The Bible is not the word of god

THE BIBLE IS EVIL!!! EVIL I TELL YOU! RELIGION IS EVIL! AHHH!

Originally posted by epiphany
THE BIBLE IS EVIL!!! EVIL I TELL YOU! RELIGION IS EVIL! AHHH!

I don't think so. If it was good enough for Mother Teresa....
Name me a less evil human being who lived in this day and age.
That is like those who say money is evil.
These things in and of themselves are not evil.
Evil people misuse them for their own gain, but the messages within are invaluable.

Saint4God said:

One of the great things about God, Nakash, is that He cares so much that He trusts us to handle things from Him well. First example, was the 10 commandments handed down to Moses. He got mad and smashed them, so God had to give him set # 2......

Why do they always destroy the evidence That could have been very useful!

Same thing goes with that Joseph Smith guy, the founder of the Mormon faith.
Stupid guy lost the golden plates of god, and they still believed him

Originally posted by ToadmundWhy do they always destroy the evidence

That could have been very useful!

Same thing goes with that Joseph Smith guy, the founder of the Mormon faith.
Stupid guy lost the golden plates of god, and they still believed him

History repeats itself...

Originally posted by epiphany
THE BIBLE IS EVIL!!! EVIL I TELL YOU! RELIGION IS EVIL! AHHH!

Where were you for The Anti-Christian Conspiracy thread. This input would've been valuable there.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by Toadmund
Why do they always destroy the evidence

That could have been very useful!

Well, he was given a second set...and not all the evidence was destroyed. The remaining evidence was put together into a collection of works called The Holy Book. I'd recommend reading it, as what is contained within it is the Word of God.

Originally posted by Toadmund
Same thing goes with that Joseph Smith guy, the founder of the Mormon faith.
Stupid guy lost the golden plates of god, and they still believed him

I'm not here to defend Mormonism and believe it is a separate faith.

Originally posted by LCKob
Thus, my contention is that the Bible (and other religious Compendiums) ... should be respected for the promotion of its contained wisdoms ... as a baseline, and as to its absolute validity/veracity in total? ... until proven beyond a doubt, any additional aspect is then left to each individual in support of their valid opinion

This is how I see the logical link to the title of this thread:

"The bible is not the word of god"

LCKob

Are you saying it is not the word of God then?

Saint4God said:

Well, he was given a second set...and not all the evidence was destroyed. The remaining evidence was put together into a collection of works called The Holy Book. I'd recommend reading it, as what is contained within it is the Word of God.

Where's the second set then?
As for the remaining evidence, that being the bible, is besides the point, is not our argument here based on the legitimacy of the bible itself?

Where are the tablets?
Why would Moses destroy that which was given' to him by god himself? I mean if I had those tablets I'd exercise just a bit of control over my anger, and I certainly wouldn't smash them to bits.
Moses was a hoaxter and magician anyway, ever hear of the ark of the covonent, that box that contains the power of god?
Well folks it was a CAPACITOR, it stores a charge until someone touch's it, he had everyone fooled real well!
Real well indeed!

[edit on 25-1-2006 by Toadmund]

[edit on 25-1-2006 by Toadmund]

Originally posted by Toadmund
Where's the second set then?

Dunno, but would like to see it if you find it. Word on the street is it's still floating around somewhere. Can't tell ya more than that.

Originally posted by Toadmund
As for the remaining evidence, that being the bible, is besides the point, is not our argument here based on the legitimacy of the bible itself?

Yep.

Originally posted by Toadmund
Where are the tablets?

I heard someone say Ethopia...was that Carmen Sandiego?



Ark of the Covenant in Axum?

Originally posted by Toadmund
Why would Moses destroy that which was given' to him by god himself?

He was mad.

Originally posted by Toadmund
I mean if I had those tablets I'd exercise just a bit of control over my anger, and I certainly wouldn't smash them to bits.

I feel the same way...though don't know what it was like, what he was feeling. Maybe even God stirred something in his soul to show him a little taste of how it feels to be angry over false gods. Don't know, but fun to talk about.

Originally posted by Toadmund
Moses was a hoaxter and magician anyway,

And your evidence for this declaration?

Originally posted by Toadmund
ever hear of the ark of the covonent,

Absolutely. I'd be a poor student of the Word if I didn't.

Originally posted by Toadmund
that box that contains the power of god?

Well folks it was a CAPACITOR, it stores a charge until someone touch's it, he had everyone fooled real well!
Real well indeed!


I'd read some discussion about that on another thread. I heard it would not function as a capacitor since the lid which was made of gold would have "shorted" the capacitor because it touched both the inner and outer sides of the metal container. I've not reproduced the ark though...seems I'm sort on gold

[edit on 25-1-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by LCKob
Thus, my contention is that the Bible (and other religious Compendiums) ... should be respected for the promotion of its contained wisdoms ... as a baseline, and as to its absolute validity/veracity in total? ... until proven beyond a doubt, any additional aspect is then left to each individual in support of their valid opinion

This is how I see the logical link to the title of this thread:

"The bible is not the word of god"

LCKob

Are you saying it is not the word of God then?

Haha ... no, as an Agnostic, I am saying that I reserve judgement on that issue due to the fact that I have not been compelled to completely dismiss nor totally accept the bible as it stands.

Once again, I admire the points of wisdom it contains, and merely hold that "the rest" is open to possibilities as difined by the lack of incontrovertable proof for or against.

I view the Quran and other such books in the same way.

Does this help to clarify my stance to you saint4god?


LCKob

I'd read some discussion about that on another thread. I heard it would not function as a capacitor since the lid which was made of gold would have "shorted" the capacitor because it touched both the inner and outer sides of the metal container. I've not reproduced the ark though...seems I'm sort on gold

Ever hear of insulators?
A leather liner, or papyrus, or cloth, could separate the lid from the box quite easily.

Third Temple / Ark of the Covenant

The Ark question had me searching...glad I did. I haven't read this yet but looks educational.

Originally posted by Toadmund
Ever hear of insulators?
A leather liner, or papyrus, or cloth, could separate the lid from the box quite easily.

I hear ya Toadmund. Personally I'd want it to be a capacitor, because it would show that God gave man some techie knowledge 2000+ years before we knew what it was. To say God loves technology would be nice thing since I'm a fan of it myself. I believe it's a tool, like money, and the wood axe. They can be used to build great things...but also can be used to destroy lives.

returned to Jerusalem and then when he went home he snuck it out of Israel. It is said to be in a small chapel in Axum. There is one story of a group of knights in the middle ages who then took it to Europe.... then it was hidden in Rosslyn chapel's crypt, until it could be taken across the Atlantic to 'Oak Island'.......
Then the guys who were making this up couldn't think of any more plot twists.

Originally posted by LCKob
Haha ... no, as an Agnostic, I am saying that I reserve judgement on that issue due to the fact that I have not been compelled to completely dismiss nor totally accept the bible as it stands.

Ah, okay, thanks.

Originally posted by LCKob
Once again, I admire the points of wisdom it contains, and merely hold that "the rest" is open to possibilities as difined by the lack of incontrovertable proof for or against.

I view the Quran and other such books in the same way.

Does this help to clarify my stance to you saint4god?


LCKob

Yep. Much appreciated. If you're ever interested in receiving the free gift of eternal life, feel free to U2U.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by LCKob
Haha ... no, as an Agnostic, I am saying that I reserve judgement on that issue due to the fact that I have not been compelled to completely dismiss nor totally accept the bible as it stands.

Ah, okay, thanks.

Originally posted by LCKob
Once again, I admire the points of wisdom it contains, and merely hold that "the rest" is open to possibilities as difined by the lack of incontrovertable proof for or against.

I view the Quran and other such books in the same way.

Does this help to clarify my stance to you saint4god?


LCKob

Yep. Much appreciated. If you're ever interested in receiving the free gift of eternal life, feel free to U2U.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by saint4God]

I will take your gracious offer under consideration ... as I try to with all things of consequence.

LCKob

In order to prove or disprove the title of this thread, how much needs to be proven? Must one disprove every word of the Bible or just one to validate this point? After all, elements of truth can exist in every mistruth, can it not?

Originally posted by mytym
In order to prove or disprove the title of this thread, how much needs to be proven? Must one disprove every word of the Bible or just one to validate this point? After all, elements of truth can exist in every mistruth, can it not?

hmmmmm ... a very good question!

I would say, that barring absolute proof ... then the general axiom of "the more proof the better to support a particular claim.

As with the case of SM or Science ... one hesitates to claim absolute anything ... but, barring that, promotes x body of evidence ... which scales the level of "proof" from minimal correlation to something like "due to the extensive body of research and corroboration of x points in addition to the accuracy correlation of all existing working predictor models (to a accuracy prediction level of x%) ... strongly indicates and reinforces the following theory "x" or view "y".

LCKob

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is if we are not able to dismiss the whole thing as a result of disproving one word, what are we to take as truth and what are we to dismiss? There needs to be a Key or Legend that tells you this section you should believe, this section you shouldn't, this section is symbolic and should not be taken literally, this section requires your own interpretation, etc....

Obviously this is a little tongue in cheek as I feel many of you will atest to the fact that many specific references in the Bible can be disproven, thus I don't see how any of it can be taken literally.

I suppose the other question that must be raised to validate the thread title is: Is it possible that God makes mistakes and gets things wrong from time to time? If this was possible then proving specific references in the Bible are not correct does not disprove it is the word of God, simple that God made an error.

I welcome your thoughts.

Originally posted by mytym
In order to prove or disprove the title of this thread, how much needs to be proven? Must one disprove every word of the Bible or just one to validate this point? After all, elements of truth can exist in every mistruth, can it not?

if there is a basic underlying fallacy about a document, it cannot be the product of an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient being. if you prove there is such a fallacy, would that prove that it is not the word of god?

i think we should have this operate as benign until proven divine or not divine. we should operate from the standpoint that it is in the middle, and one side must tip the scales.