Oh, what a wonderful reply! You put it in words so beautifully, that’s exactly what I think too. Thank you.
-
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 whole Bible is not from God
- Thread starter Starlight
- Start date
Oh, what a wonderful reply! You put it in words so beautifully, that’s exactly what I think too. Thank you.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
My opinion is, Satan was in charge of humans after the fall from paradise, through the Old and most of the New Testament. Satan was condoned in Heaven up to Revelations, at which time he is thrown from heaven. The Old and New Testament is mostly about when Satan was part of Heaven. Satan use his power to tempt Adam and Eve and he also tempted Jesus in the desert and even offers him the wealth and power of the world since he had that authority on earth.
God specifically told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil; or they shall surely die. Death would be the result of the short term human evaluations of reality, based on good and evil that would defy the longer term perceptions of God; natural instinct, The tree of life would have been a better choice since this tree did not involve Satan, who can thrown monkey wrenches into perception.
Eve then Adam were tempted by Satan.Satan told them that the tree of knowledge of good and evil would make them like gods, knowing good and evil. Satan had a connection to that forbidden tree; serpent in the tree. The concept of original sin was then applied to all humans, which meant that the fall from paradise would cause a fatal attraction to Satan, over God, such as we see in Atheism, who think they are little gods and there is none above them as Satan taught them.
After the fall, Satan was put in charge of humans, as the Lord of the Earth. God saw the human attraction to Satan and Law and he gave humans what they chose; look at the world as good and evil, which God never condoned, but which only Satan condoned.
This all changed with the arrival of Jesus, who was seen by some people of his time as good, but also as evil by others. The evil value judgment was stronger, so Jesus is killed. The tree of knowledge would cause split brain within each person, and between each other.
Knowledge of good and evil is often subjective. This is sold as relative morality. This makes it prone to con artists and those seeking power, leading to human suffering. Abortion terminates life yet this is called good by some and evil by others. Both think they are right. This is the pitfall of knowledge of good and evil, in that it brings division and suffering, since it does not appear to apply to all; not a practical compass.
The result was the Bible, itself, became subject to original sin, since humans were in charge of its compilation and its continued rewrites as times changed. How can split brain humans who see the world as polarized, created unified order in the Bible? This is not to say the Bible is evil, but rather it takes study to separate the wheat from the chaff. Atheists may actually be helpful here, since they tend to fixate on the Satan aspects, since they do not recognize God, since they are gods in their own mind as promise by Satan.
The analogy would be similar to me writing an objective book that presents the best ideas of both polarized political parties, so we have a compilation of the greatest hits. Those who are one sided, either way, will gravitate to their pet bias, and be repelled by the ideas from the other side, since their brain polarizes reality along certain subjective lines. This can be used as a filter. if we stay open minded.
Can you explain why?
firedragon
Veteran Member
Because "my moral values say otherwise, I decide the one's that suit my standards are Gods words in a book that came long ago, and the rest that doesn't suit my morals today are not".
It's a fallacious argument. If the OP justifies based on trajectory hermeneutics or something of the nature that would have been something to ponder over.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
The Bible includes God's love and also God's justice.
It further contains honest, vulnerable reflections from people. Not every concept or sentiment within is God's, sometimes they are man's.
Is killing of evil unrighteous people also wrong in your opinion?
The 'word' in the Word of God is human.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Nobody had those alleged books did they? If they did , it would had been well documented.
What they had were vague bits and pieces. If even that. The Catholics just filled in the gaps and the New Testament was born.
The earliest from
Athanasius of Alexandria, a coptic bishop venerated in the Catholic Church.
Haven't you read it?
Try the flood, just for example: Were there no minors in Noah's day? No infants and children? For what "justice" were they slaughtered by God's rain? How about the first-born of Egypt? Were they all adult, and therefore responsible for their own crimes, or were any of them children? If God had an argument with Pharaoh, where's the "justice" in killing the children of Pharaoh's helpless subjects? Were there no children among the Canaanites who God ordered slaughtered (or in the case of virgin girls, "take(n) for yourselves")? What is "just" about killing a virgin girl's parents and brothers, and then taking her home for your own "purposes?"
It never ceases to amaze me that Christians can't look those details in the face and ask themselves, "is this a just God?"
firedragon
Veteran Member
That's not how you make a criticism. If you take the P52, it is dated via palaeography. And it is scholarly consensus that all synoptics were written prior to John, which means at least they were written prior to P52. Which means they were prior to Ignatius. Which means even the katholike word was not thought of. All the books in the canonised standard NT.
You are referring to Athanasius in the 4th century which is the canonisation, not the writing. The final canon was decided in the 4th century but they were all existing books. The book that was highly contentious was revelation throughout the centuries which means even that was written way before Athanasius.
These are not only well documented but are ascertained by all the scholars that I have ever heard of. But if you have an academic scholar who says that the catholic church wrote the New Testament books in the 4th century, I would like to read this scholars work and try to reconcile with everyone else.
So if this is true, please do quote the scholar you speak of.
Thanks.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
So where are these alleged complete works from antiquity?
P52 is just a fragment. Like I stated earlier.
The Catholics filled in the gaps essentially writing the book of John. Same as any other fragment.
If you didn't have complete works now, you won't have them then.
Last edited:
firedragon
Veteran Member
Err. I don't know who said "complete works". No one speaks like that. So if someone said that, please ask them and let me also know what they say.
Of course it's a fragment. Maybe you didn't read what I said but stopped at "P52". Please go back and read what I said.
That's just a blatant lie someone has made up and told you, and you repeat it.
The Gospel of John is theorised to have four different writers by literary critics. There are variations inserted by some writers with agenda. Of course. But that's not "filling the gaps left by fragments". That's nonsensical. And if you even read for like 10 minutes you will know that most of these interpolations were done way after the 4th century sinaiticus, alexandrinus, and vaticanus. So what you are saying is not based on scholarship, but just someones made up rant. Don't just listen to people, but actually take up some books written by NT scholars and read up.
In literary criticism, scholars know when someone writes something else and inserts it. Because lets say you have a manuscript from the 2nd century, and then you find another manuscript from the 3rd century, even if they are jotted down by different copyists, the scholars can identify if they come from the same original author or not. That is why scholars say that John has a redaction, and that the prologue was from a different author, etc etc. So if any church wrote things to fill the gaps left by a fragment, scholars would know it.
Your claims are just false. Someone told you wrong.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I will go with Mírza Abú'l-Fadl, there is actual knowledge as to why he offered us that.
I fine often it is man who is wrong. True 'thou shalt not kill ' but there is a BIG difference between ' killing, murder and an execution ' an execution for the sake of justice for the righteous people.
Is the Bible wrong about the account about David with Goliath ____________
Those 7 sons at 2nd Samuel were Not innocent men - 2 Samuel 21:3-6.
God's Justice was equal justice of ' life for life ' under the Constitution of the Mosaic Law for ancient Israel.
The 'cities of refuge ' were set up to protect unintentional killers.
Under Christ's authority he taught to lay down the sword - Matthew 26:52
Christian armor is spiritual, and warfare is Not carnal - Ephesians 6:11-17; 2 Corinthians 10:4.
So, since Pentecost genuine 'wheat' Christians do Not go to war but like Jesus remain neutral in world affairs.
False clergy (as in the world wars) blessed both sides of Christendom's countries for a victory.
False clergy even used the pulpit for political purpose as a recruiting station so parents would sacrifice their sons on the Altar of War as if that is the same as the Altar of God.
So, Not God, but MAN who has dominated MAN to MAN's injury to MAN's hurt by ignoring the Bible.
Bible writers were Not wrong about what is written in the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16-17) rather man that is wrong by Not following what is written in the Bible.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
I wish I could give your post more than one winner rating. That's an excellent rebuttal, in my opinion. I would like to add a couple of examples to the list, such as "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks" (Psalm 137:9). and "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them." Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys ’" (1 Samuel 15:3). I think it's truly ironic when Christians claim that God is pro-life.
Last edited:
You didn't get that from reading the Bible. You got that by rejecting the parts of it that didn't conform with your own values, which seem better than those ascribed to the deity. You've rejected quite a bit of the Bible already with that comment.
Same reply. You have to start with that as a premise. You can't derive it from scripture. You have to bring that premise to scripture to know what parts of it to ignore.
The Garden story, Pharaoh's hardened heart and the death of the newborns, Job, the Flood Story.
I agree that there is a flaw in the OP's argument, but I wouldn't call it a fallacy. Her argument begins with an unshared premise believed by faith: there is a god and it is good. If we accept that, however, her conclusion follows - men must have written those things that depict God badly. I'd call it a valid argument with an unsound conclusion due to beginning with an unsupported premise.
The fallacy you cited is for assuming that a temporal sequence represents cause and effect, as in, "Prayer works. I prayed for rain and it rained."
Very good post.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I agree, but oddly enough Catholics would likely disagree. They like to claim that their church started with Peter..
Over stating how late the Bible was written does not help those that are arguing against it either. I do agree with you on this. But one problem that you have have ignored is that though the gospels, with the possible exception of John, were all finished in the first century CE, there were still some additions made to them. A famous one is the parable of Jesus and the adulterous wife. That does not appear in the earliest of manuscripts, but it does appear in the later ones. It sounds so "Jesusy" that it is now almost universally adopted, though many modern Bibles do have a footnote informing people that this does appear to have been added.
No true Scotsman would wipe out Sodom and Gomorrah.
God is (presumably) against murder - a rather different claim.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Because "my moral values say otherwise, I decide the one's that suit my standards are Gods words in a book that came long ago, and the rest that doesn't suit my morals today are not".
It's a fallacious argument. If the OP justifies based on trajectory hermeneutics or something of the nature that would have been something to ponder over.