The Bible is literally true.

[Nighthawk 0]

Does anyone here believe every word of the Bible literally? If not, do you believe some, but compromise on some issues? Or perhaps find the whole thing to be trash?

 

After years of study, it seems I cannot deny it. It's absolutely inerrant. Try to present some arguments against it if you want, I can counter anything. I'm amazed at my conclusions.

[Black Lushus 0]

After having religion shoved down my throat for the first 15 years of my life by my overly-christian dad and stepmom and then moving to live with my mom and having numerous shitty things happen to me in life, i've come to severly question the reality of God...you know the good old, "if there is a God why does he let bad shit happen?" thinking...the general answer from christians on that is that God is testing our faith, but when you're praying and praying and believing and believing and bad shit continues to happen, you can't help but question the faith...now having been instilled with a deep fear of being condemed to a pit of fire for eternity, I have not renounced God/Jesus, but the skepticism is definently at an all time high for me these days...

 

that being said, I believe the Bible is like a game of telephone, remember that game? 30 kids line up, the first one whispers something into the next one's ear, so on and so forth, by the time you get to the end the last kid says something different than the first kid. I believe the bible is almost completely like that...exaggerations on stories handed down year after year, translations getting messed up (gotta remember the bible has been retranslated over and over again for centuries upon centuries, compare it to when they dub anime or foreign films, lame right?) giving us what we have today...I'm sure if someone can throw out specific storylines, there's probably a way to shoot holes all through it...

[Guest Nanks]

There is a talking animal in a place inhabited by a man made of clay and a women made by a rib.

 

A woman gave birth without sexual intercourse or another form of insemination.

 

A man who had been executed and buried came back to life.

 

I mean seriously IDRM...

[Use Your Illusion 0]

Pseudoscience and religion relies on some of the following criteria:

 

1) Has a negative attitude to skepticism

 

2) Does not require critical thinking

 

3) Does not require experimental repeatability

 

4) Does not require tests

 

5) Does not accept falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis

 

6) Uses vague language

 

7) Relies on anecdotal evidence

 

8) No self-correction

 

9) Relies on belief and faith

 

10) Makes absolute claims

 

11) Produces no useful knowledge

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Yeah, but if you also take into account the "God is all-powerful" assumption and leap of faith, that therefore makes the impossible things possible. In its own logic set, there's no way you're getting me to pick a fight with the Bible.

 

Now, given that god is just a leap of faith and taken in the context that there is no "actual" god, the whole thing is hooey. That's the camp I fall in, and I won't argue any more or any less.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

"if there is a God why does he let bad shit happen?" thinking...the general answer from christians on that is that God is testing our faith.

Refer to my signature.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

After years of study, it seems I cannot deny it. It's absolutely inerrant. Try to present some arguments against it if you want, I can counter anything. I'm amazed at my conclusions.

Simply because a vast amount of people believe in God or the Bible says nothing about the validity or fact of either. I believe they call that 'jumping on the bandwagon'

 

UYI

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I like the Lego/Bible thread better...

[Guest Vitamin X]

We were discussing Oedipus today in my Theatre Appreciation class, and one of the questions was How the world differed so much from then to now, in regards to the play. We specifically referred to how the whole play revolved around prophecies, and how a man who had borne great sin brought suffering onto all of Thebes, and I immediately thought of religion and how the people then, as compared to now (after the adequately-named Age of Reasoning) invented realities to cover the unknown as opposed to discovering the truth or accepting the truth that there is no known answer and can't possibly be (as with what happens after death).

With that said, I feel spiritual in some ways, but can't agree on an organized religion. The Bible is too preachy for my likings, and I don't believe in Jesus as a prophet or some son of God, but I do like that he came as an honorable person.

[Guest SP-1]

The Bible does require critical thinking. Take a Hermeneutics class.

 

Of course, most biblical critics don't have a clue about what Hermeneutics is, and assume someone made up the interpretations a long time ago and everyone just fllas in line with them.

 

Or they just assume the English is the end-all be-all of Bible translation when it clearly isn't.

 

I'll discuss, but the second this thread becomes a gang war, I'm gone.

[Nighthawk 0]

Simply because a vast amount of people believe in God or the Bible says nothing about the validity or fact of either. I believe they call that 'jumping on the bandwagon'

 

UYI

I agree, in fact it's more of a hindrance than anything else, because the vast majority believe in their own interpretation of the truth, which is laughably far from reality.

For example, the Catholic church is by far the largest sect of Christianity, and is demonstratably false, and a mish mash of pagan customs to boot.

This is also supported in the Bible with "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

[Nighthawk 0]

Religious discussions become wars because one side is uneducated, stubborn and ignorant.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Regardless of how you feel about its "truth", being religious can provide alot of benefits for many different types of people, and if act like our criteria is going to be, does it help people, I'd say it helps alot, so you can't deny it.

 

I think it's about this time that I offer anyone here Pascal's Wager. Don't know what it is, well find out. =)

 

I tend to agree with SP, that alot of the English version is well...miswritten. There's truth in it. I won't go and say 100%, but there has to be some truth for it (and others) to have lasted so long.

 

You can define what truth I'm talking about however you like.

[Guest Vitamin X]

So can we get a bit of the misinterpretations from the original (I'll say Aramaic or Hebrew, although I'm not sure) version to the English one? I've read the one in Spanish, and it's slightly different (it's what I was forced to grow up on when I was younger), but the same message comes across.

[Dr. Tom 0]

Religious discussions become wars because one side is uneducated, stubborn and ignorant.

Yes. And the other side doesn't believe in God or the word of the Bible.

[Nighthawk 0]

people then, as compared to now (after the adequately-named Age of Reasoning) invented realities to cover the unknown as opposed to discovering the truth or accepting the truth that there is no known answer and can't possibly be (as with what happens after death).

Supposing there is a God, he would, of course, posses the answers to all unanswerable questions. The question of is there a god or isn't there does seem to come down to creation.

A creator God was the only reasoning behind the existance of the universe for many years, until the theory of evolution was proposed. The genesis of my Biblical study was evolutionary study. Evolution is unbelievably flawed. It's not even something you have to scratch very deep under the surface to discover, the most superficial examination will reveal what is confirmed by ardent study; that it's just blatantly false.

And yet many educated and respectable people unabashedly and dogmatically accept this flimsy theory. Wondering why, I came to see that evolution is not so much a scientific premise as a presuposition. It is the only alternative to God (unless you go the believe in nothing route), so they say "Well, of course it's true, because if it wasn't, there'd be a God, and only idiots believe that." All evolution is built on is universal acceptance, which as has been pointed out, means nothing.

Seeing objectively that evolution was foolishness, I decided to see if it's Biblical alternative would fall under the same close scrutiny. To my surprise, it did not.

After this, the question is whether the Bible is the inspired revelation of God, which it demonstratably is.

 

Stephen Joseph's post-modernistic view is flatly wrong, by the way. Truth is beyond what works for you, as obviously the truth hurts sometimes as well.

 

Sure, the English Bible isn't perfect, but there's no translational errors that obscure the message. Many facets of doctrine can be better understood by going to the original language, but everything still comes across. It was also written in Greek, by the way.

[Nighthawk 0]

Religious discussions become wars because one side is uneducated, stubborn and ignorant.

Yes. And the other side doesn't believe in God or the word of the Bible.

Actually, yeah. At least the non religious try to educate themselves, the religious often don't. I'm trying to be the exception by approaching it from a rationalistic view, where I've found it holds up as well as from an emotional view.

[The Amazing Rando 0]

I am the kind of person that looks at all the questions being asked of the bible and is stuck in a state of whether or not to believe in it. There are so many things that we will never really know, and because of that the Bible seems to have taken on itself as work of Creative Fiction Based On Fact.

 

Is that the wrong way for me to look at it? Possibly. I can say that I have my beliefs in God but I just can not believe in everything. There are hardly any records as to how the book was written and who it was written by. One person? Many people? Could there have been an (gasp!) editor? And you know, if there is an editor then there arechoices to be made. Some things may or may not have been included that could give us now a better sense of the true nature of the book itself.

 

What if what we have now is only a small portion of what was actually written? We don't know. Over a thousand years worth of interpretations can cause things to change and things could get left out. Who knows, in thousands of years there could be things missing from our decendant's version that we have now.

 

There are so many unanswered questions that it's hard to see it as fact. What we can see it as is THEORY, and for now that is what I see it as. I have a belief in the theory, and that's all that I really can have.

 

EDIT: And IDRM makes more sense than I ever could.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Supposing there is a God, he would, of course, posses the answers to all unanswerable questions. The question of is there a god or isn't there does seem to come down to creation.

 

I disagree. Whether or not God has always existed I don't think is the main point, but rather his existence that is often questioned/doubted. I think a bigger question to ask is, What is God?

 

This has always been the most confusing aspect of it to me. Aside from the afterlife (which I remember having quite the discussion with you about in the past), it's the most perplexing subject based on imagination, or have it as it may be, faith, that pertains to God. Is God a transcendant, all-powerful being? Or is he a force of nature? I'd be more readily willing to accept the argument that "He" is a force of nature, not one who controls everything as some sort of benevolent dictator, but as in the literal manisfestation of "God is everywhere and everything around us."

 

Also, you disagree with evolution, yet fail to provide any examples of why or how the theory of evolution is flawed. I also believe it's entirely possible for evolution and creationism not to be the complete opposite of each other.

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

I tend to agree with SP, that alot of the English version is well...miswritten.

 

I don't really understand this arguement. Which English translation are you talking about? There are dozens. If it is the King James (the oldest), then I would agree that some of the translations aren't great, though the same overall message is still conveyed. However, several newer translations, the New American Standard for instance, are very accurate in translating the original Greek and Hebrew. This is agreed upon by virtually all top foreign language scholars, religous and secular. So, believe in the Bible or not, I don't think translation is a good enough excuse to discount it.

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

There are hardly any records as to how the book was written and who it was written by. One person? Many people? Could there have been an (gasp!) editor? And you know, if there is an editor then there arechoices to be made. Some things may or may not have been included that could give us now a better sense of the true nature of the book itself

 

Actually, we do know alot about the authors, and yes, there were many of them. I suppose you could look at the people who cannonized the texts (late 1500's?) as editors, because they did decide what was included and what wasn't. And yes, ther are literally thousands of ancient manuscripts dealing with God, Jesus, etc, and most of them were not included. You can still find some of them - the gospel of Thomas for example - but they were for the most part left out because they didn't contain new information.

[Nighthawk 0]

you disagree with evolution, yet fail to provide any examples of why or how the theory of evolution is flawed.

I didn't get into it because it can be a lengthy discussion which has been done before, and I have to go to work. One before I go is that Darwin had no concept of DNA, the discovery of which has the capability of disproving it on it's own. The initial amoeba would have had to contain the genetic code for every form of life that would ever exist, yet you can find no example of new genetic information being created anywhere, only change within kind.

 

Also, regarding your other statement, if you accept that there is a God, the question of what God is can be answered by divine revelation. We have several things which claim to be just that. The issue is to look at them critically and determine if any of them indeed qualify as such. I propse that only one does, the Bible. Therefore, by carefully establishing the Bible as divinely inspired, we can determine from it the nature of God.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

The initial amoeba would have had to contain the genetic code for every form of life that would ever exist, yet you can find no example of new genetic information being created anywhere, only change within kind.

 

Not true. Look at mutation. Especially over a long period of time, those "changes within kind" become so distant..that they're not really kind anymore. We can note vast genetic similarities between chimpanzees and man, yet the two are different species.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

That can be countered by the existence of mututations over time.

 

Evolution and Theology are not mutually exclusive, imho.

 

Doesn't it make sense that an omnipotent being would you know, design its creations in such a way that they can change accordingly to his will, and wouldn't it know how things will change.

 

Eh. And I can't say that I've been called post-modernist before. I prefer the term Rortarian, actually. I was actually trying to say that those denouncing anyone doing religion was a fool, not that I actually believe post-modern dribble.

[Guest SP-1]

I tend to agree with SP, that alot of the English version is well...miswritten.

 

I don't really understand this arguement. Which English translation are you talking about? There are dozens. If it is the King James (the oldest), then I would agree that some of the translations aren't great, though the same overall message is still conveyed. However, several newer translations, the New American Standard for instance, are very accurate in translating the original Greek and Hebrew. This is agreed upon by virtually all top foreign language scholars, religous and secular. So, believe in the Bible or not, I don't think translation is a good enough excuse to discount it.

The problem with English translation is this: English doesn't use the same tenses, meanings, and grammatical structure that Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic use.

 

For instance, in a single tense, Greek can have an action mean that, "Something happened in the past and is still happening to day." In English, you have to construct a much longer thought process to deal with that, because it is a concept and not a direct verb. There are also multiple English variants for a greek word.

 

My Hermeneutics class is right in the middle of dealing with word studies. It's an interesting subject, and neccessary to study the Bible properly.

 

Those on the outside generally fail to realize how the Old and New testaments work together as well, which leads to criticisms of doctrine that aren't even valid.

 

The biggest block to understanding the Bible as God's Word? Realizing that God is a distinct person and not a force and He made His decisions to do things a certain way. Which, since He's God and all, is his right to do. Once you come to that, and begin to look at the Bible in that sense, you begin to see His craftsmanship behind the books and authors. That a series of books and epistles written thousands of years apart prove one another and lock together so well is in itself a testament that there is something bigger going on.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Also, regarding your other statement, if you accept that there is a God, the question of what God is can be answered by divine revelation. We have several things which claim to be just that. The issue is to look at them critically and determine if any of them indeed qualify as such. I propse that only one does, the Bible. Therefore, by carefully establishing the Bible as divinely inspired, we can determine from it the nature of God.

Then what is the nature of God? Is he a sentient being? Is he a force?

 

I understand what you said, but perhaps I might not have seen it the right way. You can look at what God is as divine revelation as is told in the Bible, but a key factor in how God is seen is how God is interpreted in cultures beyond those that came out of the West, more specifically the Arabian Peninsula and Europe. Worst off, they all seem to contradict each other, more specifically, and I suppose this would be what I'm talking about, is how Eastern philosophies define God more as a force than as a being. Which of course, would make the whole "son of God" thing kind of seem a little silly in the Western Culture, because I can't very well dub myself the "son of nature/existence" and be taken seriously as a prophet (again, especially not in this day and age of reasoning, technology, and information where most everything is scientifically-based).

 

What is it that the Bible possesses that makes it necessarily more "true" than the other texts under which a belief or faith is defined? What makes a collection of texts more relevant to divine revelation than say, tradition or rituals as seen in many if not most Pagan religions?

 

EDIT:

The biggest block to understanding the Bible as God's Word? Realizing that God is a distinct person and not a force and He made His decisions to do things a certain way. Which, since He's God and all, is his right to do. Once you come to that, and begin to look at the Bible in that sense, you begin to see His craftsmanship behind the books and authors. That a series of books and epistles written thousands of years apart prove one another and lock together so well is in itself a testament that there is something bigger going on.

 

Now this is more of what I was looking for with what I was saying. Now, is there debate among whether he is a sentient, existing being or a force within Christianity or within the Bible? What is it that determines God as an omnipotent (which, along with omniscience, is constantly determined impossible) person? What gave 'God' the power to be 'God' if it is a person?

 

The only determination I can make is that God isn't a person, and thus can always exist (as is said with the Creationism theory) even before the universe, the heavens, and all this was made.

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

The problem with English translation is this: English doesn't use the same tenses, meanings, and grammatical structure that Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic use.

 

I understand that, and you are correct. However, my point is that if most scholars (i.e. people who've been in school longer than I've been alive) agree that it is a solid translation, why should I (music major- only a few religion or language classes) argue with them. They know all the word tenses and got together to agree upon the best English translation. That should be good enough for anyone.

[Guest SP-1]

Good enough does not equal perfect. English translations ARE good, and ARE fine for personal study and teaching. There's no question about that. But to limit yourself only to that closes you off a bit from potential discoveries and a better understanding. The NASB is the most literal translation and the newer versions of it are pretty readable now. The NIV is right behind it and, oddly enough, I think many are coming to regard the New Living Translation as a fairly solid piece. One of the translators for it is a Seminary professor at my school. I'd trust anyone from here's judgement, pretty much. Which isn't blind school pride. It doesn't take long to figure out that the men and women who work here know what they're about.

 

I've also heard that The Message, a paraphrase -- not a true translation -- is coming to be favored among professors and scholars. The guy who did it apparently did alot of contextual, cultural, and language study to get to the root of what each passage was saying.

 

As good as some English translations are, however, they are not the originals. There's a flavor to the original text. Examples that draw from the native and historical culture that can sometimes be lost on us. For instance, in Revelation, the church in Laodicea was warned that it was lukewarm and that God found that distasteful. To get the full effect of that, it's interesting to know that Laodicea was in a geographical area that was incapable of producing hot or cold water. It was piping in lukewarm water which, at the time, was more or less . . . useless. Given that, the comparison to a useless commodity must have been a pretty sharp rebuke for them.

 

But merely reading the passage doesn't give you that full effect. Investigation into the Bible is helpful not only to begin to see how reliable it is, but to also begin to learn more and more the depth of what it is saying. And that means you need to go deeper than the English sometimes.

[Guest SP-1]

EDIT:

The biggest block to understanding the Bible as God's Word? Realizing that God is a distinct person and not a force and He made His decisions to do things a certain way. Which, since He's God and all, is his right to do. Once you come to that, and begin to look at the Bible in that sense, you begin to see His craftsmanship behind the books and authors. That a series of books and epistles written thousands of years apart prove one another and lock together so well is in itself a testament that there is something bigger going on.

 

Now this is more of what I was looking for with what I was saying. Now, is there debate among whether he is a sentient, existing being or a force within Christianity or within the Bible? What is it that determines God as an omnipotent (which, along with omniscience, is constantly determined impossible) person? What gave 'God' the power to be 'God' if it is a person?

 

The only determination I can make is that God isn't a person, and thus can always exist (as is said with the Creationism theory) even before the universe, the heavens, and all this was made.

First of all, you're determining the impossiblity of Omnipotene and Omniscience from a human standpoint. For humanity, those two things ARE impossible. Science can't grasp them because science is still drawing upon the concepts and realities of a CREATED universe with created limitations. In a way, you're right: Omnipotence and Omniscience ARE impossible . . . in creation itself. To us. But since God created the confines of reality and set its rules Himself, He must be uniquely and inherently above those rules.

 

Biblically, He identifies Himself personally. As a person. Both in the Old Testament, and when He becomes incarnate as Christ. All biblical evidence points to God being a unique personality.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

For example, the Catholic church is by far the largest sect of Christianity, and is demonstratably false, and a mish mash of pagan customs to boot.

 

Demonstrate some of these.

 

I'm aware that the Bible never actually mentions things like confessions and a few other Catholic beliefs, but I'm curious as to what the other "demonstratably false" aspects are.