sooda
Veteran Member
You mean you can't believe if you don't believe in a global flood or Sodom and Gomorrah?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Bible - Why Trust It
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
You mean you can't believe if you don't believe in a global flood or Sodom and Gomorrah?
nPeace
Veteran Member
Then what do you believe?
Give me one miracle you believe.
When you pick out all the scriptures with miracles, and discard them, you are bringing God down to your level - making him powerless like man, so you can accept those parts in a mythological or allegorical way... thus claiming that you believe.
I don't think so.
Tell me. How can you claim to believe in God, when you don't believe in miracles written in the Bible?
The logic doesn't wash.
You are demonstrating that you don't believe. It not rocket science.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Because the bible say so. I don't see what your point is?
I would disagree with that, lots of the laws in the bible is immoral and those that we tend to think is good, like you shall not kill. Does not require divine inspiration to be able to figure that one out.
But if that were the case. One ought to consider humans able to making a law against drunk driving a miracle.
Well I don't believe in good or evil either
But will use them to explain what I mean regardless.In case you do not think there are any objective moral, you would believe in subjective morals, which simply means that we ourselves decide what is considered good/right or wrong/evil.
Is it always wrong to kill children? Depends who you ask, in our societies today, the vast majority would probably agree that it is morally wrong. But you don't have to go far back in history to find human and children sacrifices, because people thought it would please their Gods or whatever their reason were. So it is doubtful to think that they would have seen it as morally wrong. Morals changes with time as we get more informed.
So the way we judge it, is based both on a personal level but also as a society. A good example is abortion, some find it morally wrong while others don't. It doesn't mean that either of them are right or wrong, simply that they are different moral values.
So looking at this sign, these people most likely consider abortion the same as that of killing children. I personally think abortion is fine, so I disagree with what they are saying.
And since we are talking subjective morals here, there is not a right or wrong answer to whether they are more moral than I am or vice versa. Often you will find signs in these protest mentioning God, which I think is a good guess of where they get, at least some of their morals from. But I get mine from other inputs than religious scriptures.
I do not believe in the literal Bible record of these events as you do. There is simply no evidence for this literal account, and authorship of Moses. and the Pentateuch has a very late date, and edited compilation of a number of sources.
I do not keep nor discard portions of the Bible. It reflects ancient world views not relevant to the contemporary world. It is more than obvious that Genesis and Exodus are not literal history.
Extrapolate this over all the religions and it is easy to assume that all the Gods were created by humans and do not exist.
It is abundantly clear that not all the text of the Torah is not the Revealed word of God simply by the 'objective verifiable evidence' available to everyone.
many do believe as well as the believers of other scriptures of diverse conflicting scriptures, but . . .[
Actually it is accepted that the Bible was written in the context of history, therefore 'some' events, people and parts are confirmed by archaeology, but nonetheless much of the Bible is in total contradiction to the objective verifiable evidence available today. This also true of all diverse and conflicting ancient religions and cultures, and of course they cannot all be absolutely true, because 'some' parts are confirmed by archaeology.
Objectively base don the evidence I could not accept any ancient religion, nor any religion as absolutely true from the fallible human perspective.
The problem described above concerning ALL ancient scriptures of religions and cultures of the world face the same issues as the Bible. The Bible and the other scriptures of the world ARE NOT totally null and void, but based on the evidence cannot be considered absolutely true either.
I believe this is old turf addressed before.
Also belief in one miracle or many is simply that a belief, and of course not convincing to those who do not believe.
Last edited:
True, but the evidence is that all the tribes and their ancestors knew of the trading routes, because of the materials found in the ancient cultures going back to the Neolithic.
nPeace
Veteran Member
The Bible says why? Where?
No. One uses principle. The Bible principle regarding life, resulted in laws to prevent unnecessary loos of llfe.I would disagree with that, lots of the laws in the bible is immoral and those that we tend to think is good, like you shall not kill. Does not require divine inspiration to be able to figure that one out.
But if that were the case. One ought to consider humans able to making a law against drunk driving a miracle.
The laws are based on those principles.
People also think it's wrong to kill any human - not just children. So I don't see the difference.Well I don't believe in good or evil either
In case you do not think there are any objective moral, you would believe in subjective morals, which simply means that we ourselves decide what is considered good/right or wrong/evil.
Is it always wrong to kill children? Depends who you ask, in our societies today, the vast majority would probably agree that it is morally wrong. But you don't have to go far back in history to find human and children sacrifices, because people thought it would please their Gods or whatever their reason were. So it is doubtful to think that they would have seen it as morally wrong. Morals changes with time as we get more informed.
So the way we judge it, is based both on a personal level but also as a society. A good example is abortion, some find it morally wrong while others don't. It doesn't mean that either of them are right or wrong, simply that they are different moral values.
So looking at this sign, these people most likely consider abortion the same as that of killing children. I personally think abortion is fine, so I disagree with what they are saying.
And since we are talking subjective morals here, there is not a right or wrong answer to whether they are more moral than I am or vice versa. Often you will find signs in these protest mentioning God, which I think is a good guess of where they get, at least some of their morals from. But I get mine from other inputs than religious scriptures.
What's the difference between God killing adults, and him killing children?
Morals change? Interesting. They might as well stop pretending, and call it what it really it.
That's like a rebel getting into power, and changing a principle. Principles don't change. When someone changes a law that is based on a principle, they have disregarded principle... It's a violation.
Some believe laws are meant to be broken... likewise, morals.
nPeace
Veteran Member
So God did not speak to Moses, and give him the ten commandments? Is that what you are saying?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that Genesis and Exodus are not accurate literal accounts based on the objective verifiable evidence.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Okay. So you believe that God gave Moses the ten commandment, on mount Sinai.
Do you believe God wrote the commandments, or he spoke, and Moses wrote them in stone?
Also, do you believe that God spoke from the burning bush, and angels appeared, and spoke to men?
Not OK!
All I can literally believe is the commandments came from God. God only knows the exact way he Revealed the Ten Commandments to Moses. It is obvious that much of the Torah reflects a human view of God and God's relationship to humanity, and also a tribal culture that wared with it;s neighbors and justified what they did based on belief during that time in history.,
That is all I need to believe.
Last edited:
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Exodus 11:1-5
1 Then the LORD told Moses, "I'll bring one more plague on Pharaoh and Egypt. After that he'll let you leave from here, and when he lets you go, he will certainly drive you out from here.
2 Tell the people that each man is to ask his neighbor and each woman her neighbor for articles of silver and gold."
3 The LORD made the Egyptians look on the people with favor. Also the man Moses was highly regarded in the land of Egypt, both in the opinion of Pharaoh's officials and in the opinion of the people.
4 So Moses announced to Pharaoh, "This is what the LORD says: 'About midnight I'm going throughout Egypt,
5 and all the firstborn in the land of Egypt will die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sits on his throne to the firstborn of the slave girl who operates the hand mill, along with the firstborn of the animals.
You can probably look the other one up yourself. As I still have no clue what these questions are about
Sorry but that is none sense.
Have you read the bible?
Genesis 1 - God create everything, how wonderful........ 6 chapters later (pages later..)... he decide to kill everyone besides Noa and his family, dear lord...
You can hardly read 10 pages in the OT without God wanting to smite or punish the hell out of someone, because they offended him or the Jews, only for him, himself to be angry at the Jews for using their so called "free will" and then punish the **** of of them as well, often with them ending up dead.
So much for principles of laws to preserve life, I guess.. Sorry but its absolutely none sense.
It would probably be more relevant to ask a believer this I think. But since you asked me, the answer ought to be absolutely no difference.
if you believe in God and he is the founder of everything that is morally good and him being all good, then logically it must follow, that everything God does or say must be correct and good. Therefore you would probably go for objective morals given to you by God, and therefore he is in his good right to kill whatever he wants, how it want to and went he want to. Because it must be good.
But since I don't buy into that, I judge him based on my own opinion and I therefore disagree with him being good. But rather a selfish incompetent excuse for a God, to put it lightly
Just wondering...
1. Do you believe that Jesus were who he claimed to be?
2. Do you believe that he abolished the law and if so didn't he break it, which is wrong?
3. If you believe Jesus were who he claimed to be, how do you know?
4. If you believe that he did not abolished the law, would you then like it to be followed or does it only apply to the Jews.
Regardless of whether only the Jews ought to follow it or not, if the law were made by God, do you consider it good and would you like to see the current moral system replaced with that from the OT?
All I can literally believe is the commandments came from God. God only knows the exact way he Revealed the Ten Commandments to Moses. It is obvious that much of the Torah reflects a human view of God and God's relationship to humanity, and also a tribal culture that wared with it;s neighbors and justified what they did based on belief during that time in history. To add: I do not believe in an anthropomorphic God that personally writes Revelation.
That is all I need to believe.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Thank you.
So you do not believe the accounts recorded in the Bible are true. You believe they were fabricated. In other words, to you, the accounts in the Bible are either lies (false stories / made up), or story telling allegories, or myths and legends.
To you, what really happened is anyone's guess, so long as it is anything but what the liars (the Bible writers) wrote down.
Well, that is all I am saying - that you have rejected the written accounts as told in the Bible, deciding to accept only those parts you can, and in the way you can.
Why, hold on to the Bible, if one does not trust what it says, is the part that's a mystery to me. However, I accept that it's the choice of each person.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Exodus 11:1-5
1 Then the LORD told Moses, "I'll bring one more plague on Pharaoh and Egypt. After that he'll let you leave from here, and when he lets you go, he will certainly drive you out from here.
2 Tell the people that each man is to ask his neighbor and each woman her neighbor for articles of silver and gold."
3 The LORD made the Egyptians look on the people with favor. Also the man Moses was highly regarded in the land of Egypt, both in the opinion of Pharaoh's officials and in the opinion of the people.
4 So Moses announced to Pharaoh, "This is what the LORD says: 'About midnight I'm going throughout Egypt,
5 and all the firstborn in the land of Egypt will die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sits on his throne to the firstborn of the slave girl who operates the hand mill, along with the firstborn of the animals.
You can probably look the other one up yourself. As I still have no clue what these questions are about
Could have fooled me.
So according to you, God killed the firstborn, so that Pharaoh would let the people go. Huh?
Why not just kill Pharaoh, and any Egyptian that intervened? Paralysis would have worked. While Pharaoh and all Egypt lay helpless, the Israelites could take their cool time and gather everything they wanted... stick a cigar in Pharaoh's mouth, and just walked away with beaning faces.
Why. It would make sense that if killing the firstborn would do the trick... why waste time with the other nine plagues? Kill all the first born already. Duh.
Does that make sense?
Even after all the firstborn were dead, and Pharaoh released his captives, he chased them down, afterward. So, what's the point. You are obviously missing some facts.
They are written. I'm not asking because I don't know the answer, but apparently you don't.
Hee Hee.
Do you, a citizen, have the right to take an axe, and behead your neighbor because you know he is guilty of murdering your dog, your cat, your horse, your child, or other family member?Genesis 1 - God create everything, how wonderful........ 6 chapters later (pages later..)... he decide to kill everyone besides Noa and his family, dear lord...
You can hardly read 10 pages in the OT without God wanting to smite or punish the hell out of someone, because they offended him or the Jews, only for him, himself to be angry at the Jews for using their so called "free will" and then punish the **** of of them as well, often with them ending up dead.
So much for principles of laws to preserve life, I guess.. Sorry but its absolutely none sense.
It would probably be more relevant to ask a believer this I think. But since you asked me, the answer ought to be absolutely no difference.
if you believe in God and he is the founder of everything that is morally good and him being all good, then logically it must follow, that everything God does or say must be correct and good. Therefore you would probably go for objective morals given to you by God, and therefore he is in his good right to kill whatever he wants, how it want to and went he want to. Because it must be good.
But since I don't buy into that, I judge him based on my own opinion and I therefore disagree with him being good. But rather a selfish incompetent excuse for a God, to put it lightly
Does the law have the right to judge, sentence to death, and take off the head of the murderer... if beheading is their choice of execution?
Why? What is the difference, between you and them?
Isn't God the sovereign (speaking from a Biblical perspective)? Does he not therefore have the right to judge, sentence to death, and carry out that sentence according to his choice of execution?
So what's the problem?
Simply. You are judging the situation without having all the facts.
Some people don't care what the facts are. They may just ignore them, based on who is at the receiving end of their judgment. In this case, the God of the Bible is the target. So "let him have it", seems to be the cry.
This is the way it appears to me...
The creator sees a situation, and as sovereign must sit back and do nothing. That a good God, in the skeptic's eyes, and after he does that, he is still a bad god, for anything that results from not doing anything... in the eyes of the skeptic.
So, they ignore the facts. All they want to see, is the man holding the metal rod, and the body lying prone below him. Nothing else matters. Case close.
It seems to me, that is the mind of the skeptic... only when it involves the Bible, and the God of the Bible.
From the Biblical perspective, God is the righteous and rightful judge, so this reminds me of what we see today, as in the case of a government, against protesters, who judges the ruler, and pumps their fists as they protests.
Isn't it sad when you see people actually attacking law enforcement officers, and when the officers act to protect themselves, people cry foul?
Protesters enraged by the visit of a Russian legislator attempted to storm Georgia's parliament building, prompting riot police to fire tear gas and rubber bullets with more than 200 people hurt in clashes.
Anti-government protesters shout slogans against the Lebanese government during a protest against government’s plans to impose new taxes...
The Bible says people are enraged and attack God too. (Psalms 2)
Only in this case, from the Biblical perspective, the ruler isn't a man sitting behind a desk, and the law enforcement agents aren't baton carriers with shields, and other weapons.
It took just one of these to kill 185,000 men in night... probably took a couple of seconds.
I've never seen any case where law enforcement was obliterated.
Riots in Hong Kong seem to be escalating. At the end of it all, which side do you suppose will be squashed?
The Messiah. The son of God. I believe Jesus was both.
Christ is the end of the law. He did not break it. The law was given as a temporary reminder of sin, and the need for a savior, until that savior arrived. No person, but Christ could keep the law perfect. Therefore, everyone broke the law, but Christ. He fulfilled it.
It was God's will for Christ to end the law.
What is interesting, is that the law of Christ is the principled law. So the only difference, was that Christ demonstrated the letter of the law. (Galatians 5:14)
You can see a demonstration of applying those principles in Jesus sermon on the Mount of Olives. (Matthew 5-7)
I refer you to the video, I posted.
The eyewitness accounts are credible.
The work Jesus started, continues, as he promised. Matthew 24:14; 28:19, 20
It is evident, that work is backed by God, the holy spirit, Jesus, and the angelic messengers.
All things are coming to past according to his words.
If one follows the law, given by Moses, they have rejected the Messiah, according to the writings of the apostles. I believe their words, as they follow the words of the prophets, and are in line with God's will.
A few scriptures - Colossians 2:13-17 ; Ephesians 2:11-18 ; Romans 7 (It would help to read Paul's entire letter to the congregation in Rome).
I'll respond to that with a few facts from the Bible.
Why was there even a law?
Why was there even a special people, who alone were given that law?
It was all related to one promise - a promise to one man - Abraham. (Genesis 22:18)
Why was that promise even made? Genesis 3:15
See where it all leads back to? The book with the events people call myths.
Just read Galatians 3 to get the connection, because in order to give you the whole picture, I would have to take you on a journey through all the scriptures - that would be from Genesis 1, to Revelation 22.
If you are interested just PM me.
Paul explained why the law was given; why it was good (the purpose it served); why it would come to an end.
Would I like to see the current moral system replaced with that from the OT?
What is the current moral system? I have no idea what that is, or if one of those exists.
However, i'll let someone other than myself answer for me.
POPE FRANCIS PRAISES JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES WORLDWIDE !!
I'm a Mormon. Here's Why I Love Jehovah's Witnesses They're a good people from a good tree
USA Today Emphatically Hails Jehovah's Witnesses
Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide, live by the law of Christ, outlined in the Greek scriptures
Of course, you will hear the criticism as well, but because we endeavor to apply this...
(1 Peter 2:12) . . .Maintain your conduct fine among the nations, so that when they accuse you of being wrongdoers, they may be eyewitnesses of your fine works and, as a result, glorify God in the day of his inspection.
Good people know what to listen to.
Good formulation of questions, though.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Well that is what the bible tell us, but feel free to enlighten me, with another answer?Could have fooled me.
So according to you, God killed the firstborn, so that Pharaoh would let the people go. Huh?
Why not just kill Pharaoh, and any Egyptian that intervened? Paralysis would have worked. While Pharaoh and all Egypt lay helpless, the Israelites could take their cool time and gather everything they wanted... stick a cigar in Pharaoh's mouth, and just walked away with beaning faces.
Why. It would make sense that if killing the firstborn would do the trick... why waste time with the other nine plagues? Kill all the first born already. Duh.
Does that make sense?
Even after all the firstborn were dead, and Pharaoh released his captives, he chased them down, afterward. So, what's the point. You are obviously missing some facts.
They are written. I'm not asking because I don't know the answer, but apparently you don't.
I hardly know where to begin
Yes ASSUMING God exists then he would be the sovereign dictator and have the right to do as he pleases. But policemen are hired to preserve the current established law in a country, which is why they will go against protesters if told to. Not everyone agree with whomever is protesting, just as when Nazi sympathizers think its a good idea to protest. Therefore most countries (Not all obviously) have rules of how one is allowed to protest.Depending on the amount of corruption in that country, just keep it simple, these are handled differently.
The reason that people are not allowed to go all vigilante on each other, is because it have been decided that everyone is going to be punished according to the established law. People can state their opinions regarding these during elections, at least in most countries.
So the government have been given the authority to handle matters like this by the citizens. Its a result of how civilizations have evolved.
That guy in the video posted absolutely no evidence, he just stated that it was most likely based on him.
What makes you think they are credible?
How does that proof that he is who he claim?
All what things?
According to the writings of Paul, not the apostles.
John
1 John 2:3-4
3 This is how we can be sure that we have come to know him: if we continually keep his commandments.
4 The person who says, "I have come to know him," but does not continually keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth has no place in that person.
Paul
Galatians 3:10-13
10 Certainly all who depend on the actions of the Law are under a curse. For it is written, "A curse on everyone who does not obey everything that is written in the Book of the Law!"
11 Now it is obvious that no one is justified in the sight of God by the Law, because "The righteous will live by faith."
12 But the Law has nothing to do with faith. Instead, "The person who keeps the commandments will have life in them."
13 The Messiah redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us. For it is written, "A curse on everyone who is hung on a tree!"
Galatians 2:16
16 yet we know that a person is not justified by doing what the Law requires, but rather by the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah. We, too, have believed in the Messiah Jesus so that we might be justified by the faithfulness of the Messiah and not by doing what the Law requires, for no human being will be justified by doing what the Law requires.
Jesus
Matthew 5:17-19
17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I didn't come to destroy them, but to fulfill them,
18 because I tell you with certainty that until heaven and earth disappear, not one letter or one stroke of a letter will disappear from the Law until everything has been accomplished.
19 So whoever sets aside one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom from heaven. But whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom from heaven
Matthew 7:21-23
21 "Not everyone who keeps saying to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will get into the kingdom from heaven, but only the person who keeps doing the will of my Father in heaven.
22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, we prophesied in your name, drove out demons in your name, and performed many miracles in your name, didn't we?'
23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Get away from me, you who practice evil!'"
God
Isaiah 43:11
11 I, yes I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.
So according to Paul you are saved through the faith in Christ and not the law, which doesn't seem to be what Jesus is saying.. Nor God for that matter. Both John, Jesus and God agree that it is through keeping the commandments of God that one is saved. Even Jesus himself say that you are not saved through him, but only by doing the will of God. He also clearly state that the law should not be changed before heaven and earth disappear. And as far as I know, there is only one mentioning of a new heaven and Earth in the bible and that haven't happened yet.
So how do you know that Paul is telling the truth and why do you trust him?
Last edited:
Nimos
Well-Known Member
I like you write "with a few facts"
After just reacting to what I quoted from the bible it self about the killing the first born...
"Could have fooled me.
So according to you, God killed the firstborn, so that Pharaoh would let the people go. Huh?.....
....So, what's the point. You are obviously missing some facts."
So it weren't according to me, but the bible. Yet your conclusion is that, "im obviously missing some facts."
So just wondering, how you can refer to your citations as being facts, while those I quote from the very same book are missing some?
I have met and discussed with a few JWs before, one for around 2 years, very friendly and all, but so are lots of people. But that doesn't mean that the rules they are told to live by that can cause them to shun family members and friends or that makes them refuse blood so people die are. I don't think that is a demonstration of what it means to be good.
Last edited:
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
There is substantial archeological evidence for the Bible being true in ensemble, in total, in the sense of the literature, every jot and tittle
It has 'the ring of truth' did you notice Pantius Pilates seal ring? Biblical Archaeology’s Top 10 Discoveries of 2018
The flood story is real history and so many ways to prove it so.
Not true, and persist in misrepresenting me. The original authors and editors that compiled the Bible believed what they wrote was true, but they were writing from an ancient fallible human perspective, and there is absolutely no evidence that they were first person accounts.
There remains the problem that much of the Pentateuch does not remotely fit the 'objective verifiable evidence,' and you cannot justify your view, because 'some' events, places and people can be verified by archaeology. The writings of the Bible are set in history, and like all ancient writings historians and archaeologists acknowledge that 'some' things are true.
You have failed to justify much of the Pentateuch which does not remotely fit the evidence.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
I would be interested in this, can you present the way that you think proofs it the best?
Audie
Veteran Member
No, there is not There is not merely evidence, but proof beyond proof
that parts of the bible are correct. You cannot possibly be so dense as
to think that proving part of a story proves all of it
IF, though, despite all, you really do think so, you are ripe fruit for
the con man, as their inevitable trick is to mix fact into their web
of deceit.
None (zero) of the "archaeological evidence" has the tiniest trace
of ability to demonstrate the supernatural claims of your "bible".
Your fatuous claim that there are (so many) ways to "prove"
your flood cannot be backed with any facts whatever.
On the contrary-
The flood story is nonsense. There is so much, so many ways to
prove it is just bs and did not happen!
Guess you must be most reluctant to risk a taste of that.