Bible does not have to be believed as 100% inerrant by an individual to have value for that person - many Christians believe (unfortunately) that the Bible has inaccuracies or errors regarding history, science, geography, etc. But regarding faith & practice, they do consider the Bible as 'infallibale.' Therefore, they will believe in Jesus Christ aas Lord & Savior, and in Christian conduct as set forth in Scripture; thus deriving value in their own personal lives.

 

 

From BibleGateway.com...Galatians 1:13-17

 

11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up.

 

12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

 

13For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.

 

14I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

 

15But when God, who set me apart from birth[a] and called me by his grace, was pleased

 

16to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man,

 

17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

 

 

If your Precious Word, rayskidude, is inerrant and without flaw, then why is there an ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT allowing for one person to interpret Scripture in his own way as opposed to anoter way. Jesus revealed himself to Paul and he went on to preach his own version of Christianity seperate from Peter and the rest. If you claim that man is fallible and yet a man claims revelation from God or Jesus Christ, how is this possible? How do I know to trust it? What if two men interpret the same verse differently?

 

If anything cemented the nail in my belief coffin, it was that very passage written above.

 

 

I am surprised that you stopped at Gal 1:17 . because we read in 1:18,19 "Then 3 years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas (Peter) and stayed with him 15 days... (and) James, the Lord's brother." And then in Gal 2:1-9, Paul states; "Then after 14 years I went up again to Jerusalem... it was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation... But from those who were of high reputation... (they) contributed nothing to me. But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the Gospel to the uncircumcised - for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised worked for me also to the Gentiles - and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship."

 

In addition, Peter says in II Peter 3:15,16; "just as also Paul, our beloved brother, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."

 

So we see that Paul's Gospel preaching/interpretation was the same as that of Peter, James, and John. SO there is no "one-man show" regarding the doctrine of the Gospel, these men had different segments of mankind that they ministered among. But we see that Peter acknowledged Paul's wisdom & ministry to non-Jews, and equated Paul's letters with Scripture.

 

Both these men - as did all the Apostles - taught Jesus Christ as God Incarnate who fulfilled Messianic prophecies, who's perfect life made Him the Lamb of God whose death took away the sin of the world, whose resurrection declared His Deity and secured our justification before God - and by God's grace people entrust themsleves to Jesus as their Lord & Savior, thus obtaining God's salvation as a gift of His grace.

 

SO is there anything else re: this issue that cuses you consternation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So we see that Paul's Gospel preaching/interpretation was the same as that of Peter, James, and John. SO there is no "one-man show" regarding the doctrine of the Gospel, these men had different segments of mankind that they ministered among. But we see that Peter acknowledged Paul's wisdom & ministry to non-Jews, and equated Paul's letters with Scripture.

So what about Gal 2:11-14?

 

You're saying they didn't disagree, and there it is, a disagreement. Who should we trust? Peter, the right hand of Jesus for three years, in the flesh, or Paul who claimed he had a "vision?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In addition, Peter says in II Peter 3:15,16; "just as also Paul, our beloved brother, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."

 

So we see that Paul's Gospel preaching/interpretation was the same as that of Peter, James, and John. SO there is no "one-man show" regarding the doctrine of the Gospel, these men had different segments of mankind that they ministered among. But we see that Peter acknowledged Paul's wisdom & ministry to non-Jews, and equated Paul's letters with Scripture.

 

Both these men - as did all the Apostles - taught Jesus Christ as God Incarnate who fulfilled Messianic prophecies, who's perfect life made Him the Lamb of God whose death took away the sin of the world, whose resurrection declared His Deity and secured our justification before God - and by God's grace people entrust themsleves to Jesus as their Lord & Savior, thus obtaining God's salvation as a gift of His grace.

 

SO is there anything else re: this issue that cuses you consternation?

Absolute bunk. 2 Peter you say?

 

This is a quote from Bart D. Ehrman, who has a "Ph.D and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied under Bruce Metzger. He currently serves as the chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He was the President of the Southeast Region of the Society of Biblical Literature, and worked closely as an editor on a number of the Society's publications. Currently, he co-edits the series New Testament Tools and Studies." (from here). Here's what this genuine scholar says about 2 Peter in his book Lost Christianities, page 11,

 

"Other books, however are widely regarded as forged. The author of 2 Peter explicitly claims to be Simon Peter, the disciple of Jesus, who beheld the transfiguration (1:16-18).
But critical scholars are virtually unanimous that it was not written by him
. So too the Pastoral epistles of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus: They claim to be written by Paul, but appear to have been written long after his death.

 

How could forgeries make it into the New Testament? Possibly it is better to reverse the question: Why shouldn't forgeries have made it into the New Testament? Who was collecting the books? When did they do so? And how would
they
have known whether a book that claims to be written by Peter was actually written by Peter or that a book allegedly written by Paul was actually by Paul? So far as we know, none of the letters was included in a cannon of sacred texts until decades after they were written, and the New Testament canon as a whole still had not reached final form for another two centuries after that. How would someone hundreds of years later know who had written the books?"

 

So... to your argument that Paul was preaching the same gospel as all these others is without merit. Paul's writings came first, the some forger much later has Peter agreeing with Paul, because they wanted to. John, likewise was written long after Paul.

 

You know, I think someone asked you for the credentials of these scholars you're relying on. Have you offered any names yet? Do you deny what Erhman claims that, critical scholars are virtually unanimous that it was not written by him"?

 

So far you sound like you've just memorized a bunch of arguments, and as of yet I'm not hearing any dialog, just parroting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So we see that Paul's Gospel preaching/interpretation was the same as that of Peter, James, and John. SO there is no "one-man show" regarding the doctrine of the Gospel, these men had different segments of mankind that they ministered among. But we see that Peter acknowledged Paul's wisdom & ministry to non-Jews, and equated Paul's letters with Scripture.

So what about Gal 2:11-14?

 

You're saying they didn't disagree, and there it is, a disagreement. Who should we trust? Peter, the right hand of Jesus for three years, in the flesh, or Paul who claimed he had a "vision?"

 

Han, please - I mean... really, you cannot be serious.

 

The disagreement betwen Peter and Paul in Galatians was NOT over Gospel doctrine, but over appropriate Christian conduct. Are you completely unaware of how many times Peter in the Gospels made rash statements or acted impulsively? Yet, God takes us as flawed and shallow as we are - and by His grace He uses us to accomplish His purposes.

 

Remember, it was this screw-up Peter, who after denying His LORD 3 times, was commisioned by Jesus Christ to; "Feed My sheep."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.