The Bible, Man's book or God's Word?

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by texastig
They sure are true.

Because you said so?

Originally posted by texastig
You've been misinformed.
Paul the Apostle was a contemporary source.

Wrong.
Paul NEVER met Jesus.
He wrote DECADES after the alleged Jesus.

He never even gives a DATE for Jesus at all !

You've never actually studied any of this, have you ?


Kap

Paul met the resurrected Christ on the road to Damascus.

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by texastig
I'm talking about the Bible. Everyone knows that the Lord of the Rings, etc.. aren't historical.

Everyone knows the Bible is not historical.


Kap

Appeal to numbers fallacy for one, secondly, the Bible is considered even by skeptics as a historical document.

Fail x 2.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Historical...to a degree....not as total truth of history. Many skeptics find it to be a biased history with added agenda for their people.

Like I said to Kap...there is no absolute to either argument. It does fall back to belief when we bring God and heaven and all the other supernatural stuff into it.

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Historical...to a degree....not as total truth of history. Many skeptics find it to be a biased history with added agenda for their people.

Like I said to Kap...there is no absolute to either argument. It does fall back to belief when we bring God and heaven and all the other supernatural stuff into it.

Time and time again, archaeological discoveries prove the historical account of the Bible to be true.

instead of making arbitrary statements, why don't you provide us with examples of the bible being erroneous in what it says transpired in history. the Bible thus far is perfect, infallible. That is if you read the AV, the 1611 KJV. The modern translations are riddled with contradictions and errors.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


An example would be that the Ark of the Covenant was a instrument of God....when it could of just been a Egyptian tool that was misunderstood...since they did not understand electricity.

There is no proof that 'God' consumed the blood on the altars.

There is no proof that it was 'God' talking to prophets and that life beyond here did not have something to do with the stories within the Bible.

There is no proof of Jesus resurrecting and if he did...there is no proof that he was truly dead.

There is no proof for the miracles that are claimed.

There is no proof that God took a rib from a being a made a new being with it.

There is no proof that a snake talked to humans.

There is no proof that it was God who told man to kill other people.

All the things to be claimed to God...there is no proof that this claim is correct....the same with 'satan'.

Yes, a people and places are found to be in our real history...but many of the things mentioned in the Bible take 'faith' and 'belief'.

There is no proof that it was God who cared about a special land or a special people. There is no proof that it was God and NOT man that desired a savior. There is no proof that it was God that taught man how to be prideful about what family they are from or about what land they live in.

Much of what gets debated, falls down to belief...not facts.

With best intentions...each to their own
LV

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

If God is good, righteous, and holy than why does he smite the first-born Egyptians. Many Christians believe that children were among those Egyptian’s killed. What justification can there be for this? There is no justification, in my mind, for God to kill innocent Egyptian civilians as opposed to, say, Pharaoh himself. It was Pharaoh’s hard heart, if I’m not mistaken, that kept the Hebrews enslaved. A good God would not slaughter children.

Ok Titan I'm going to admit I've been vexed over this since my last post in this thread. I have pondered this in my heart waiting to see if the Lord was going to give me anything on it. I ask you to simply know that
before God, what I write hear is truth . Not that it's so unbelievable, or that it is meant to counter your point. Obviously it can't be countered.

This morning as I sat down to join the mayhem here. I was compelled to crack my Bible, that is always right here with my puda. So knowing
that feeling well. I of course followed.

I signed on, then taking hold of my Bible, I broke the velcrow seal, opened it at random looked down and read the first of what I saw. Now I know this part will be hard for you but I have done this in the past to get answers and it works. It is part of why I believe Gods word is alive.
Hence The Living Bible.

This is what I read upon opening it to pg 323 first page book of 1 Samuel.
I read til I found what the Lord wanted me to see according my belief
of the way I'm shown his truth.
1 Samuel 2 6-11
" 6 The Lord killeth and the Lord maketh alive. He bringeth down to the grave and bringeth up. 7 The Lord, maketh poor, and maketh rich, he bringeth low, and lifteth up. 8 He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the begger out of the dunghill. to set them amoung princes,
and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the Lords, and he has set the world upon them.
9 He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness: for by strength shall no man prevail.
10 The adversaries of the lord shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall he thunder upon them; the lord shall judge the ends of the earth;
and he shall give strength unto his King, and exalt the horn of his annointed.

Take this as you will, I ponder no more for I am no longer vexed.



[edit on 7-6-2010 by randyvs]

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Paul met the resurrected Christ on the road to Damascus.

Not according to Paul !
Paul merely says he had a VISION of Christ - so what?

Meanwhile, decades later, someone wrote Acts which gives THREE DIFFERENT accounts of Paul's conversion - visions and voices - NO meeting of a person.

Have you ever actually READ the NT ?


Kap

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Historical...to a degree....not as total truth of history. Many skeptics find it to be a biased history with added agenda for their people.

Completely UNhistorical.

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
Like I said to Kap...there is no absolute to either argument. It does fall back to belief when we bring God and heaven and all the other supernatural stuff into it.

You BELIEVE in supernatural events.
But the FACTS say otherwise.

They are NOT equal views at all.
Facts trump superstition.


Kap

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Time and time again, archaeological discoveries prove the historical account of the Bible to be true.

Rubbish.
That's why you did NOT quote ANY examples.

Because the Bible is FANTASY.

Why can't you provide even ONE such example of
"archaeological discoveries prove the historical account of the Bible to be true"

That does NOT mean the bible mentioing a real place.
That's NOT support for the ACCOUNT in the bible.

The reason you cannot ever provide any example, is because there ARE no examples - the bible is religious fantasy, none of the events happened.

Please DON'T paste a list of real places in the bible - that does NOT prove events occured.

Please DON'T paste a list of real people in the bible - that does NOT prove events occured.

The issue is the EVENTS in the bible - they did NOT occur.


Kap

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
instead of making arbitrary statements, why don't you provide us with examples of the bible being erroneous in what it says transpired in history. the Bible thus far is perfect, infallible. That is if you read the AV, the 1611 KJV. The modern translations are riddled with contradictions and errors.

Genesis did NOT occur.

The Flood did NOT occur.

The Exodus did NOT occur.

The conquest of Canaan did NOT occur.

The Tower of Babel did NOT occur.

etc.


Kap

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

An example would be that the Ark of the Covenant was a instrument of God....when it could of just been a Egyptian tool that was misunderstood...since they did not understand electricity.

Jesus H Christ !
You believe the Ark was REAL ??!!
Wow.

Bye now...
Backing away slowly...


Kap

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Time and time again, archaeological discoveries prove the historical account of the Bible to be true.

Show me ONE.

I would be perfectly happy to see just one archeological discovery that has proven accounts of the bible to be true.

instead of making arbitrary statements, why don't you provide us with examples of the bible being erroneous in what it says transpired in history. the Bible thus far is perfect, infallible. That is if you read the AV, the 1611 KJV. The modern translations are riddled with contradictions and errors.

Got my copy right here. I am ready to start flipping.





On another note:

March 4, 6012 Strange Tale Discovered

It seems the scientists have recently recovered a disc once used to store information. Ancient technologies have allowed us to view what appears to be a filmed account of America back around the early 21st century.

In the film, a man named George W. Bush is president of what used to be The United States. He apparently goes on vacation to some type of ranch in Crawford Texas.

Recent archeological finds have been amazing in confirming the tale on the disc. There are records that there was indeed a man named George W. Bush who was indeed president of the U.S. at one time. More recently though, a ranch has been unearthed in what used to be Texas that clearly shows evidence this Bush person was there.

These are amazing finds and go a long way to validate the information found on this ancient disc. There will still be skeptics and that is why we will always keep digging but for us, these things confirm what is on the disc. I think it is going to be very difficult for the skeptics to prove that "Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay" is not a historical account.

reply to post by Kapyong


I believe that the Egyptians had knowledge of conducting electricity somewhat...I believe that the story of the ARK is Egyptian in origin and it used to sit in the Pyramid. Sense they did not understand why it gave off power....they attributed it to 'gods' or what have you.

Do I think it was some supernatural box that was of God? No. Do I think there was anything supernatural about it? Nope.

And yes...this is all just belief, will room to change. I think there was more then just 1 also, eventually. Where did such trial and errors come from to build such a thing...I do not know. I have heard stories about how the Egypians would make 'boxes/arks' to carry a 'image' of their god on. Such as a animal image or what have you.

LOL....as much as you step away...you grow on me in a weird way.

My best to ya
LV

reply to post by Kapyong


I believe in a Spirit of life...yes. I have too many strange things that have happened that science doesnt explain to well to me. I actually think there is a science, to the Spirit. So to call it supernatural....well IDK if that is what I would call it. I believe in cause and effect, I believe in orders, cycles, that follow universal laws. I do think there are things that are unseen that we just cant understand.

I dont think the Spirit is something that intervenes so to say....with supernatural events. I think the Spirit works through real things, like us.

I have my own take on things just as everyone else should have their own.

You are a person that reply's fully on facts...Im fine with that even though it doesnt matter what I am fine with. I do live a life of spirituality...I have no issues with that being a part of me and my life.

reply to post by randyvs


That's an interesting verse, sounds like the author was using God to explain the ups and downs of life and death.

Supernatural forces and beings have often served this function, whenever someone falls on hard times they have a tendency to blame an evil supernatural force often times just "bad luck".

I don't think God killed those kids in Egypt, I think its a story and nothing more. The only times I ponder it are when people defend such horrendous acts as part of a perfect "word of God".

I hold no disrespect for you, its the Bible that you believe in that I have issue with.

Take care

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Paul met the resurrected Christ on the road to Damascus.

Not according to Paul !
Paul merely says he had a VISION of Christ - so what?

Meanwhile, decades later, someone wrote Acts which gives THREE DIFFERENT accounts of Paul's conversion - visions and voices - NO meeting of a person.

Have you ever actually READ the NT ?


Kap

Numerous times. the men with Saul/Paul also heard the voice of Jesus, and any psychologist will tell you that mass hallucinations are impossible.

And Paul plainly states in HIS epistles that he has just as much authority as Peter and the other 10 apostles because he too was commissioned by Jesus himself.

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Time and time again, archaeological discoveries prove the historical account of the Bible to be true.

Rubbish.
That's why you did NOT quote ANY examples.

Because the Bible is FANTASY.

Why can't you provide even ONE such example of
"archaeological discoveries prove the historical account of the Bible to be true"

That does NOT mean the bible mentioing a real place.
That's NOT support for the ACCOUNT in the bible.

The reason you cannot ever provide any example, is because there ARE no examples - the bible is religious fantasy, none of the events happened.

Please DON'T paste a list of real places in the bible - that does NOT prove events occured.

Please DON'T paste a list of real people in the bible - that does NOT prove events occured.

The issue is the EVENTS in the bible - they did NOT occur.


Kap

*yawn*

"Today, so many Bible cities, names and events have been unearthed through archaeology that the Bible is considered the single most important historical document in existence. Many lost cities have been located using the Bible as a road map."

HERE

"Where archaeology verifies and agrees with the Bible, Christians accept it as true. But what about when archaeology does not agree with the Bible? Is it then archaeology or the Bible that is in error? A case in point is Joshua and the battle of Jericho. It is plainly written in the Bible that Joshua was able to defeat Jericho because the wall crumbled down and he and his army were able to enter the city. But archaeologists tell us that at the time of Joshua there were no walled cities in existence at the site of Jericho. The conclusion they draw is that no walled city existed, thus there was no battle, and since there was no battle then there was no general by the name of Joshua. Many secular archaeologists said the same thing about King David until they found a tablet bearing his name as King of Israel. Thus, up until the tablet was found, archaeology did not support the Bible. But eventually it was proven that God’s Word was true all along. David was a real person who was King of Israel, and scientific “proof” turned out to be false."

HERE

"Over the years there have been many criticisms leveled against the Bible concerning its historical reliability. These criticisms are usually based on a lack of evidence from outside sources to confirm the Biblical record. Since the Bible is a religious book, many scholars take the position that it is biased and cannot be trusted unless we have corroborating evidence from extra-Biblical sources. In other words, the Bible is guilty until proven innocent, and a lack of outside evidence places the Biblical account in doubt.

This standard is far different from that applied to other ancient documents, even though many, if not most, have a religious element. They are considered to be accurate, unless there is evidence to show that they are not. Although it is not possible to verify every incident in the Bible, the discoveries of archaeology since the mid-1800s have demonstrated the reliability and plausibility of the Bible narrative.

Here are some examples:"

HERE

Do a simple Google search next time you feel like responding.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


So that would be not a single one.

You do not have one example of archeological evidence proving the account of the bible. What you do have is exactly what you have already been told would not even be considered for the huge beating it has already taken by reality.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
The Bible says that a man built a giant boat and managed to two of every animal in the entire world in order to save himself and his family from a horrific flood in which a vengeful deity planned on slaughtering every man woman child and beast. That's not historical, its ludicrous and without any evidence to back it up.

He had at least 50 years or more to build it. Adult animals weren't in the ark, they were young adult animals. The land mass at that time was all together.
You keep forgetting that God is a God of righteousness and justice and He was getting rid of evil on the earth.
Gen 6:5
"And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually."
That's not vengeance.
There's even other civilizations that talk about a great flood, that makes it historical.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
There's evidence that the people the New Testament mentions probably did exist, yes, but that does not mean the supernatural elements are real. Just like Troy was discovered to be a real place but that doesn't make Athena or Poseidon real by extension.

Do you admit that Jesus was real?

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Basically what happened was I stopped going to Church and read the Bible on my own. I'd always had questions about the Bible and there wasn't a single believer that had any of the answers.

So that's why your against God?

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
So I started reading it myself instead of buying into the Pastor's own take on the verses. I didn't want to be spoon-fed. What I found was a book plagued with errors.

How did you know that it had errors? Did you study the culture and history and exhaust all possible resources before you started blaming God? Did you ask the Pastor about the verses?

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
For years I'd ignored many of the errors telling myself they weren't there or making up some rationalization to save my psyche from the overwhelming cognitive dissonance. I told myself to question the book was to question God. But then, slowly but surely, I realized that to question the Bible is to question man's perceptions, depictions and interpretations of God. The Bible isn't God and it definitely isn't perfect.

Could it have been what you thought were errors was something you really didn't understand? The Bible is historical and it speaks of what God did. What is your definition of perfect?

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
I realized that the Bible sometimes makes God seem evil in order to scare people into believing and that questioning the validity of the Bible was the only way to know for sure if I was living a lie. The book is riddled with self-contradictions, morally reprehensible nonsense and brain exploding paradoxes.

I don't think the Bible sometimes makes God seem evil. God layed down the law and people didn't follow it. That's not God's fault, that's the peoples fault. Do you think your perception of self-contradictions are things that you don't understand?

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
So you think fornication, sex before marriage, is evil enough to be punishable by death? That's absurd. If God didn't want us to have sex before marriage he would have made us biologically incapable of doing so.

That stuff was for the Jews, not Christians or anyone else today. God thought it was evil enough to warrant death. Who are we to question God? How can the clay question the Potter?
God wants people to wait to have sex until they are married because it has more meaning to the relationship instead of people acting like boar hogs in sow pens. It's a commitment.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
That part about a rapist marrying their victim is in Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

www.christian-thinktank.com...

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
The Bible is filled with these primitive sorts of statutes and precepts which make anyone living the modern day cringe.

This is where you make your mistakes. You think that the Jewish law is still for everyone. It's not. It was done away with when Christ died and rose from the dead.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
The idea that a loving God might have given these rules is an insult. If God is love he doesn't want rape victims to marry their attackers and he wouldn't put it in a supposedly "perfect" book.

www.christian-thinktank.com...

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
You seriously don't know which verse prohibits Freedom of Religion? Its the FIRST COMMANDMENT of the 10. Thou Shalt have no other Gods before me. According to many fundamentalists the 10 Commandments are part of God's perfect moral code.

The Jews had freedom to choose or not to choose. God doesn't make robots.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
I'm aware there is mention of giants in the Bible but MOST of the peoples the Israelites wiped off the planet were not specified to be giants.

That is incorrect. There are 35 of Tribes of Giants mentioned in the Bible:
Amalekites, Amorites, Anakims, Ashdothites, Aviums, Avites, Canaanites,
Caphtorims, Ekronites, Emins, Eshkalonites, Gazathites, Geshurites,
Gibeonites, Giblites, Girga#es, Gittites, Hittites, Hivites, Horims, Horites,
Jebusites, Kadmonites, Kenites, Kenizzites, Maachathites, Manassites, Nephilim,Perizzites, Philistines, Rephaims, Sidonians, Zamzummins, Zebusites, Zuzims.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
No group of people, no matter how tall in stature, is pure evil.

Gen 6:5 "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually."

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
I'm sure Hitler told his followers the Jews were pure evil and therein lies the problem. Those in power can say "Hey, this group of people worships a different god, they're culture is different and God says their evil, let's conquer them" ... So the decree of "God" is a petty tool for conquest, hatred and bloodshed.

God was bringing the Jews into their land. And the giants didn't want them there.
I gotta continue to the next post.

reply to post by texastig


Why do you suppose that God..if he brought the flood, gave Noah all that time to build the Ark...why did God allow Giants to make it through the flood?

They were still in the lands...after the flood>

Why?

I dont believe God did such a thing...but what is your take on why this would of happened, since you believe God did bring a flood to cleanse the Earth.