Bible Fails

[shmogie]

The Bible fails for failing to state that rape is wrong, and that raped women are not damaged goods except possibly psychologically. We have come so much farther than those primitive morals.



Hat's the job of the biblical apologist, who has chosen to defend his Bible because it tells of the acts and opinions of what he presumes before reviewing its choices to be a perfect god, and therefore whatever it is said to do is good. The job is to whitewash the moral failing away and claim that those disagreeing lack their discernment of scripture in an effort to disqualify those opinions.

Of course, it's actually the other way around. A believer cannot be expected to read the words and repeat what they say. He needs to change meaning as I alluded to above, where meek becomes humble and turn the other cheek becomes forgive. I don't need anybody to tell me what the words man, and I have no agenda to sanitize them, so I will trust my own understanding over that of people with a need to make the words moral and consistent.



This god always chooses to do what would be the case if there were no god, like a coin that always comes up tails. One begins to think that no other outcome is possible.



Why not?

How nice it would be to be under the auspices of a competent, benevolent puppeteer. Better than a mentor or guru.

But kudos for expressing this idea without using the word robot, also something I would not mind discovering I was. My views on free will suggest that it doesn't exist, and I am willing to embrace that possibility. If life is this good without free will, who needs it? Why harm might having it lead to?



So why would we be interested in their advice? Better that we could advise them. I'd love to be able to tell them about antibiotics and electricity.





Your own post excusing forcing rape victims to marry their rapists is such an example of moral gymnastics. You tried to put a positive spin on it by naming something worse that could have been the case. How about something better, like getting rid of old and hurtful ideas such as that a raped woman is of less value than a virgin? We're talking about the failings of the Bible, and this is one such area.



She's not asking what a Christian is. She has her definition, as do I. She's asking what the word means to you.



There went the Ten Commandments. Not meant for us today.

And the newer stuff, also given to a specific people living in a specific time, is already two millennia old. How about we ignore it all?



So how is one to decide which are the words of a god and which are the words of human beings? I would treat the two differently if I could distinguish them.



With all due respect (and I mean that - I respect your opinions), I don't see those stories as allegorical, but as errors - best guesses - since shown to be incorrect.

An allegory is a literary form in which the author wishes to symbolize events and actors in contemporary life or history by substituting allegorical figures and acts for real ones known to the author. I don't think that that's what these myths are. What are the six days of creation an allegory for? What really happened quite differently over billions of yeas? What is the day of rest symbolic of? What represents cosmic expansion, symmetry breaking, inflation, the formation of galaxies, or the evolution of life on earth? The two stories don't correlate the way allegory (and metaphor do). They don't correlate at all.



Why wouldn't we read the words of primitive savages today if they left them for us to read?



Or why any modern thinkers should care about the thoughts of people whose lives were so different from ours in the way they viewed reality, their limited understanding of its workings, or their primitive sense of right and wrong.Those two worlds have little in common, so what do those people have to tell us that is both correct and not apparent to us without them?

God specifically gave the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy to the Jews ONLY. They related to the land taken by Israel, ONLY. They ceased to apply when Israel was first conquered.

The ten commandments were given BEFORE those of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and applied to Jews only.

The New Testament reiterates and establishes 9 of the 10, and applies these and all other Christian principles for all believers, for all time.

Your criticism fails.

 

[sooda]

God specifically gave the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy to the Jews ONLY. They related to the land taken by Israel, ONLY. They ceased to apply when Israel was first conquered.

The ten commandments were given BEFORE those of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and applied to Jews only.

The New Testament reiterates and establishes 9 of the 10, and applies these and all other Christian principles for all believers, for all time.

Your criticism fails.

Who says their laws cease to exist? Leviticus and Deuteronomy were written during and after the Babylonia exile to give the Hebrews an identity and rituals that set them apart from "the other".

 

[McBell]

Before the written word of God there was the spoken word of God.

Oh goodness gracies!
With as badly as you "telephone" the written word, there is no way I would want to have you throwing spoken versions of it at people.

 

[McBell]

God specifically gave the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy to the Jews ONLY. They related to the land taken by Israel, ONLY. They ceased to apply when Israel was first conquered.

The ten commandments were given BEFORE those of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and applied to Jews only.

The New Testament reiterates and establishes 9 of the 10, and applies these and all other Christian principles for all believers, for all time.

Your criticism fails.

 

[sojourner]

This "illiterate" business reminds me of the "poverty" myth.
Many of the people with Jesus were well-to-do or outright rich.
despite the Mother Teresa mentality people have about the
poor in the Gospels.
Same too with literacy. Well to do people were more likely
to be literate. John Zebedee's family seemed to be well off
and John wrote various letters - I doubt he needed a secretary
to do this.
Same with Peter and Andrew.
Someone wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts together - no name
given but as these were copied and handed around people
would have identified them with someone - why invent a name
when all you have to do is use the name of the guy who
wrote them - he was known to many of the readers personally.
And Matthew was a tax official - knowing multiple languages
was well nigh compulsory for his job.
And of course - people who left all and went out into the Roman
world preaching would have taken the time to learn another
language, and how to write.

You’re thinking in 21st century Western terms. It just didn’t happen that way. The reason why the gospels weren’t autographed is that they likely began as oral stories and were only written down later on. since writing wasn’t so much a part of the culture, autographs were relatively unimportant. They didn’t have a concept for “intellectual property.” That’s why pseudographs were common. I’m afraid you’ve fallen into the same trap of not considering the cultural oddities that made ancient Galilee vastly different from the modern USA.

 

[sojourner]

Before the written word of God there was the spoken word of God.

No, you said that we can only apprehend God through the written word. And you’ve suggested that God wrote the Bible. Your warped logic continues to make less and less sense. I really think you’re just making excuses for believing what you believe.

 

[sojourner]

So, in an effort to get this thread back on track, what seem to people to be the strongest biblical 'fails' presented so far?

Let me take another stab at this. The canon, IMO is a YUGE failure. What was intended to set a baseline for “what’s OK to read in church” has become the be-all-end-all definition of “what is scripture.” this precludes the possibility of any new stuff “making the cut.” Thomas is a fine example. Thomas is as “scripture” as it gets, but because it was not rediscovered until after the canon closed, it is forever denied what it is. This myopic view limits scripture to “what we’ve already decided.” Further, there is little agreement on what was intended to be consensus. The Greeks have a canon. The Protestants have a canon. The Ethiopians have a canon. this is an epic fail. Apparently we either are incapable of performing the discernment necessary, we’re too caught up in our own “authority track,” or we just don’t have any business judging ancient texts we know very little about.

 

[shmogie]

Who says their laws cease to exist? Leviticus and Deuteronomy were written during and after the Babylonia exile to give the Hebrews an identity and rituals that set them apart from "the other".

The New Testament says they ceased to exist. Do you see Jews today going to a priest for advice on the rash they have? I don't think they segregate menstruating women, or consider them and someone who has touched a dead body as ritually unclean.

With the destruction of the temple in 70 AD the entire original worship system in the law ceased to exist.

 

[sojourner]

Let me take another stab at this. The canon, IMO is a YUGE failure. What was intended to set a baseline for “what’s OK to read in church” has become the be-all-end-all definition of “what is scripture.” this precludes the possibility of any new stuff “making the cut.” Thomas is a fine example. Thomas is as “scripture” as it gets, but because it was not rediscovered until after the canon closed, it is forever denied what it is. This myopic view limits scripture to “what we’ve already decided.” Further, there is little agreement on what was intended to be consensus. The Greeks have a canon. The Protestants have a canon. The Ethiopians have a canon. this is an epic fail. Apparently we either are incapable of performing the discernment necessary, we’re too caught up in our own “authority track,” or we just don’t have any business judging ancient texts we know very little about.

Added to that is the fact that we are severely limiting ourselves and robbing ourselves of the wide palette of spirituality by not recognizing the benefits of other religious voices and adding them to our symphony.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The New Testament says they ceased to exist. Do you see Jews today going to a priest for advice on the rash they have? I don't think they segregate menstruating women, or consider them and someone who has touched a dead body as ritually unclean.

With the destruction of the temple in 70 AD the entire original worship system in the law ceased to exist.

It also says that they are still in effect. I know who said that they are still in effect, who said that they aren't?

 

[james bond]

Being meek is a curse, not a blessing.

I certainly don't think it is a curse. I was taught meek means to obey God. Perhaps meek means possessing power such as nuclear weapons. You don't want to use it at all, but others know you have it so they won't cause war. It's a peace keeping weapon so we do not have WW III. Meek fits in this regards if Jesus was referring to peacekeepers. If we can build the matter-anti-matter weapon, then I think we should. Be meek. Walk softly and carry a big stick.

I don't follow the 700 Club, but they have something like it -- Jesus Was Meek, Not Weak.

This meaning sort of fits because it seems Jesus is going to kick Satan's arse at the end of the world aka second coming of Jesus. I just started to read about the end as the Bible says the believers should be ready. Now, I don't know exactly what it means to be ready.

 

[james bond]

No, the Bible has been shown to be far from a book of truth.

The rest of your rather garbled post is difficult to understand. But it appears that you have a very poor understanding of proof.

It's completely 100% true, complete, infallible, and inerrant . I can't help it if all of the atheists here are wrong; they're 100% ignorant.

This thread like a rally for the atheist religion. They believe what they want as long as it fits their criticisms.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's completely 100% true, complete, infallible, and inerrant . I can't help it if all of the atheists here are wrong; they're 100% ignorant.

This thread like a rally for the atheist religion. They believe what they want as long as it fits their criticisms.

Repeating claims that you cannot support does not help you. Surely you do not believe the Noah's Ark flood story. By the way, the refutation of that mess was not done by atheists. It was refuted by early Christian geologists.

Your post has more than a hint of desperation to it.,

 

[PruePhillip]

You’re thinking in 21st century Western terms. It just didn’t happen that way. The reason why the gospels weren’t autographed is that they likely began as oral stories and were only written down later on. since writing wasn’t so much a part of the culture, autographs were relatively unimportant. They didn’t have a concept for “intellectual property.” That’s why pseudographs were common. I’m afraid you’ve fallen into the same trap of not considering the cultural oddities that made ancient Galilee vastly different from the modern USA.

Sure, but why didn't a Luke-type-guy say King Solomon wrote this grand historic narrative?
My understand of "pseudographia" is that you associate your work with some famous name
to gain readership. As it was we are left with "Luke" - not Peter, for instance, but Luke. And
who is Luke? Maybe he was the physician in Acts? Who knows.
Why pseudograph an almost complete unknown name?
I will stick with Occam's Razor - Luke wrote it because people "back then" associated that
name with that work. Only, we can't be sure who Luke was.

I posit one important reason why people didn't pen their name to their work.
Humility.
Note John writing about the "disciple whom Jesus loved." He isn't saying it but we can
figure out it was himself. These men gave account of Jesus or His ministry, they had little
to say about themselves. This is the same reason why we don't dig up grand statues of
King David or King Solomon, or great monuments to the achievements of the prophets
of Israel. It was bordering on blasphemy.

 

[sojourner]

I will stick with Occam's Razor - Luke wrote it because people "back then" associated that
name with that work. Only, we can't be sure who Luke was

That may work for Luke (who was Gentile), but it doesn’t work for Matthew or Mark. We simply don’t know who these people were, but there’s no actual reason to claim that they were Mark or Matthew the apostles, for the same reasons I stated earlier: The writing is too urbane for either, who were likely illiterate, and the dating is too late for either of them.

I posit one important reason why people didn't pen their name to their work.
Humility

You’e still thinking like a modern Westerner. People didn’t autograph work because A) the stories likely weren’t written down at first, and people didn’t say “This is a story by...” they just told the story. And B) Authorship was unimportant then. also C) there was no such thing as “intellectual property” then and there. Why must I keep repeating myself?

He isn't saying it but we can
figure out it was himself

Or better, we can figure out that it wasn’t. Being written around the year 100, it is far, far too late to have been written by john the apostle.

 

[3rdAngel]

I don't believe I have any such fight. I actually have great respect for the bible. But I don't believe it to be inerrent.

As to how I got to that understanding, I'm happy to give you a very condensed version, and it was nothing really to do with either of your two bullet points:

Basically, I became a Christian at aged twenty in a conservative, evangelical church which taught biblical inerrency. I believed what I was taught, but being a somewhat independant thinker and inclined towards intellectual integrity I read, and asked, and discussed, and thought, and prayed so as to gain a better understanding of the scriptures as I was encouraged to do, always trying my best to go where the evidence led since I assumed that truth never had anything to fear.

Over the years of study and reflection that approach led me away from many of the theologies I originally held, including the idea of inerrency. And here I am. Simple as that, really.

Hello Galateasdream,

I would like to challenge your claims to intellectual integrity in regard to the truth of the scriptures and your claims to a "better" understanding of the scriptures if you do not mind to see if your claims are true or not. This is what you have said and claim, but is it true? For example you make a thread here in order to discredit the scriptures. In my view this only encourages unbelievers in their folly and puts doubt in the mind of believers yet I believe as posted to you earlier that it is only through believing and following the scriptures that the "true christian" has salvation according to the scriptures. So in effect instead of leading people to the Word of God, which is the gospel commission written in the Word of God, in fact all you doing is leading people away from the Word of God.

Thankyou also for sharing your thoughts in your previous post as it explains a lot to me. To me it sound like you come under point 1 seeking to know God independently being taught your version of the truth of the scriptures outside of the bible. I do not know if point 2 may apply with you as well in regards to having known sin in your life that is separating you from God, so I will leave that between you and God. May I ask you for example in relation to the scriptures if you believe homosexuality is a sin? If so why? If not why not?

Next let's look in detail to how and what the scriptures teach in relation to how believing and following what the scriptures teach are our only means of salvation (this list of scripture is not exhaustive I have tried to keep them to a minimum so the discussion is easy to follow)....

HOW ARE WE SAVED ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES?

EPHESIANS 2:8-9 [8], FOR BY GRACE ARE YOU SAVED THROUGH FAITH; and that not of yourselves: IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD: [9], Not of works, lest any man should boast.

CONCLUSION: We are saved or have salvation through faith, it is not of ourselves it is a gift of God.

..............

WHAT IS FAITH AND HOW DO WE GET IT?

The Greek word meaning of faith G4102 Πίστις; pistis meaning; OF; TO; THE; ASSURANCE; BELIEF; From G3982; persuasion, that is, credence ; moral conviction of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher, especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; truth itself: - assurance, BELIEF, BELIEVE, FAITH, fidelity; Greek word meaning πιστεύω pisteuō From G4102; to HAVE FAITH (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing) BELIEVE; TRUST, that is, credit ; by implication to entrust (especially one's spiritual well being to Christ): - believe (-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.

HEBREWS 11:1 Now FAITH is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

ROMANS 10:17 [17], SO THEN FAITH (Πίστις; pistis BELIEF, BELIEVE, BELIEVING, faith) COMES BY HEARING, AND HEARING BY THE WORD OF GOD.

So faith comes by hearing and heaing come by the Word of God so it is fath in God’s Word that brings us salvation.

JOHN 3:14-21 [14], And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: [15], THAT WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM SHOULD NOT PERISH, BUT HAVE ETERNAL LIFE. [16], FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD, THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, THAT WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM SHOULD NOT PERISH, BUT HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE. [17], For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world THROUGH HIM MIGHT BE SAVED. [18], HE THAT BELIEVES ON HIM IS NOT CONDEMNED: but HE THAT BELIEVES NOT IS CONDEMNED ALREADY, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. [19], And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and MEN LOVED DARKNESS RATHER THAN LIGHT, BECAUSE THEIR DEEDS WERE EVIL. [20], For every one that does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. [21], But he that does truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are worked in God.

What does it mean to believe on/in him?

JOHN 1:1-3; 10; 14
[1], In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and THE WORD WAS GOD.
[2], The same was in the beginning with God.
[3], ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM; AND WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANY THING MADE THAT WAS MADE.
[10], HE WAS IN THE WORLD, AND THE WORLD WAS MADE BY HIM, AND THE WORLD KNEW HIM NOT.
[11], HE CAME TO HIS OWN, AND HIS OWN RECEIVED HIM NOT.
[12], BUT AS MANY AS RECEIVED HIM (the Word), to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
[13], Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
[14], AND THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH, AND DWELLED AMONG US, AND WE BEHELD HIS GLORY, THE GLORY AS OF THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER, FULL OF GRACE AND TRUTH.

CONCLUSION: We get faith by believing and following Gods' Word. To believe in JESUS is to believe the Word of God revealed through the scriptures which are the written words of God given by inspiration of God through holy men. JESUS is the Word of God and the creator of heaven and earth according to the scriptures. The one who spoke the Word let there be light and there was light GENESIS 1.

..............

APPLICATION AND AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT JESUS CALLS GREAT FAITH?

MATTHEW 8:5-10 [5], And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came to him a centurion, beseeching him, [6], And saying, Lord, my servant lies at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. [7], And Jesus said to him, I will come and heal him. [8], The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof: BUT SPEAK THE WORD ONLY, AND MY SERVANT SHALL BE HEALED. [9], For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goes; and to another, Come, and he comes; and to my servant, Do this, and he does it. [10], When Jesus heard it, he marveled, and said to them that followed, TRULY I SAY TO YOU, I HAVE NOT FOUND SO GREAT FAITH, NO, NOT IN ISRAEL.

CONCLUSION: Note: what was it that JESUS says that the centurian had great faith? The centurian believed that if JESUS spoke the Word only his sevant would be healed. Great faith therefore is to believe that the Word of God will do what it says it will do. This is salvation as written ealier we are saved by frace THROUGH FAITH! Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.

...............

CAN WE HAVE SALVATION WITHOUT FAITH AND BELIEVING AND FOLLOWING GOD’S WORD?

HEBREWS 11:6 But WITHOUT FAITH IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PLEASE HIM: for he that comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

ROMANS 14:23 … WHATSOEVER IT NOT OF FAITH (believing Gods Word) IS SIN

CONCLUSION: How do we get faith? Faith comes by the Word of God *ROMANS 10:17. If you have no Word then we have no faith therefore it is impossible to please God because whatsoever is not of faith (believing Gods’ Word) is sin *ROMANS 14:23.

...............

Now back to you claims of intellectual integrity in regard to the truth of the scriptures and your claims to a "better" understanding of the scriptures, I have the following questions for consideration. You do not need to answer them here if you do not wish to it is up to you.

1. If according to the scriptures shown above, we are only saved through believing and following God's Word (the scriptures) and your leading and making threads to encourage people not to believe the scriptures how is this christian and how does it show integrity and a better understanding of the scriptures if you deny God's Word when it is Faith in the Word of God alone that brings salvation to those who believe and follow it?

2. If we only receive faith and salvation by believing God's Word and you do not believe God's Word then how can you have salvation by denying God's Word and leading others to do the same?

3. If not believing and following God's Word is sin and you do not believe and follow God's Word and lead others to do the same then what is your standing with God according to the scriptures?

Thanks for the discussion. A detailed response would be helpful if you feel up to it. If not I hope this post may be a blessing and helpful to you personally.

PS. I am not really interested in discussing this with those who are trolling and not interested in an honest discussion. So will only continue with those who are interested in a friendly discussion Thanks...

 

[PruePhillip]

That may work for Luke (who was Gentile), but it doesn’t work for Matthew or Mark. We simply don’t know who these people were, but there’s no actual reason to claim that they were Mark or Matthew the apostles, for the same reasons I stated earlier: The writing is too urbane for either, who were likely illiterate, and the dating is too late for either of them.


You’e still thinking like a modern Westerner. People didn’t autograph work because A) the stories likely weren’t written down at first, and people didn’t say “This is a story by...” they just told the story. And B) Authorship was unimportant then. also C) there was no such thing as “intellectual property” then and there. Why must I keep repeating myself?

Or better, we can figure out that it wasn’t. Being written around the year 100, it is far, far too late to have been written by john the apostle.

How do you come up with 100 AD? Sounds suspiciously round number.
If you read the latter chapters of Luke you see a man (or woman) who
was with Paul on his last journey. And shortly thereafter the book of
Acts ends.
No mention of Paul's death, or Peter's. No mention of General Gallus
or Vespasian, or the temple destroyed, or the Kitos War or anything
from that era. They simply didn't know (with the exception of John's
latter work.)

Some penned their name to their books. Solomon comes to mind,
and Paul, John, James etc.. Some books are a complete mystery,
like Genesis and Exodus. Even Malachi simply means "Messenger."
They gave God the glory, they were all just messengers for Him.

 

[sooda]

How do you come up with 100 AD? Sounds suspiciously round number.
If you read the latter chapters of Luke you see a man (or woman) who
was with Paul on his last journey. And shortly thereafter the book of
Acts ends.
No mention of Paul's death, or Peter's. No mention of General Gallus
or Vespasian, or the temple destroyed, or the Kitos War or anything
from that era. They simply didn't know (with the exception of John's
latter work.)

Some penned their name to their books. Solomon comes to mind,
and Paul, John, James etc.. Some books are a complete mystery,
like Genesis and Exodus. Even Malachi simply means "Messenger."
They gave God the glory, they were all just messengers for Him.

Solomon is likely fiction.. The building projects attributed to him were built by King Ormi.. and the mines etc were owned by Egyptians and worked by Canaanites. There was NO grand kingdom.

 

[PruePhillip]

Solomon is likely fiction.. The building projects attributed to him were built by King Ormi.. and the mines etc were owned by Egyptians and worked by Canaanites. There was NO grand kingdom.

Yeah but, was there REALLY a King Omri? Come on now.
And what about these so-called Canaanites, were they
REALLY there? I mean, where is the proof?
Someone finds a brooch in the Timna copper mines and
claims it was an Egyptian enterprise - come on, we need
a much higher standard of proof.

 

[sooda]

Yeah but, was there REALLY a King Omri? Come on now.
And what about these so-called Canaanites, were they
REALLY there? I mean, where is the proof?
Someone finds a brooch in the Timna copper mines and
claims it was an Egyptian enterprise - come on, we need
a much higher standard of proof.

Yes, Omri was quite real.

• Timna is an Egyptian controlled mining area that produced copper and turquoise . The Egyptians mined copper & turquoise at both Timna and Serabit el-Khadim. Jezirat Faraun was the Egyptian mining sea port that served Timna.

Copper Snake of Timna - Bible
www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-timna.htm