It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the bible the divine word of god?

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 



That way, I guess a christian could read the Bible as saying that Jesus only metaphorically died for peoples sins and was only symbolically raised from the dead.

Because such a view would require a person to reject the Nicene Creed, a person who believed that would not be a Christian.




posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Well the truth is that it is about more than the actual books being divinely inspired. What I mean is that those who chose which books to include would also have to have been divinely inspired, otherwise they would have gotten it wrong. There were many more gospels than those included in the Bible, as we all know. There were probably even gospels that we know nothing about today, sort of like how we just found the gospel of Judas relatively recently.

And obviously it would be difficult to believe that all gospels, whether in the Bible or not, were divinely inspired, because some of them are outlandish, and actually run contrary to the teachings of Jesus and sometimes even the teachings of Judaism. I think that the Gnostics are to blame for some of these gospels, and I wholeheartedly believe that the Gnostic teachings were what Jesus was combatting while still alive. It just so happened that the Gnostics did a lot of writing, and we have discovered some of these Gospels, which has confused the situation.

Nevertheless, I personally do not think it matters all that much. I believe in God, and I feel that one can be a good Christian by learning from the Bible, and by doing what Jesus taught. Even those who aren't Christian should do what Jesus taught, because it is the humane thing to do. Even if it turned out Christians were wrong, there definitely is an afterlife, and your actions here on earth, and how you behave, have some affect on your life after death. Therefore I believe people should be focused on their "souls" to some degree, instead of simply ignoring the matter altogether.

I have found that there are many people out there, mostly atheists, who use thier non-belief as a crutch. They tell themselves that the Bible and religious teachings are just the products of gullible minds, and therefore they should just stay away from it all, instead of attempting to do the work of sifting through their own hearts and souls and making a religious decision. Ignoring the matter altogether is just going to hurt them in the long run.

Ignoring something doesn't change the reality of the thing. And like I said, maybe atheists will not go to what some call "hell," or whatever, but I believe that atheists will get something different than the religious will after death. What that is I cannot "know" for sure, only have faith in what I believe. Any and all religions are fine in my opinion, as long as that religion respects the lives and property of others, and teaches people to be good to one another. Islam, if it teaches muslims to kill all non-believers, or if Judaism teaches that Jews are better than non-Jews, are not accurate in my opinion.

But there is also the fact that such religions could actually have been divinely inspired, but were corrupted by men. Take for instance the laws initially set down by God to Moses in Judaism and Christianity. All the assortment of dietary and other laws Jews believe in were created by man at a later date. This is historically provable in my opinion, and goes a long way to showing just how much man can corrupt a doctine over time. But that is no reason to ignore the doctrine. One should attempt to get the heart and truth of the matter. There are spiritual ways to discern truth, as many have discovered through patience and practice.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   
@adjensen... ''Because such a view would require a person to reject the Nicene Creed, a person who believed that would not be a Christian.'' __________________________________________ Only according to the Nicene Creed. But we know there were Christians long before the NC.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 



Only according to the Nicene Creed. But we know there were Christians long before the NC.

As Christians, we are able to define who we are, and that is a person who espouses the beliefs attested to in the creed. While the creed was developed after the Apostolic Age, there is no evidence that it is contradictory to the beliefs that were held by orthodox Christians in the earliest days of the church.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
@adjensen...''... there is no evidence that it is contradictory to the beliefs that were held by orthodox Christians in the earliest days of the church.'' --- If there is no contradiction, then the NC would uphold the whole Bible... like the early christians did. Or did the NC decide what parts can be dismissed or taken 'metaphorically'?
edit on 24-12-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by sageturkey
 


Thats great thanks for the link ive bookmarked the page



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 



Or did the NC decide what parts can be dismissed or taken 'metaphorically'?

How can a creed "decide" anything?

Do you even know what the Nicene Creed is?



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   
I have to admit I hate the whole 'metaphor' interpretation. It's just a different phraseology of picking and choosing what bits to believe in and twisting the biblical interpretation to fit in with modern day understandings of the Universe.

I'm not religious and know it's a contentious view but I think when someone claims 'this part is literal, this part is a metaphor' they're putting words in the mouth of their god which defeats the while object of religions. How can you pick and choose? What grants you the authority? It's either the word/will of god or a complete fairy tale. Pretending there's a middle ground is just a cop out.

Taking 2Kings as an example, god sends two bears to murder 32 children just because they called a man bald - if you worship that god, I want nothing do with you.The same applies to worshiping someone who will apparently make people burn in eternal hellfire for having a different sexuality or religion or eat seafood and thousands of other trivial examples.

I know most believers don't think about things this way, but I' still rather have nothing to do with them. The scare me.
edit on 24-12-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by bastion
 



How can you pick and choose? What grants you the authority? It's either the word/will of god or a complete fairy tale. Pretending there's a middle ground is just a cop out.

Taking 2Kings as an example, god sends two bears to murder 32 children just because they called a man bald - if you worship that god, I want nothing do with you.

That isn't how holistic interpretation works. Once you have an overarching understanding of who God is, what he wants, and what he is capable of doing, you go back to something like that and ask yourself the question "how does this work within the text?"

Let's just say that, at some point, two bears killed some children. Saying that God caused that seems to be contradictory to the overall perspective that God is good, loves everyone, and just wants everyone to love him and love each other. So, we have some options here.
  1. Despite loving everyone, God "sent" the bears to kill kids
  2. The author of the text knew of the incident and believed that God sent the bears, whether he did or did not
  3. The author of the text made up the fact that God sent them, in order to make a point or validate an experience
In light of these options, a holistic interpretation will reject point #1, because it doesn't work within the whole of the text, and is ambivalent over #2 or #3, because both work within the whole of the text, and we have no clues as to which is the likely case.

Once one recognizes that these texts are historical, only in part, one is able to better analyze the parts within the text. Did God send bears to kill some kids because they made fun of a bald guy? Probably not. Did bears kill some kids, and did they make fun of some bald guy? That's possible, but it's not necessarily a real incident to a non-literalist.


edit on 24-12-2013 by adjensen because: oopsies



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 01:36 AM
link   
I have one question regarding the bible that never really left my mind. As people mentioned in this thread already, most modern Christians do not take the bible literally. In fact there are quite a few passages that have been proven wrong over time (both versions of genesis, noah´s arc, the earth´s age, etc.).

Now what I do not get is this. A couple of hundred years ago, every word in the bible was accepted as the word of god. And everyone accepted it. Then over time, humans debunked the bible bit for bit. This couldn´t be true and that had to be wrong.

And what I do not get is that Christianity just doesn´t seem to care? The argument today is that it obviously was never intended to be taken literally, it is open to interpretation.

Well to bad that your entire religion was founded on the wrong beliefs then? I don´t get it?

The bible is a fascinating document, but is CLEARLY written by humans in the tongue of humans and with perspectives of humans that were expected from the time it was written in.

I honestly cannot understand how any free thinking individual can accept that as the word of god, or even as INSPIRED by god. Do you really accept the god of the old testament as your god?

But I digress. Thanks to op for opening this topic, that will as always lead to nothing and will not change views of either side. But it´s interesting and fun to discuss nonetheless.
edit on 25-12-2013 by Nightaudit because: spelling



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 02:15 AM
link   
I personally doubt the Bible is the word of God. There's some pretty weird stuff like where Jesus kills the fig tree because it has no figs, and the whole poo eating exercise of the Maobites (sp?).

Weird stuff



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Woodcarver
 


Any work, on paper or otherwise written by mans hands, is the work of God and that particular mans devil....

All is divine.


edit on 12 25 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 02:27 AM
link   

cuckooold
I personally doubt the Bible is the word of God.


The word of God is the immaculate 'conception' - it is what is seen and heard prior to concepts (prior to words and names and labels and ideas).

There is only ever presence (the present).
God is seeing (all seeing and all knowing and ever present) the presently arising appearance (that which is appearing is Christ - the immaculate conception).

There is only presence.



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Umm........

Huh?



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Itisnowagain
The word of God is the immaculate 'conception' - it is what is seen and heard prior to concepts (prior to words and names and labels and ideas).

There is only ever presence (the present).
God is seeing (all seeing and all knowing and ever present) the presently arising appearance (that which is appearing is Christ - the immaculate conception).

There is only presence.


I am sorry but this is just a lot of words without saying anything. So god is what is seen and heard before steve jobs invented the ipad (which is a concept)? Or do you exclude manmade concepts?

Presence has NOTHING to do with "the present" apart from the fact that they sound kinda similar.

And then your last sentence, what a gem. Let me repeat. "God is seeing the presently arising appearance."

Honestly now. Let´s take a few steps back and read that again.

Just a pile of rubbish. I am sorry to be so harsh, but I do not have much patience with those who spout these mixtures of philosophy and garbage as devine truth.



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Nightaudit
Just a pile of rubbish. I am sorry to be so harsh, but I do not have much patience with those who spout these mixtures of philosophy and garbage as devine truth.

Just because it is beyond your comprehension does not make it garbage.
edit on 25-12-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 04:46 AM
link   


Who here thinks that every word in the bible is the divinely inspired words of god? Old and new testament. Now i know some people dont. People have various ideas of how to interpret these books to get the meaning which they can agree with the most, but for those who do believe that every word is the divine word of god, i have a few questions. Do you think god and jesus are one and the same? If so then does jesus condone the horrible murders, rapes, slavery, and sacrifices attributed to god in the old testament? Do you think the hundreds of commandments given to the jewish people in the old testament are still relevant to modern christians? If you dont believe that every word in the bible is divine revelation, Then how can you tell which words are divine, and which are to be seen as metaphor, or symbolic? Are you allowed to interpret that for yourself? So is every interpretation correct?


Wow, lots of questions.
1. Bible word of God? Sure. King James Version is the best version.
2. God and Jesus are two parts of the One True God. refer to the Trinity below.
3. Murders and so forth: The Hebrews were chosen to preserve the word of God. Anything that could destroy or corrupt them was likely fair game to be wiped out. Imagine if you had a people who were able to live in a world full of a fatal disease that killed all human beings. However, there was one group of people immune to that disease. In order to preserve the human race, anything or anyone that would destroy that group of people would be fair game to be destroyed.
4. Most of the commandments are still relevant, like washing your hands. Many were to support the theocracy under Moses, or to establish laws for a nomadic people. At the time these laws were made, they were the nice guys. If you were in a neighboring country, you were likely sacrificing your babies to Molech by placing them on the red hot arms of the heated idol and allowing your live baby to be plunged into the flaming coals below the idol. The laws given to Moses were quite gentle compared to the people of that day. Most were instructional to prevent disease. For example, eating pork was a problem then because of trichinosis. Washing your hands after handling a sick or dead person was one of the Mosaic laws. It wasn't until about 200 years ago that modern medical science adopted the practice.
5. Metaphor or symbolic? Eschatology takes some learning. That's why people go to school in religion. With time and patience, anyone can learn what the Bible is trying to say. Errors? If any, they are likely in translation. The Bible has been translated into hundreds of different languages. The Bible that is considered inerrant is the original text. Determining what was that original text is a study in itself. Taking thousands of manuscripts which have been examined, some as early as the first century, scholars have been able to put together the closest thing we have to the original text. For a great comparison in how accurate the Bible is, you can compare the text of Isaiah in the King James Version to the text of Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls (untouched for 2000 years). I think you would be amazed at how perfect the KJV is. Also, the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, not English. Maybe it is best read in the original language.

A word of advice: please review why the KJV is the most reliable and accurate. There are lots of sources online.

Trinity:

TRINITY IN THE BIBLE (MANY MORE REFERENCES AVAILABLE)
One God:
1 Tim 2:5, Deut 4:35, 6:4, Isa 43:10-11:

Plurality of One God: Gen 1:26, 3:22, 11:7, Isa 6:8.

Isa 9:6 shows the multiple persons of God as Father, Son, and Counsellor
(aka Comforter, which Jesus said he would send to his disciples John 15:26)

The Father is God
Isa 6:3 ,1 Cor 8:6, John 17:1-3, II Cor 1:3, Philippians 2:11, Col 1:3,
I Peter 1:2, Matt 6:8, 7:21, Gal 1:1

The Son is God
Jn 12:41, 5:18, 20:28, 1:1-14, 9:35-3, Titus 2:13, Rom 9:5, II Pet 1:1,
Col 2:9, Heb 1:8-10, Rev 1:8,18, Is 7:14, 45:21-22 Mic 5:2, Matt 1:23

The Spirit is God
John 16:13, Heb 9:14, Acts 5:3-4, II Cor 3:17, John 15:26

Who raised Jesus from the dead:
Father Rom 6:4, Acts 3:26, I Thes 1:10
Son John 2:19-21, 10:17-18
Spirit Rom 8:11
God Heb 13:20, Acts 13:30, 17:31

Who is God?
Father Eph 4:6
Son Tit 2:13, John 1:1, 20:28, 9:35-37
Spirit Gen 1:2, Ps 104:30
God Gen 1:1, Heb 11:3

Who saves man?
Father 1 Pet 1:3
Son John 5:21, 4:14
Spirit John 3:6, Tit 3:5
God 1 John 3:9

Who justifies man?
Father Jer 23:6, II Cor 5:19
Son Rom 5:9, 10:4, II Cor 5:19,21
Spirit I Cor 6:11, Gal 5:5
God Rom 4:6, 9:33

Who sanctifies man?
Father Jude 1
Son Tit 2:14
Spirit I Pet 1:2
God Ex 31:13

Persons of God do: Of the Father, by the Son, through the Spirit 1 Cor:8:6, John 15:26
edit on 12/25/2013 by Jim Scott because: Trinity info



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Nightaudit
And then your last sentence, what a gem. Let me repeat. "God is seeing the presently arising appearance."


God is all seeing and all knowing and ever present.

God is that which is seeing that which is actually present.

Have you ever 'known' any other time?

Thought and words speak of other times but have you ever 'seen or heard' anything other than the present happening?



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Nightaudit
Presence has NOTHING to do with "the present" apart from the fact that they sound kinda similar.

What is your definition of 'presence'?
What is your definition of 'present'?



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


There is no need to argue this with you. Either you´re a troll who is intentionally looking for a "fight" or you are soooooo far away in lala land that we can´t really talk to each other.

In any case, goodbye!



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join