Christians can you be certain your bible is trust worthy?

[nPeace]

Do you think that your subjective "feelings" of certainty are relevant to the truth? Many are 100% certain about things that are untrue. Your level of certainty is irrelevant to whether or not what you are certain about is actually true.

Pardon me? The OP asked a question, which I responded to.
I feel certain that the Bible is the truth. Whether you think they are subjective feelings or not, are not relevant to the OP, nor my response.

However, I do agree with you that many - not are, but feel certain about things that are untrue.
Anytime one is certain, then there is no room for uncertainty. A cannot be B, and at the same time not B. Logic.

 

[exchemist]

We do like to pick out things we like and ignore the bits we would rather not hear. I did not say those words the "sweet" Jesus said them...
I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’
The same sweet Jesus that said love your neighbor also said, love God... First, and foremost. Matthew 22:37
He also said that those who did not love his father, by doing his will, are lawless, and have no part with him nor his father.

It is interesting that you speak of most Christians so positively, the same "most Christians" that you would also say are in disagreement to who Jesus is and what his will is, creating a flood of confusion.
That's quite interesting.

Well, the words of Jesus are my truths. Not only him, but his apostles as well. Hear Paul...
2 Timothy 4:1-5 . . .: 2 Preach the word; be at it urgently in favorable times and difficult times; reprove, reprimand, exhort, with all patience and art of teaching. 3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled. 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories. 5 You, though, keep your senses in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelizer, fully accomplish your ministry.

Yes indeed, and I am commenting on your choice of the bits you evidently like and selected to post here for us all to see. Just the thing to deter anyone from taking an interest in Christianity any further.

"Do the work of an evangeliser"? I think you could do better.

 

[Audie]

Your assumption is that the Bible is a collection of writings authored by humans.

To most Christians humans physically wrote what is written, but what is written was not authored by them.

So should we expect that the books would be
entirely accurate, or, only approximately so?

 

[exchemist]

Your assumption is that the Bible is a collection of writings authored by humans.

To most Christians humans physically wrote what is written, but what is written was not authored by them.

I think you overstate what is a more nuanced position. Here is an article on the subject that shows the variety of ways this has been understood. Biblical inspiration - Wikipedia

According to this, it looks as if most Christians in fact consider the bible to have been authored by its human writers, albeit subject to some form of divine guidance. Luther and Calvin both apparently argued against the idea that the writers were simply being dictated to by God when they wrote.

 

[nPeace]

Yes indeed, and I am commenting on your choice of the bits you evidently like and select to post here for us all to see. Just the thing to deter anyone from taking an interest in Christianity any further.

"Do the work of an evangeliser"? I think you could do better.

The scriptures I chose were appropriate and fitting to the point I was making. There is no need to quote the entire Bible.
I had no problem with the scripture you referred to, but you seem to have a problem with the one I used. Why?

I would say that about 90% of the world knows that all of Jehovah's Witnesses are evangelizers - from old man and woman, to young child.
People don't have to ask. They know, because they see them in the village, the towns, the marketplaces, the beaches, the wildernesses, the mountains, the forest and jungles - including the amazon... throughout all neighborhoods... demonstrating love for God and neighbor.
They do both the things mentioned by the one who sent them.
Isaiah 61:1, 2
1. . .Jehovah anointed me to declare good news to the meek. He sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And the wide opening of the eyes to the prisoners, 2 To proclaim the year of Jehovah’s goodwill And the day of vengeance of our God, To comfort all who mourn. . .

Who and what is an evangelizer?

 

[nPeace]

I think you overstate what is a more nuanced position. Here is an article on the subject that shows the variety of ways this has been understood. Biblical inspiration - Wikipedia

According to this, it looks as if most Christians in fact consider the bible to have been authored by its human writers, albeit subject to some form of divine guidance. Luther and Calvin both apparently argued against the idea that the writers were simply being dictated to by God when they wrote.

Here you go.
The person who was just mentioning how positive it is that most Christians don't like the fact that Jesus will condemn them for their willful ignorance of scripture, because they choose to follow the ideas of apostate Christians.

 

[exchemist]

The scriptures I chose were appropriate and fitting to the point I was making. There is no need to quote the entire Bible.
I had no problem with the scripture you referred to, but you seem to have a problem with the one I used. Why?

I would say that about 90% of the world knows that all of Jehovah's Witnesses are evangelizers - from old man and woman, to young child.
People don't have to ask. They know, because they see them in the village, the towns, the marketplaces, the beaches, the wildernesses, the mountains, the forest and jungles - including the amazon... throughout all neighborhoods... demonstrating love for God and neighbor.
They do both the things mentioned by the one who sent them.
Isaiah 61:1, 2
1. . .Jehovah anointed me to declare good news to the meek. He sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And the wide opening of the eyes to the prisoners, 2 To proclaim the year of Jehovah’s goodwill And the day of vengeance of our God, To comfort all who mourn. . .

Who and what is an evangelizer?

Oh yes, I keep forgetting you are a Jehovah's Witness.

All I can say is you have a very odd way of going about attracting newcomers into the faith. Stressing the exclusivity of the "saved" and talking of "vipers" and "wolves" is hardly likely to make people think, "Yes, this is definitely what I have been looking for, all these years!", now, is it?

At least those poor souls that come along in pairs, ringing my doorbell every six months, give me a smile along with their copy of Watchtower.

 

[exchemist]

Here you go.
The person who was just mentioning how positive it is that most Christians don't like the fact that Jesus will condemn them for their willful ignorance of scripture, because they choose to follow the ideas of apostate Christians.

Luther and Calvin were apostate? Is that what JWs think? I never knew.

 

[nPeace]

Oh yes, I keep forgetting you are a Jehovah's Witness.

All I can say is you have a very odd way of going about attracting newcomers into the faith. Stressing the exclusivity of the "saved" and talking of "vipers" and "wolves" is hardly likely to make people think, "Yes, this is definitely what I have been looking for, all these years!", now, is it?

At least those poor souls that come along in pairs, ringing my doorbell every six months, give me a smile along with their copy of Watchtower.

You keep forgetting?

Do you have a problem with those texts? Do you think Jesus never said them, but that they were added by wicked men?
Do you think that what Paul said about people wanting to have their ears tickle by watered down truth was as error?

Do you recall John 6, when Jesus realized that the people were looking for him not because of his teachings, but because they wanted another belly full, how he gave them a teaching that exposed their true motives?
Jesus did not hold back and say, "Oh dear. They are getting uncomfortable. Let me change my tune a bit."
It makes for good reading, and meditating on it helps us learn something about God and his son - They don't want rice followers.
Note the results:
John 6:60-69
60 When they heard this, many of his disciples said: “This speech is shocking; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were murmuring about this, said to them: “Does this stumble you? 62 What, therefore, if you should see the Son of man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that is life-giving; the flesh is of no use at all. The sayings that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning those who did not believe and the one who would betray him. 65 He went on to say: “This is why I have said to you, no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” 66 Because of this, many of his disciples went off to the things behind and would no longer walk with him.

Did Jesus run behind them and say, "I'm sorry. Let me put it another way? No.
He did this:

67 So Jesus said to the Twelve: “You do not want to go also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered him: “Lord, whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life. 69 We have believed and have come to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

What an excellent example for his followers today.
He was interested in those few, who loved his word - all of it.
To reemphasize, he said, "no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

Luther and Calvin were apostate? Is that what JWs think? I never knew.

I don't recall naming anyone. Did I?
If you really want to know what Jehovah's Witnesses think about Luther and Calvin, all you have to do is ask, or go the their website jw.org, and type their names in the search bar.
However, I would be glad to answer, if you want to know the truth.
Or you can ask other Jehovah's Witnesses here.

Oh, by the way @exchemist, millions of thinking people listen to, welcome, and appreciate Jehovah's Witnesses, even though they have not made up their minds to join them.
For the most part though, they agree that the message they hear, is not based on the thoughts of the Witnesses, but based on the Bible, which they examine for themselves.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Your assumption is that the Bible is a collection of writings authored by humans.

To most Christians humans physically wrote what is written, but what is written was not authored by them.

It is authored by humans. When did god just stopped talking after 2000 years?

Did books lost their divinity after X many years? Was it cut short?

Reality then is the same reality now. Christians don't define the context and make up of the bible. We can see anything as divine. The fact is its written by people (as books are today) and people then and now have the ability to lie.

How you see the bible is different than the actual making and context of the book based on that time period and culture and language not by god.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The Bible has for centuries come under fire, simply because people do not want their wicked actions, and wrong desired lifestyle choices exposed.

Also, all of the errors of scientific and historical fact, the internal contradictions, the failed prophecies, the mythical characters (giants, witches, cockatrices, unicorns), the unfulfilled promises, and the moral and intellectual errors attributed to a god called perfect.

The Christian Bible is not an authoritative source of right behavior or right thinking to most of the world. For such people, it exposes nothing, and they have no reason not to disregard it.

A cannot be B, and at the same time not B. Logic.

I agree. That's the Law of Noncontradiction. Can a god be both perfect and at the same time make mistakes that it regrets?

 

[nPeace]

Also, all of the errors of scientific and historical fact, the internal contradictions, the failed prophecies, the mythical characters (giants, witches, cockatrices, unicorns), the unfulfilled promises, and the moral and intellectual errors attributed to a god called perfect.

The Christian Bible is not an authoritative source of right behavior or right thinking to most of the world. For such people, it exposes nothing, and they have no reason not to disregard it.

I agree. That's the Law of Noncontradiction. Can a god be both perfect and at the same time make mistakes that it regrets?

As far as I know, science has no problem with the Bible. It's usually atheist and evolutionist that are scientists - not science. Unless I am wrong about science being a study that has nothing to do with God or the Bible.
I'm open. Show me otherwise.

As far as I know, many historical facts support the Bible. It's only Biblical scholars that debate over these facts, and because they don't agree, does not rule out the Bible's historical accuracy, as time is often required to uncover more and more evidence.
One such evidence, was the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which verified that the assertions of some critics were wrong about the timing of writing of various books of the Bible.

The so-called internal contradictions are another matter of human opinion, for which w can argue "until the cows come home".
The myth assertions are likewise.

Millions, not even thousands - but millions agree that many Bible prophecies have come to past, even those seeing a Bible for the first time. So the assertion that Bible prophecies and promises are unfulfilled is just another - I don't even know how to mildly describe that - opinion.

As far as giants and witches go, we see these are accepted in many societies all over the world.

Regarding cockatrices and unicorns, I have never come across these in the Bible, and even if they were mentioned - which they aren't, those who read the Bible honestly, understand that these are symbols. In the same way the nations today use strange for their emblems.
Even so, the Bible clearly states this.

Regarding morals, this is an ongoing debate even among non-religious people. So this can never be a proper argument that can be used to score points against the Bible.

Since when does most of the world become a moral compass?
That must explain why there are so many problems with human behavior being out of control - giving people in authority headache about how to solve these problems.

So currently your argument seems to be only opinionated views. Nothing substantial.

If I misread, or misunderstood the Bible, I too might think I am right in saying that God makes mistakes, and therefore it's wrong.
However, I would be the one who is wrong, as you are.

 

[exchemist]

You keep forgetting?

Do you have a problem with those texts? Do you think Jesus never said them, but that they were added by wicked men?
Do you think that what Paul said about people wanting to have their ears tickle by watered down truth was as error?

Do you recall John 6, when Jesus realized that the people were looking for him not because of his teachings, but because they wanted another belly full, how he gave them a teaching that exposed their true motives?
Jesus did not hold back and say, "Oh dear. They are getting uncomfortable. Let me change my tune a bit."
It makes for good reading, and meditating on it helps us learn something about God and his son - They don't want rice followers.
Note the results:
John 6:60-69
60 When they heard this, many of his disciples said: “This speech is shocking; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were murmuring about this, said to them: “Does this stumble you? 62 What, therefore, if you should see the Son of man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that is life-giving; the flesh is of no use at all. The sayings that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning those who did not believe and the one who would betray him. 65 He went on to say: “This is why I have said to you, no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” 66 Because of this, many of his disciples went off to the things behind and would no longer walk with him.

Did Jesus run behind them and say, "I'm sorry. Let me put it another way? No.
He did this:

67 So Jesus said to the Twelve: “You do not want to go also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered him: “Lord, whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life. 69 We have believed and have come to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

What an excellent example for his followers today.
He was interested in those few, who loved his word - all of it.
To reemphasize, he said, "no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."



I don't recall naming anyone. Did I?
If you really want to know what Jehovah's Witnesses think about Luther and Calvin, all you have to do is ask, or go the their website jw.org, and type their names in the search bar.
However, I would be glad to answer, if you want to know the truth.
Or you can ask other Jehovah's Witnesses here.

Oh, by the way @exchemist, millions of thinking people listen to, welcome, and appreciate Jehovah's Witnesses, even though they have not made up their minds to join them.
For the most part though, they agree that the message they hear, is not based on the thoughts of the Witnesses, but based on the Bible, which they examine for themselves.

I have made it clear already that your selection of these texts in post 7, and your own choice of language to accompany them, are not at all welcoming to any reader wondering what Christianity is like. That was, and is, my point.

Re Luther and Calvin, you claimed someone or other was apostate and as Luther and Calvin were the only names of Christian figures I had mentioned I thought you must have meant them. It appears you can neither confirm nor deny that that is the case. So I am left none the wiser.

But this is in any case all tangential to the thread topic, so probably best to leave it.

 

[exchemist]

As far as I know, science has no problem with the Bible. It's usually atheist and evolutionist that are scientists - not science. Unless I am wrong about science being a study that has nothing to do with God or the Bible.
I'm open. Show me otherwise.

As far as I know, many historical facts support the Bible. It's only Biblical scholars that debate over these facts, and because they don't agree, does not rule out the Bible's historical accuracy, as time is often required to uncover more and more evidence.
One such evidence, was the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which verified that the assertions of some critics were wrong about the timing of writing of various books of the Bible.

The so-called internal contradictions are another matter of human opinion, for which w can argue "until the cows come home".
The myth assertions are likewise.

Millions, not even thousands - but millions agree that many Bible prophecies have come to past, even those seeing a Bible for the first time. So the assertion that Bible prophecies and promises are unfulfilled is just another - I don't even know how to mildly describe that - opinion.

As far as giants and witches go, we see these are accepted in many societies all over the world.

Regarding cockatrices and unicorns, I have never come across these in the Bible, and even if they were mentioned - which they aren't, those who read the Bible honestly, understand that these are symbols. In the same way the nations today use strange for their emblems.
Even so, the Bible clearly states this.

Regarding morals, this is an ongoing debate even among non-religious people. So this can never be a proper argument that can be used to score points against the Bible.

Since when does most of the world become a moral compass?
That must explain why there are so many problems with human behavior being out of control - giving people in authority headache about how to solve these problems.

So currently your argument seems to be only opinionated views. Nothing substantial.

If I misread, or misunderstood the Bible, I too might think I am right in saying that God makes mistakes, and therefore it's wrong.
However, I would be the one who is wrong, as you are.

In the Authorised Version, cockatrice is mentioned several times (in Isiah). Unicorns also feature here and there. But in other versions the words in question are differently translated, e.g in Isiah 34:7 "unicorn" in the Authorised Version becomes "wild oxen" in the Jerusalem bible.

......thereby illustrating yet another of the difficulties with biblical literalism.

 

[nPeace]

I have made it clear already that your selection of these texts in post 7, and your own choice of language to accompany them, are not at all welcoming to any reader wondering what Christianity is like. That was, and is, my point.

I think I acknowledged your opinion.
If I didn't, I take the time to do so now.
I disagree with you opinion, since not everyone reads or thinks the same.
Some people read and see things the way they want, and some are closed minded - they prefer not to see what they don't want to.
While that is not the case with everyone.

So to say "any reader", especially with so many posts on these forums, compared to my one, seems to me a statement made with a particular purpose... that's not going to work here.
I say that with the assumption that everyone on these forums are older than 14.

Re Luther and Calvin, you claimed someone or other was apostate and as Luther and Calvin were the only names of Christian figures I had mentioned I thought you must have meant them. It appears you can neither confirm nor deny that that is the case. So I am left none the wiser.

But this is in any case all tangential to the thread topic, so probably best to leave it.

I did not claim someone or other.
Perhaps, you didn't follow me. I was taking about "most Christians"

The person who was just mentioning how positive it is that most Christians don't like the fact that Jesus will condemn them for their willful ignorance of scripture, because they choose to follow the ideas of apostate Christians.

As far as I can tell, the article you linked does nor only mention Luther and Calvin.

I don't think you would derail the thread if you had a particular question in mind, since I already mentioned in my first post that people judge the Bible based on the actions of those who misrepresent it.

The topic is on Christians and the Bible, so I think you should feel free to ask for clarity. I won't derail the topic, but try to keep it in sync.

In the Authorised Version, cockatrice is mentioned several times (in Isiah). Unicorns also feature here and there. But in other versions the words in question are differently translated, e.g in Isiah 34:7 "unicorn" in the Authorised Version becomes "wild oxen" in the Jerusalem bible.

......thereby illustrating yet another of the difficulties with biblical literalism.

I'm going to take a wild guess, that unicorn is not found in LXX, nor cockatrice.
I'll check it out.

 

[Rival]

In the Authorised Version, cockatrice is mentioned several times (in Isiah). Unicorns also feature here and there. But in other versions the words in question are differently translated, e.g in Isiah 34:7 "unicorn" in the Authorised Version becomes "wild oxen" in the Jerusalem bible.

......thereby illustrating yet another of the difficulties with biblical literalism.

This has nothing to do with biblical literalism, and everything to do with updating knowledge of Biblical Hebrew. Knowledge of this language was noticeably poor at the time of the AV's translation. Before this, most Bibles had been translated directly from Latin (the Vulgate) or Greek, and not their original languages, thereby rendering Biblical Hebrew study useless.

 

[exchemist]

This has nothing to do with biblical literalism, and everything to do with updating knowledge of Biblical Hebrew. Knowledge of this language was noticeably poor at the time of the AV's translation. Before this, most Bibles had been translated directly from Latin (the Vulgate) or Greek, and not their original languages, thereby rendering Biblical Hebrew study useless.

Sure, all I meant was insisting on strict literalism presumably requires that one does some work to find out which, out of all the translations, is the "right" one to be taken literally.

 

[Audie]

This has nothing to do with biblical literalism, and everything to do with updating knowledge of Biblical Hebrew. Knowledge of this language was noticeably poor at the time of the AV's translation. Before this, most Bibles had been translated directly from Latin (the Vulgate) or Greek, and not their original languages, thereby rendering Biblical Hebrew study useless.

I did it! I guessed who would think that is a winner.

 

[Rival]

I did it! I guessed who would think that is a winner.

It is because it is true.

 

[exchemist]

I think I acknowledged your opinion.
If I didn't, I take the time to do so now.
I disagree with you opinion, since not everyone reads or thinks the same.
Some people read and see things the way they want, and some are closed minded - they prefer not to see what they don't want to.
While that is not the case with everyone.

So to say "any reader", especially with so many posts on these forums, compared to my one, seems to me a statement made with a particular purpose... that's not going to work here.
I say that with the assumption that everyone on these forums are older than 14.


I did not claim someone or other.
Perhaps, you didn't follow me. I was taking about "most Christians"

As far as I can tell, the article you linked does nor only mention Luther and Calvin.

I don't think you would derail the thread if you had a particular question in mind, since I already mentioned in my first post that people judge the Bible based on the actions of those who misrepresent it.

The topic is on Christians and the Bible, so I think you should feel free to ask for clarity. I won't derail the topic, but try to keep it in sync.



I'm going to take a wild guess, that unicorn is not found in LXX, nor cockatrice.
I'll check it out.

This is all too elliptical for me. I'll leave you to your unicorn and cockatrice hunt.