Questions about the Bible

you ignore the fact that large parts of the OT don't make any sense.
Click to expand...
Fact is it?
I know lots of people who say computer programming doesn't make any sense. I tell them they have to study it to get it. I'm not patronizing you, I just have no idea where your comming from.
 
Eon said:
I suppose that depends on your definition of minor, the scrolls you decided are canon and the way you ignore the fact that large parts of the OT don't make any sense.
Click to expand...

Would you be so kind as to point out a discrepancy between the Old Testament texts included in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the current Old Testament texts that you wouldn't consider "minor"?
 
IceBladePOD said:
Would you be so kind as to point out a discrepancy between the Old Testament texts included in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the current Old Testament texts that you wouldn't consider "minor"?
Click to expand...

I would like to point out that IceBlade was in no way paid to provide me with a vehicle to do this. Why yes, m'boy, I'd be positively delighted to...

Firstly, most Christian's don't even use the majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Septuagint, the Greek Translation thereof, instead they use the translated Masoretic Text - which comes from Jewish Scholars and was written in about 1,000 AD. It is RIDDLED with errors.

But don't take MY word for it...


And that's not talking about inconsistencies within the book itself - that's a topic for another day.
 
^Agreed.^

Is it unreasonable to believe in the ideals of the Bible without believing every word is true? Can I truly believe in the message but not the form it is told in?
Click to expand...

Only if you're Ratrap99 on CCGR.. but to be a Christian I believe you should believe the Bible word for word

Example: The Red Sea in the Exodus story was not the Red Sea we know today, but the Sea of Reeds, an extension of Lake Mensaleh.
Click to expand...

Expand on this.. I don't recall hearing that anywhere...

Anywho, not to seem morbid, but when we all die someday.. we'll see who's right...
 
To believe the Bible is anything less than it is, is to undermine the complete Christian faith and negate the entire religion.
 
Well, I don't think that's true Gen. I think the Christian faith stands on a lot more than just one book, no matter the central importance assigned to it by some adherents. After all you have a relationship with a living God who sacrificed himself to his creation's baser instincts to try and balance the books. I think that one act is more important than a book full of instructions about who gets which bit of land, who slept with their own sister and what food you're supposed to eat.

Books are, by definition, a creation of man. Man messes things up regularly - even if divinely inspired.
 
Genesis1315 said:
To believe the Bible is anything less than it is, is to undermine the complete Christian faith and negate the entire religion.
Click to expand...

What, exactly, is the Bible?

Can you answer that without confusing what you want it to be or what you believe it to be?
 
but if take away the authority of the one Book that defines what Christianuty is about, if you claim one part of the Book is wrong and therefore, claim that God is wrong, what is left?

The Bible is a collection of books that written by man, inspired by God and is inerrant.
 
In what way is the Bible inerrant?

If the Bible is what you say it is, and is as important as you claim it is, why didn't God, or Christ, simply write the Bible themselves? That would have removed any doubts whatsoever.

If the Bible is inerrant, why are there so many versions of it? Shouldn't there be just ONE?
 
I've never said that God is wrong, and claiming that the bible has errors in it doesn't claim that either.

Where do you get the idea that the bible is the inerrant word of God? From the bible! This is the biggest problem with claims of an inerrant bible - once the smallest hole is poked in the least relevant clause of the whole book it all comes crashing down. That's an unsustainable position, it cannot be defended or maintained. Find the smallest typo and it's all over.
 
I find this infallibility issue interesting. Now of course, some would argue there's a difference between infallible and inerrant, but I'm digressing slightly here.

I've seen some argue that the original Scriptures that the writers of the Bible scribed are inerrant, but man's feeble attempt to translate them aren't. OK, seems plausible, but it also seems like an "easy out" to explaining away errors.

After all, it's not like Paul gave us a list when he said that all Scripture was profitable for teaching (II Timothy 3:16). However, one must clearly believe that if God is a God of divine intervention who works out things to His will, surely He would have forced any teachings in the Bible that were contradictory to Him to be omitted. The problem, with this thinking, I believe, is that the Catholic and Protestant faiths are vastly different, and oppose each other. Ultimately, one of them is wrong, and a few of the issues (How Salvation is "earned" for instance) are absolutely central to the Christian faith.

If God is a God of divine intervention, why wasn't one side stopped? Clearly, if Catholicism was wrong, they were allowed to go unchecked in their predominance for centuries. If the Protestants are wrong, the Reformation should have never attained the success it achieved, or so it seems.

These are my random "musings" if you will after a long day, so if it sounds like I'm debating myself, I probably am. My sincerest apologies.
 
While I don't have a problem with faith, I most definately have a problem with Faith.

Human beings are logical creatures. That is the way we are. It strikes me as confusing that you claim that we were created this way by something that can only be explained as illogical.

The problem with Faith is exactly what you are lauding. It is simple. It's easier to believe than not. I prefer to think of it in the words of Dan Barker: Intellectual Bankruptcy.

I cannot, will not, believe in anything without evidence, proof or reason. I have no more reason to belive in God than I do Vishnu, Allah or Zeus.
 
Really? Illogical compared to Creationism?

I can only suggest you consider more variables and gather more data. Probability would suggest that Evolution is more likely to be correct than Creationism.
 
ChickenSoup said:
Laws of Probability make me think that evolution is illogical :D
Click to expand...

Eh? How propbable is creation by a supreme being? What are these "laws of probabilities" that you're working with, because they sure don't sound like scientific ones?
 
Think about it:

Earth is EXACTLY where it needs to be away from the sun
Earth has EXACTLY the right conditions and atmosphere to sustain life
The sun isn't a supergiant or a dwarf, juuuust the right size...

And calculate the probability of that happening PLUS whatever else evolution says...
 
ChickenSoup said:
Think about it:

Earth is EXACTLY where it needs to be away from the sun
Earth has EXACTLY the right conditions and atmosphere to sustain life
The sun isn't a supergiant or a dwarf, juuuust the right size...

And calculate the probability of that happening PLUS whatever else evolution says...
Click to expand...

We're not arguing that it's improbable, we're arguing which theory is less probable.

You haven't addressed that.
 
We're not arguing that it's improbable, we're arguing which theory is less probable.
Click to expand...
I see more probablility in a Creator creating a world full of blatant design, than a formless mass designing itself.
Regardless this issue is about far more than wieghing probabilities and you know so...
 
The Earth isn't exactly where it needs to be to support life, it's within a broad habzone. There are similar answers to the rest of your points.

Earth is where it is because it is what it is. A sun this size and density will naturally collect terrestrial planets within the habzone area. There are hundreds of thousands of planets with suns that AREN'T suitable - and they don't have terrestrial style planets within the habzones.

Another point is that Earth is largely the environment required for generating OUR style of lifeform. Not any other - and it's not perfect for what we are either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top