Why I think a lot of the Bible is False

[little_monkey]

I claim to have a very good understanding of the character and characteristics of the man in the book based on over 15 years of study and having gone completely through the book 17 times.

I very seriously doubt that anyone knows more about the character of the man of the book that goes beyond what is presented in the book. There is a deeper understanding that is gained from a closer walk with the man.


Randall Patrick Mcmurphy , but its still just a book.

LOL.

I know dozens of people who know the inside out of every book on Harry Potter, but they still don't believe they can fly on a broomstick...

 

[Riverwolf]

Of course you can. Try using the correct definition of words and learning one complete system before trying to assimilate multiple incomplete understandings into a mishmash of partial and unrelated "isms."

I change frequently, because I learn new things every day. Last Friday, my view on Paul's teachings was different than now, because since then, I have typed up the entire epistles of the Romans and First Corinthians, NASBU version. Right now I hold a certain set of beliefs. Next year I'll hold a completely different set of beliefs, because next year I'll have learned many new things.

And FYI, "correct" definitions change with "incorrect" definitions. It's how languages evolve. The dictionary isn't set in stone, you know.

I'm only adressing, from my perpective, a Biblical view. I've stated that you have a narrow, incomplete, and misguided understanding of a larger Biblical perspective.

The correct definition of words is also the best way of transmitting ideas from one person to another.

You're right in that my biblical view is incomplete, because I haven't read or understood the entire Bible yet. But I don't consider the Bible to be a single book, don't forget. I view it in the same light as a single volume of Shakespeare's plays: a collection of various books, albeit a highly censored one. But you can't say that I (or anyone, really) have a "misguided" Biblical perspective unless you know for sure, beyond even the smallest shred of anything that remotely resembles doubt: that yours is the only "correct" interpretation of the Bible. And since there are multiple interpretations, equally valid as yours, no one can say that.

And you are right in that using "correct" definitions of words is the best way to transmit ideas. I don't see how my definition of "genocide" is incorrect. Now, "homicide" ... (why is there an 'i' instead of an 'o'? I thought it was "homo", not "homi"... I need to work on my Greek) would be a bit closer to what's being said here, but the current "correct" definition of homicide is the killing of a single person. Maybe if we figured out how to plural the "homo" part of it we could get even closer. (I don't speak Greek, so I don't know)

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You have nothing more than a 1-dimensional understanding of a character that so far has yet to exist or show up.
I know everything there is to know about God because there is nothing to know about God, there is no God.
I took what you said and inverted it, mine has about as much credibility as yours. Faith is not evidence, please keep that in mind.

What a bunch of rubish. When speaking of the God of the bible the characteristics of God are found in the Bible to be studied by anyone who cares to do the research. Should anyone try and present those characteristics contrary to how the Bible presents it i will call it into question. In the case of what you presented there is nothing to refute.

 

[Riverwolf]

What a bunch of rubish. When speaking of the God of the bible the characteristics of God are found in the Bible to be studied by anyone who cares to do the research. Should anyone try and present those characteristics contrary to how the Bible presents it i will call it into question. In the case of what you presented there is nothing to refute.

Problem. There are people who do not view the Bible as non-fiction or the only source of information about God, or whatever you want to call It.

You've stated that you've read the Bible many times. Have you ever tried reading it from the standpoint of an atheist? Or from a Pagan, such as myself? Or maybe from another sect of Christianity? A Jew? An Omnist?

And "rubbish" has two 'b's.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Problem. There are people who do not view the Bible as non-fiction or the only source of information about God, or whatever you want to call It.

You've stated that you've read the Bible many times. Have you ever tried reading it from the standpoint of an atheist? Or from a Pagan, such as myself? Or maybe from another sect of Christianity? A Jew? An Omnist?

The Bible presents a certain picture and reaches certain conclusions base on a topic. These conclusions are evident much like 2+2=4 is evident. This is true whether the Book is viewed as fiction or non-fiction.

I will say this though, without the indwelling and guidence of the Holy Spirit, the spiritual meaning of Scripture is lost. Irrespective of that, while the meaning may be muddied in such case the conclusions, clearly stated, are not.

 

[Riverwolf]

The Bible presents a certain picture and reaches certain conclusions base on a topic. These conclusions are evident much like 2+2=4 is evident. This is true whether the Book is viewed as fiction or non-fiction.

This is true. And I feel that such pictures are irrelevant. You may disagree. More than okay.

I will say this though, without the indwelling and guidence of the Holy Spirit, the spiritual meaning of Scripture is lost. Irrespective of that, while the meaning may be muddied in such case the conclusions, clearly stated, are not.

("guidance" is spelled with an 'a', not an 'e'.)

Just as Paul stated in I Corinthians that no one can say "Jesus is Lord" without having the Holy Spirit? To me, that's an example of superstition, which I thought was expressly forbidden by the Law.

If I do not have the guidance of such a selective and personified Holy Spirit, that's fine. I can obtain my own meanings from it based on my own experiences and other readings, however 'wrong' they may be in the eyes of a personified God. I certainly don't think it's coincidence(a concept I don't really believe in, anyway) that Christianity didn't really spread well in China and the rest of that part of Asia until recently in Japan. (and even so, as a side note, the Nagasaki bomb exploded directly over a Christian church... food for thought?)

 

[darkendless]

What a bunch of rubish. When speaking of the God of the bible the characteristics of God are found in the Bible to be studied by anyone who cares to do the research. Should anyone try and present those characteristics contrary to how the Bible presents it i will call it into question. In the case of what you presented there is nothing to refute.

Then why is God do different for each person, and each religion. If biblical text's are so convincing why do we ignore the fact that an all loving God allows so many people to suffer? You're less than convincing and to call my post rubbish when your load of garbage is not exactly factual is it?

 

[rocketman]

Just as Paul stated in I Corinthians that no one can say "Jesus is Lord" without having the Holy Spirit? To me, that's an example of superstition, which I thought was expressly forbidden by the Law.

The expression 'Jesus is Lord' there pretty much meant 'I accept Jesus as my Savior and Master in every area of my life'. The assertion is that to truly accept such a thing the Holy Spirit would be having an influence. It's a belief in a supernatural miracle, but that would not by defintion make it superstition as we don't know what they experienced. Clearly from the text there were some supernatural things said to be happening thereabouts.

And it does not automatically follow that everyone who says it means it. The context of the passage is very clear that internal church matters regarding spiritual gifts were being discussed involving people who were by and large already believers who meant it when they said it, not some fellow off the street who says it without actually meaning it.

Saying the words alone are not said to guarantee salvation, and therefore aren't being presented as if they were some kind of superstitious 'chant' just in case they might work, rather, they are part of a larger picture of an early church coming to grips with supernatural issues. Romans 10 explains that belief in the heart is also required. And of-course Jesus himself summed that up famously in John 3:16, and he also said in Matthew 7:21 that "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." and in John 6:28,29 "Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”

So all areas of the NT seem to have the same theme on this, and the words in 1 Corinthians need to be seen in that overall context I think.

 

[Mshbar]

I can only suggest that if you don't like the bible don't read it. Read something that makes you feel better and something you believe in. Why torture yourself with something you feel is not right.

Do you think it's right?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Then why is God do different for each person, and each religion. If biblical text's are so convincing why do we ignore the fact that an all loving God allows so many people to suffer? You're less than convincing and to call my post rubbish when your load of garbage is not exactly factual is it?

What I'm calling rubbish is your seemingly inerrant ability to not stay on a topic or discuss it coherently. I'm sorry I will not play on your merry-go-round.

 

[Riverwolf]

The expression 'Jesus is Lord' there pretty much meant 'I accept Jesus as my Savior and Master in every area of my life'. The assertion is that to truly accept such a thing the Holy Spirit would be having an influence. It's a belief in a supernatural miracle, but that would not by defintion make it superstition as we don't know what they experienced. Clearly from the text there were some supernatural things said to be happening thereabouts.

And it does not automatically follow that everyone who says it means it. The context of the passage is very clear that internal church matters regarding spiritual gifts were being discussed involving people who were by and large already believers who meant it when they said it, not some fellow off the street who says it without actually meaning it.

Saying the words alone are not said to guarantee salvation, and therefore aren't being presented as if they were some kind of superstitious 'chant' just in case they might work, rather, they are part of a larger picture of an early church coming to grips with supernatural issues. Romans 10 explains that belief in the heart is also required. And of-course Jesus himself summed that up famously in John 3:16, and he also said in Matthew 7:21 that "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." and in John 6:28,29 "Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”

So all areas of the NT seem to have the same theme on this, and the words in 1 Corinthians need to be seen in that overall context I think.

Thanks for the clarification. (though I do wonder why Paul didn't just say that it was the meaning that was important and not the words themselves.)

 

[darkendless]

What I'm calling rubbish is your seemingly inerrant ability to not stay on a topic or discuss it coherently. I'm sorry I will not play on your merry-go-round.

Prove me wrong please. From a historical point of view there is much wrong/missing from the bible, in fact, given the origins of the bible it is difficult to actually say who wrote it and why. That is why i would call it false. It is nothing more than a guideline with a lot of suspicious occurances written for an unknown reason. On topic enough for you?

 

[Riverwolf]

Prove me wrong please. From a historical point of view there is much wrong/missing from the bible, in fact, given the origins of the bible it is difficult to actually say who wrote it and why. That is why i would call it false. It is nothing more than a guideline with a lot of suspicious occurances written for an unknown reason. On topic enough for you?

There's actually a history channel documentary, aptly titled "Who Wrote the Bible?", that deals with this very issue.

Normally I'd simply recommend it. This time, I'm posting a link to the first of twelve parts on Youtube. (the guy who posted the videos also has it on his playlists for those who don't want to manually click on the subsequent parts)

YouTube - Who Wrote The Bible (1 of 12)

 

[darkendless]

There's actually a history channel documentary, aptly titled "Who Wrote the Bible?", that deals with this very issue.

Normally I'd simply recommend it. This time, I'm posting a link to the first of twelve parts on Youtube. (the guy who posted the videos also has it on his playlists for those who don't want to manually click on the subsequent parts)

YouTube - Who Wrote The Bible (1 of 12)

Quite informative, thank you

The first sentence even tells us that it is difficult to know the exact origions, only approximate guesses. When watching these scholars talk you also have to take into account their personal bias in finding their conclusions.

Theres a lot more wrong with the bible in my view:
- Miracles jesus performed are sceptical at best, i mean water into wine, how possible is that?
- Jesus comming back to life, this is a no brainer theres never been a case of ressurection that could be proven
- the bible was written 2000 years ago, these so called answers are taken the way the scholar wants to see them since they cannot put themselves into the time period in order to see what the author wanted them to see
- stated in the documentary is that the bible has been edited and translated, there easily could and probably have been mistranslations, after humans translated it.

 

[Riverwolf]

Quite informative, thank you

No prob.

- Miracles jesus performed are sceptical at best, i mean water into wine, how possible is that?

Easy. Put crushed grapes into it. (totally a joke; just got done typing up an hour's worth of ranting on another thread)

- Jesus comming back to life, this is a no brainer theres never been a case of ressurection that could be proven

This one's not a joke. In the beginning of John, it states that Jesus is the Word made flesh. To me, this signifies that the so-called "resurrection" was a metaphor for the immortality of the meanings of words. (Like you I don't believe the resurrection to be literal; whatever Paul might have to say about it)

 

[roli]

Dispite the Historical ,Geopgraphical, Archeological and written transcripts found verifying so much of the accuracy of the bible, which many fail to fully explore,more so than any other manuscript ever found, including some of the most influential and esteemed greek writings of antiquity.Not to mention testimony of hundred's of witnesse's on hand in Jesus's day after his resurrection,but the greatest reason why men don't see the truth of who God is, or trust the validity of scripture and the whole account of Genisis is so simple.
They have not the Spirit of God, yet mankind continually skip over this fact and jump right back into intellectual opposition and refutation.

The ability to believe and comprehend the bible and things of God is not through mere intellectual will power, but given to man by his spirit.
Jhn 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
Overlook this most important fact regarding the Holy Spirit and any attempt to grasp him or his word will be futile and vain ,at best.
Mind you it may be a good study for some but it will be nothing more than circular reasoning by those outside, as Jesus says to his followers, to you it has been given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom but it is a mystery to those outside.

Here it is in a nutshell:
1Cr 2:14But the natural man (the man without God)receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
Jhn 14:16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you

Jhn 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, (the word again = means from above in Greek) he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit

1Cr 2:9"Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him."But God has revealed them to us(born again of his spirit)through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.Now we (born again believers)have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

It amazes me that many unbelievers and even some proclaiming christians will avoid this subject of the Holy Spirit, for it is through the Spirit of God the earth was formed and the scriptures written as the Holy Spirit breathed upon men, Jeuss walked in the power he did and rose from the grave, it is the same power he gives those who come to him by faith at which point he reveals himself to the believer by the same Holy Spirit

 

[Riverwolf]

Dispite the Historical ,Geopgraphical, Archeological and written transcripts found verifying so much of the accuracy of the bible, which many fail to fully explore,more so than any other manuscript ever found, including some of the most influential and esteemed greek writings of antiquity.Not to mention testimony of hundred's of witnesse's on hand in Jesus's day after his resurrection,but the greatest reason why men don't see the truth of who God is, or trust the validity of scripture and the whole account of Genisis is so simple.
They have not the Spirit of God, yet mankind continually skip over this fact and jump right back into intellectual opposition and refutation.

The ability to believe and comprehend the bible and things of God is not through mere intellectual will power, but given to man by his spirit.
Jhn 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
Overlook this most important fact regarding the Holy Spirit and any attempt to grasp him or his word will be futile and vain ,at best.
Mind you it may be a good study for some but it will be nothing more than circular reasoning by those outside, as Jesus says to his followers, to you it has been given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom but it is a mystery to those outside.

Here it is in a nutshell:
1Cr 2:14But the natural man (the man without God)receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
Jhn 14:16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you

Jhn 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, (the word again = means from above in Greek) he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit

1Cr 2:9"Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him."But God has revealed them to us(born again of his spirit)through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.Now we (born again believers)have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

It amazes me that many unbelievers and even some proclaiming christians will avoid this subject of the Holy Spirit, for it is through the Spirit of God the earth was formed and the scriptures written as the Holy Spirit breathed upon men, Jeuss walked in the power he did and rose from the grave, it is the same power he gives those who come to him by faith at which point he reveals himself to the believer by the same Holy Spirit

Basically only your sect of Christianity has gotten it right? Yet everyone else has felt the Holy Spirit who aren't of that sect of Christianity or even Christians at all; you might say they haven't; but that would be a lie to say someone hasn't felt something when they have. Heck, even I, a pagan, have felt what could be described as the Holy Spirit, though I don't call it that. I know Scripture says that if it doesn't say that Jesus is Lord then it's a lying spirit, but the thing is, such entities don't speak our language and in fact don't speak in any human tongue. In my beliefs, if it's speaking in words at all, then my own imagination.

Not to mention that I'm sure most Christians DO recognize that; they also recognize that saying it to unbelievers is a waste of time, so they don't mention it. Doesn't mean they don't understand those parts of Scripture.

And BTW, the Gospels were written by anonymous authors; the names we know them by now were added later. We don't know if they were written by eyewitnesses or not. (Luke wasn't for sure.)

 

[roli]

Basically only your sect of Christianity has gotten it right? Yet everyone else has felt the Holy Spirit who aren't of that sect of Christianity or even Christians at all; you might say they haven't; but that would be a lie to say someone hasn't felt something when they have. Heck, even I, a pagan, have felt what could be described as the Holy Spirit, though I don't call it that. I know Scripture says that if it doesn't say that Jesus is Lord then it's a lying spirit, but the thing is, such entities don't speak our language and in fact don't speak in any human tongue. In my beliefs, if it's speaking in words at all, then my own imagination.

Not to mention that I'm sure most Christians DO recognize that; they also recognize that saying it to unbelievers is a waste of time, so they don't mention it. Doesn't mean they don't understand those parts of Scripture.

And BTW, the Gospels were written by anonymous authors; the names we know them by now were added later. We don't know if they were written by eyewitnesses or not. (Luke wasn't for sure.)

I did'nt say you have'nt experinced something spiritual and it's your prerogative to associate that expereince as from God, but one must be careful as to not be decieved.
The bibles speaks of many spirits gone out into the world,2Cr 11:13 For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ,....even satan masquerades himself as an angel of light, how much more his messengers as ministers of righteousness.

Not everything that is deemed a spiritual encounter comes from the Holy Spirit of God,
John says :"the we are to test the spirits to see which is from God and which is from the world.
.....Then we shall know what is the spirit of truth and the spirit of error is"

There are many parts of the bible that can be easily understood, but there are also more parables and teachings about God,Holy Spirit, Jesus and the kingdom of heaven which are not able to be fully comprehended in the natural mind.

 

[Riverwolf]

I did'nt say you have'nt experinced something spiritual and it's your prerogative to associate that expereince as from God, but one must be careful as to not be decieved.
The bibles speaks of many spirits gone out into the world,2Cr 11:13 For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ,....even satan masquerades himself as an angel of light, how much more his messengers as ministers of righteousness.

Not everything that is deemed a spiritual encounter comes from the Holy Spirit of God,
John says :"the we are to test the spirits to see which is from God and which is from the world.
.....Then we shall know what is the spirit of truth and the spirit of error is"

There are many parts of the bible that can be easily understood, but there are also more parables and teachings about God,Holy Spirit, Jesus and the kingdom of heaven which are not able to be fully comprehended in the natural mind.

Just so you're aware, you can't convince me using Paul's letters; I don't agree with him on most aspects. There are some things I agree with him on, but not all.

My experiences involved, every time, feelings. Never words, never instructions. Only feelings.

And you can't say that only by reading the Bible will you feel the spirit of God. After all, the Bible isn't a single book at all; but a (highly censored) library.

Here's another history channel documentary I think you might find interesting.

YouTube - Banned From the Bible I - The History Channel (1 of 12)

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Prove me wrong please. From a historical point of view there is much wrong/missing from the bible, in fact, given the origins of the bible it is difficult to actually say who wrote it and why. That is why i would call it false. It is nothing more than a guideline with a lot of suspicious occurances written for an unknown reason. On topic enough for you?

It is impossible to prove you wrong, in this format, because you refuse to stay on topic. The above quote is evidence of this as is the string of your quotes previous.