Can we trust the bible?

[Mister Emu]

Moey, I think what Mister Emu is trying to tell us is that God can do whatever He wants. He doesn't follow His own rules.

What rules would those be, and how is He breaking them?

Do as i say not as i do.

Hey, what can I say, when you're God, you're God.

 

[Moey]

I always though a good leader leads be example. Doesn't the bible preach about forgivness? If his love is unconditional then why must we even ask forgivness?

 

[Prometheus]

What rules would those be, and how is He breaking them?

Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not bear false witness.

God has broken both of these.

Hey, what can I say, when your God, your God.

That's what scares me. We've got a childish, jealous, spiteful, racist, sexist egomaniac in charge of the universe.

Be very afraid.

 

[Moey]

Is it not true that ALL his children are supposed to be equal?

 

[Mister Emu]

I always though a good leader leads be example.

A good parent sets restrictions, because the children cannot responsibly handle the issue.

Doesn't the bible preach about forgivness?

Yep.

If his love is unconditional then why must we even ask forgivness?

Because He is also Holy and Just. If you are not repentant that sin still stains you, you cannot be in His presence(is how I understand it).

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not bear false witness.

God has broken both of these.



That's what scares me. We've got a childish, jealous, spiteful, racist, sexist egomaniac in charge of the universe.

Be very afraid.

You might as well add dictator to that list! I do find it very strange, How God teaches one thing yet does another. Hitler for example wanted to have blonde/blue eyed pure race. Yet Hitler himself was black haired/supposedly Gay and the complete opposite to what he wanted. Its very strange.......

 

[sojourner]

You know those Bibles you find in hotels?

That.

My point is that any old Bible you find lying around will do. They are all God's word. Unless, you know for a fact that one version is more "revealing" than another. It doesn't really matter, though, since most people read the KJV.

You were the one who suggested reading the whole Bible. My question is: What constitutes "the whole Bible?" Clearly, the Orthodox do not consider the Protestant Bible one finds in hotel rooms as "the whole Bible." Since you're insisting on accuracy as a benchmark for belief, why not hold yourself to the same standard to which you hold others?

If you admit that the Bible has mistakes in it, you can't even be sure His name really is Jesus. I do recall that He was supposed to be called "Immanuel" at one point, but I guess the authors got a little mixed up.

Not to mention that the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John look like God decided He wanted to make the story of Jesus as inconsistent as possible. (Were there two angels at Christ's tomb, or just one?) In fact, every gospel, including Thomas and Judas, tells it differently. Which one is the right one? Jesus never even called Himself the messiah. At most He said He was "The Son of Man", whatever that means.

The moment you admit the Bible has factual inaccuracies, which you have, you admit you can be sure of nothing said in the Bible whatsoever. This includes everything you know about this Jesus character.

Is name really wasn't Jesus. That's obviously an anglicanization of the name. So what? "Emmanuel" means "God with us." Not a name, but a title. Again, so what. Methinks it's not the author(s) who are confused, but you.

What's inconsistent about the gospel story? It's the same story told from differing points of view. Anyone with a brain stem can see that. Don't be so obviously pejorative. Differences in the telling do not = fallacy.

The Americans say that we won independence in 1776. The British say they granted us independence on a completely different date. Who's "right" and who's "wrong?" It depends on your perspective. Same with the gospel authors.

The moment you say that faith must be based in fact, you're not dealing with faith anymore -- you're dealing with theory.
I don't subscribe to sola scriptura. I don't care what Jesus' "real" name was -- it doesn't matter. You're trying to make a theologian into a scientist. It's like trying to play "connect the dots" on a zebra. Futile and nonsensical.

Need I remind you I'm a former Christian? I know what faith is. I had it. Now I'm glad to be rid of it.

Need I remind you that I didn't ask you about your knowledge of faith? I asked you about your knowledge of what the Bible is.

Be that as it may, this is nonsense. You can't argue against something by hoping to prove that it's something it is not.

 

[Mister Emu]

Thou shalt not kill.

Thou shalt not murder

Thou shalt not bear false witness.

God has broken both of these.

and how is He breaking them?

how is He/has He*

Is it not true that ALL his children are supposed to be equal?

Yep.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28

 

[sojourner]

I wonder, then, why there are so many denominations. It's obviously not clear enough.

One has to wonder what your definition of "obvious" is? Denominations are not delineated in the Bible as "correct belief." They are humanity's voicebox for faith.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

The Americans say that we won independence in 1776. The British say they granted us independence on a completely different date. Who's "right" and who's "wrong?" It depends on your perspective. Same with the gospel authors.

The problem with that explanation is it really doesnt matter when you got your independence, the main thing is you got it! You would have thought when they starting writing the bible - the proof for the creator of the universe and the all important question of where we comes from - they would have got there stories straight!

Now if it was slight differences you can understand, but there was either one angel or two angels!

 

[sojourner]

The nature of god? What is that exactlly? I have been reading the KJV bible and have dicovered god to be vengful. Is that right?

I there a more "revealing" version out there?

You have been reading the KJV and have discovered that the author(s) see God, in part, as vengeful. How do you see God? That's the important question. How do other authors in the Bible see God? How do those visions compare? What is the overarching theme of the Bible? Love or vengeance? Please don't fall into the trap of not reading critically.

 

[sojourner]

YHWH, the God of the Old Testament, is very vengeful and petty. YHWH will kill you for trying to stop His precious Ark from falling. He will kill you for believe in another God. He demands utterly blind obedience (Abraham willing to sacrifice Isaac), regardless of morality.

I am unsure of how I feel about the God of the New Testament. I am unsure if the New Testament teaches Eternal Damnation or Universal Reconciliation. Assuming it teaches Eternal Damnation, this Father God is only superficially better than YHWH. He preaches love and forgiveness, yet He will damn you to a torturous hell for all eternity. He is basically an abusive parent.

Tripe! The God of the OT hears the outcry of God's people and comes to them to save them -- even when they don't deserve to be saved. I'm soooo tired of hearing how vengeful God is.

In what way does the NT teach eternal damnation? The whole point of the Christ event is that God reconciles humanity by becoming one of us and fulfilling the covenant for us. Doesn't sound too abusive to me.

 

[sojourner]

But i thought god was forgiving? Isn't revenge wrong?

You're on the right track. Go with that!

 

[sojourner]

I always though a good leader leads be example. Doesn't the bible preach about forgivness? If his love is unconditional then why must we even ask forgivness?

Forgiveness is a two-way street, because it involves relationship. God does something and we do something.

 

[sojourner]

The problem with that explanation is it really doesnt matter when you got your independence, the main thing is you got it! You would have thought when they starting writing the bible - the proof for the creator of the universe and the all important question of where we comes from - they would have got there stories straight!

Now if it was slight differences you can understand, but there was either one angel or two angels!

Given the fact that none of the gospel writers were eyewitnesses, it's amazing the stories are as close as they are.

They "started writing the Bible" hundreds and hundreds of years after the stories had begun to be told. The writers were drawing together stories from several traditions. They let the inconsistencies stand, because they were more concerned with preserving the traditions than with facts. Their goal was not to teach doctrine, but to preserve the stories.

 

[Prometheus]

You were the one who suggested reading the whole Bible. My question is: What constitutes "the whole Bible?" Clearly, the Orthodox do not consider the Protestant Bible one finds in hotel rooms as "the whole Bible." Since you're insisting on accuracy as a benchmark for belief, why not hold yourself to the same standard to which you hold others?

You asked what I consider the whole Bible to be and I told you. Whether you agree or not doesn't matter. That's what it is to me and that's what you asked for.

Is name really wasn't Jesus. That's obviously an anglicanization of the name. So what? "Emmanuel" means "God with us." Not a name, but a title. Again, so what. Methinks it's not the author(s) who are confused, but you.

If you can't even be sure what His name was, how do you suppose to figure out anything else about Him? When you read a verse in a Bible that tells you something about the nature of your god, how can you know if that particular verse is accurate?

What's inconsistent about the gospel story? It's the same story told from differing points of view. Anyone with a brain stem can see that. Don't be so obviously pejorative. Differences in the telling do not = fallacy.

Point of view is one thing. Making contradicting claims is another. If both of us saw a car and you say it's red but I say it's blue, how is anyone supposed to know what color it actually was who didn't see it themselves? The same applies in the story of Jesus. There are contradicting claims. You can chalk it up to different points of view, but that doesn't change that we can't be sure of what actually happened when the stories are inconsistent.

The Americans say that we won independence in 1776. The British say they granted us independence on a completely different date. Who's "right" and who's "wrong?" It depends on your perspective. Same with the gospel authors.

Can you even tell me what Jesus' last words on the cross were?

Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34 - "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Luke 23:46 - "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."

John 19:30 - "It is finished."

This is just one example of contradiction among the gospels. Which is to be trusted? Jesus could only have had one of these be His last words. They can't all be right.

So how, then, do you know which, if any, version is accurate? If you can't even get Christ's last words right, how do you expect to get an entire sermon right?

The moment you say that faith must be based in fact, you're not dealing with faith anymore -- you're dealing with theory.
I don't subscribe to sola scriptura. I don't care what Jesus' "real" name was -- it doesn't matter. You're trying to make a theologian into a scientist. It's like trying to play "connect the dots" on a zebra. Futile and nonsensical.

If you don't know what's true in the Bible and what's false then you have no foundation for believing in Jesus in the first place. He could be completely made up for all you seem to care.

Need I remind you that I didn't ask you about your knowledge of faith? I asked you about your knowledge of what the Bible is.

Be that as it may, this is nonsense. You can't argue against something by hoping to prove that it's something it is not.

I know what the Bible is. A bunch of circulating stories made up by some followers hundreds of years after Christ was dead and gone then one day piled together by a council of people that thought they had the authority to decide which of it was inspired and which was not. As if they, as fallible human beings, could know for sure.

 

[Moey]

I we can not be certian if the stories of the bible are even true than how can we be sure that there is a god?

 

[Darkness]

Tripe! The God of the OT hears the outcry of God's people and comes to them to save them -- even when they don't deserve to be saved. I'm soooo tired of hearing how vengeful God is.

Maybe he "loves" his own people, the Jews, but everyone else can go to hell. (which makes him a racist)

I Samuel 15:2-3
Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***.

YHWH is vengeful and a genocidal maniac.

In what way does the NT teach eternal damnation? The whole point of the Christ event is that God reconciles humanity by becoming one of us and fulfilling the covenant for us. Doesn't sound too abusive to me.

Mark 3:29
But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

The word I am unsure of is "eternal," which is "aionion" in the Greek. With the knowledge I possess, I believe it really means "Eonian." The whole point of the New Testament, I believe, is to tell us how humanity will one day become one with God. That seems rather pointless, but nevertheless better than Eternal Hellfire.

 

[sojourner]

You asked what I consider the whole Bible to be and I told you. Whether you agree or not doesn't matter. That's what it is to me and that's what you asked for.

So...this is all about you. Not all about what is truth.

If you can't even be sure what His name was, how do you suppose to figure out anything else about Him? When you read a verse in a Bible that tells you something about the nature of your god, how can you know if that particular verse is accurate?

The facts (once again) aren't important. The stories are. You can think that's irresponsible if you want to, but then...it's my faith, not yours.

Point of view is one thing. Making contradicting claims is another. If both of us saw a car and you say it's red but I say it's blue, how is anyone supposed to know what color it actually was who didn't see it themselves? The same applies in the story of Jesus. There are contradicting claims. You can chalk it up to different points of view, but that doesn't change that we can't be sure of what actually happened when the stories are inconsistent.

You're hiding behind some pathetic loyalty to a picayune treatment of the minutae of the stories. You can't see the forest for picking at each leaf on each tree. Step back and look at the bigger picture. You might see more than you really are comfortable seeing.

Jesus could only have had one of these be His last words. They can't all be right.

Why not? The Bible doesn't tell us that those were his last words. The Bible says that Jesus said thus-and-such. Why couldn't Jesus have said all of it?

So how, then, do you know which, if any, version is accurate? If you can't even get Christ's last words right, how do you expect to get an entire sermon right?

You're looking for the Bible to give you facts. No wonder you're disillusioned and disappointed. If you want facts, look in a text book. If you want inspiration, look in a book of creative writing. If you want revelation, look in the Bible. Otherwise, stop your griping.

If you don't know what's true in the Bible and what's false then you have no foundation for believing in Jesus in the first place. He could be completely made up for all you seem to care.

We have the Tradition, of which the Bible is part. You're trying to hold me to a position of sola scriptura. That's heretical and it doesn't work. Jesus is founded upon the actions of his Body on earth, not upon something that you're trying to morph into historical fact. You don't get to just make up a criterion for faith and then claim that everyone who doesn't adhere to that criterion is wrong. How unrealistic is that!

I know what the Bible is. A bunch of circulating stories made up by some followers hundreds of years after Christ was dead and gone then one day piled together by a council of people that thought they had the authority to decide which of it was inspired and which was not. As if they, as fallible human beings, could know for sure.

Thank you. Now everybody knows "how much you know." Zip. You're spouting claims about something of which you have neither the slightest clue, nor the slightest respect. Why are you even here?

 

[sojourner]

I we can not be certian if the stories of the bible are even true than how can we be sure that there is a god?

Because God is not predicated upon the Bible.