The problem with the bible.

[Kcnorwood]

Or at least my problem with it.


The bible is some 2,000 years old so then is not telling just how long those who found it had it in their possession. It is believed that the bible is the inspired writings of God written by man. So how do you know that those who had the original text in their possessions did not alter it in some way?
After all, are you not putting your trust in man & not the Christian God?
What about the translations in the bible? One word can have multitude meanings depending on how it is used. Besides why would God relay on a book to get his message out?

 

[Big_TJ]

Or at least my problem with it.


The bible is some 2,000 years old so then is not telling just how long those who found it had it in their possession. It is believed that the bible is the inspired writings of God written by man. So how do you know that those who had the original text in their possessions did not alter it in some way?
After all, are you not putting your trust in man & not the Christian God?
What about the translations in the bible? One word can have multitude meanings depending on how it is used. Besides why would God relay on a book to get his message out?

The problem with this is that the only source that tells us that these men were "inspired by God" is THEM!!! it is in their own writings that these claims exist. Sort of like taking a murderer's statement as the only premise to decide that he is not guilty...

 

[Charity]

The problem with this is that the only source that tells us that these men were "inspired by God" is THEM!!! it is in their own writings that these claims exist. Sort of like taking a murderer's statement as the only premise to decide that he is not guilty...

The same reason, historians, explorers, and others wrote journals and history books it was the only source that told us that they had made a discovery. All we have are the claims they made that they really did a certain thing at a certain time, on a certain day and at a certain place...Why should we believe these men and not believe the prophets?..What makes a history book right and the Bible wrong? I'm sure there are flaws in both...Anything handed down for years and translated into different languages will have some errors.

 

[tomspug]

The problem with the Bible is that it is TOO AWESOME!

If it wasn't God-inspired, then I'm going to have to come up with a better reason for it always helping me in every situation every time I make the choice to read it for advice/guidance, every time.

 

[McBell]

Forer Effect

 

[tomspug]

Forer Effect

Man, OF COURSE! Why didn't everyone else already come up with that?

There's no way I could argue my personal experience against yours. I wouldn't expect you to. But you should know better than to insinuate that I am automatically fooling myself. Unless you would prefer me to automatically consider YOU fooled for not believing what I believe...

Edit: Also, you apparently missed my use of the word EVERY.

 

[logician]

Man, OF COURSE! Why didn't everyone else already come up with that?

There's no way I could argue my personal experience against yours. I wouldn't expect you to. But you should know better than to insinuate that I am automatically fooling myself. Unless you would prefer me to automatically consider YOU fooled for not believing what I believe...

Edit: Also, you apparently missed my use of the word EVERY.

I get the impression you're preaching here.

 

[Dunemeister]

The bible is some 2,000 years old so then is not telling just how long those who found it had it in their possession.

Why not?

It is believed that the bible is the inspired writings of God written by man. So how do you know that those who had the original text in their possessions did not alter it in some way?

We have the science of textual criticism, which has traced every possible change in every extant copy we have of the New Testament. We find 99.5% agreement. Of course, there's a short gap between the first extant copy and the actual first copy (the autograph). However, to posit radical revisions in that period when none appear in the copies we have stretches credulity a tad.

After all, are you not putting your trust in man & not the Christian God?

If the action of God was to preserve his written word as penned by men, then there's little distinction between putting faith in God and faith in men.

What about the translations in the bible? One word can have multitude meanings depending on how it is used.

That's why professional translations are done in committees at the hand of scholars who are widely regarded as competent. These same professional translations will put alternative renderings in the footnotes so readers can see where the tricky bits are. And by comparing multiple translations, we can see the range of meanings possible. So I just don't see why people should have a problem with translations.

Besides why would God relay on a book to get his message out?

Who says he has? The existence of the bible doesn't mean that God is "relying" on it overmuch. There's also the church's living witness to Christ's redeeming presence in the world.

 

[darkendless]

The bible is some 2,000 years old

Theres the problem with the bible right there IMO

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The problem with the Bible is that it is TOO AWESOME!

If it wasn't God-inspired, then I'm going to have to come up with a better reason for it always helping me in every situation every time I make the choice to read it for advice/guidance, every time.

You have a pretty good innate ability to help yourself, and you don't give yourself enough credit?

I can say with certainty that there were two things that were common to every situation where you feel the Bible helped you: the Bible, and you.

 

[McBell]

Man, OF COURSE! Why didn't everyone else already come up with that?

There's no way I could argue my personal experience against yours. I wouldn't expect you to. But you should know better than to insinuate that I am automatically fooling myself. Unless you would prefer me to automatically consider YOU fooled for not believing what I believe...

Edit: Also, you apparently missed my use of the word EVERY.

Ever heard of "counting the hits and ignoring the misses"?
People are experts at seeing what they want and ignoring or even not acknowledging what they do not want to see.

And no, I did not miss the word "every".
In fact, it was the word "every" that prompted my post to begin with.
Interesting, isn't it?

 

[tomspug]

Ever heard of "counting the hits and ignoring the misses"?
People are experts at seeing what they want and ignoring or even not acknowledging what they do not want to see.

And no, I did not miss the word "every".
In fact, it was the word "every" that prompted my post to begin with.
Interesting, isn't it?

That's not the theory you quoted, which has to do with ambiguous application, which (if you've read it) the Bible is anything but.

Think of it this way: if I found a particular philosopher to have application in my life in (theoretically) every aspect of a particular realm of thought, would I be a victim of your theory? Of course not! So, take the Bible, a book which talks about basically EVERYTHING, if I continue to read it and find application in my life, who are you to tell me that I'm only "counting the hits"? I'm telling you that there are no misses, in my own experience! If there was something NOT discussed in the Bible, then I wouldn't look for it in the Bible (like how to build an airplane).

 

[sojourner]

Or at least my problem with it.


The bible is some 2,000 years old so then is not telling just how long those who found it had it in their possession. It is believed that the bible is the inspired writings of God written by man. So how do you know that those who had the original text in their possessions did not alter it in some way?
After all, are you not putting your trust in man & not the Christian God?
What about the translations in the bible? One word can have multitude meanings depending on how it is used. Besides why would God relay on a book to get his message out?

You're fogetting that the Bible is the witness of the Church. It should be read that way. It's not a history textbook. It's a theological treatment of how the people of God see themselves in God's world, and how they see their relationship with God.

 

[McBell]

That's not the theory you quoted, which has to do with ambiguous application, which (if you've read it) the Bible is anything but.

Think of it this way: if I found a particular philosopher to have application in my life in (theoretically) every aspect of a particular realm of thought, would I be a victim of your theory? Of course not! So, take the Bible, a book which talks about basically EVERYTHING, if I continue to read it and find application in my life, who are you to tell me that I'm only "counting the hits"? I'm telling you that there are no misses, in my own experience! If there was something NOT discussed in the Bible, then I wouldn't look for it in the Bible (like how to build an airplane).

LOL
i see you have trouble with applying more than one theory at a time...

 

[tomspug]

LOL
i see you have trouble with applying more than one theory at a time...

Obviously, you couldn't come up with a counter-argument. Being laughed at as a defense mechanism loses my interest in this conversation.

 

[McBell]

Obviously, you couldn't come up with a counter-argument. Being laughed at as a defense mechanism loses my interest in this conversation.

You assume to much.
I presented the Forer Effect .
You counter with alleged consistency.
I refute with Counting the hits and ignoring the misses as a possible explanation to your alleged consistency.
You reply with alleged consistency.
I reply that you seem to have problems with more than one concept at a time.
You do not see that (at least your reply to that post does not acknowledge it) all you reply to is the "LOL".
Yet you accuse me of not having a counter argument?

Talk about projection...

 

[tomspug]

Dude, the Forer Effect doesn't apply. I obviously don't agree with you. Find a new argument or at least a better angle than "here is why I'm not going to counter your argument".

(You have yet to even acknowledge my own argument, so I'm not sure you even realize what it is)

 

[Alceste]

The problem with the Bible is that it is TOO AWESOME!

If it wasn't God-inspired, then I'm going to have to come up with a better reason for it always helping me in every situation every time I make the choice to read it for advice/guidance, every time.

You should try it with a dictionary. Even better. At least in my experience. You can also do it with Matthew Reilly novels (in fact they are greatly improved by reading them this way), psychology textbooks, and pornography.

All it takes to give you an opportunity to know your own voice through the written word is a string of written words.

 

[McBell]

Dude, the Forer Effect doesn't apply. I obviously don't agree with you. Find a new argument or at least a better angle than "here is why I'm not going to counter your argument".

(You have yet to even acknowledge my own argument, so I'm not sure you even realize what it is)

I STILL say that it is a COMBINATION of BOTH the Forer Effect AND "counting the hits and ignoring the misses."
So far all you have done in this thread is reinforce what I am saying.

 

[tomspug]

Look, I'm going to nip this convo in the bud before it tapers off.

My original response was an attempt to dissuade you from pursuing an argument, because it's my personal experience against your logic (which means you could never 'win'), but you persisted anyways.

Look at it this way, if there is a room full of people at your grandmother's death bed, and she claims to "see Jesus" before finally dying, exactly what would be the value in arguing whether or not she really saw Jesus? Obviously, everyone already understands that it's possible that she didn't actually see Jesus. But the person who insists upon dwelling upon the idea that she was wrong is the only one in the room NOT considering the possibility that she did. It's kind of like when the only thing skeptics fail to be skeptical of is skepticism itself.

General rule of thumb: NEVER argue against someone's personal experience. There's just no point (unless you were there too).

So, you think I'm either delusional or unobservant. So what? First, why is it so important to you? Second, why can't you even accept the possibility that I'm correct in my observation of my OWN experience? I didn't need anyone to throw some "Effect" at me or tell me that I could be mistaken. You're not enlightening me this way.

I don't know if you've ever actually believed in God before, but I'll tell you something very important about faith: it REQUIRES that you confront your own skepticism. If you ignore skepticism, it's not faith, it's blind devotion (two different things). Faith is an action, not a lack of action.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that you're not telling me anything I haven't already asked myself. I appreciate your thoughts, but I'm trying to let you know that they're not necessary. I have no intention of proving you "wrong" in your own beliefs, so I would appreciate if you would accept my own statements about the Bible as being my own and argue more about the Bible itself. I think the debate would progress better that way.

For example, I said that I feel like I can always rely on the Bible. Could you give a personal experience or a theoretical example of a situation that would contradict this?