The Bible: the word of God?

Philosophers and rhetoricians, Welcome!
User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Contact:

Post by klewlis » Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:54 am

Turpissimus wrote:
If God wrote the Vulgate whether or not directly in Latin God must really suck!
Wasn't it Nietzsche who said that God wrote the worst Greek he had ever read?

' Course, I've never read the Bible in Greek.
Well, we have to understand that most of the authors were Jewish and their first language was Hebrew, not Greek. :)

If I wrote a book in greek it would suck too.

User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Contact:

Post by klewlis » Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:58 am

Kasper wrote:Wow Rhuiden, you are no doubt the most pagan christrian I have ever met!
there can be no redemption for sin without the shedding of innocent blood
:shock:

I mean, whatever makes you happy and explains this stuff for you, but this... really man, I'm shocked.

See, I was taught (and still believe) that Jezus died for our sins so that we didn't have to go to hell anymore (Yes I believe no one goes to hell anymore because of that).

Sorry, I'm just very surprised....
I don't think you're being sarcastic here... at first I wasn't sure. :)

Atonement through the blood of an innocent animal goes right back to the very beginning of Judaism (probably further). It is a continuous theme throughout the Bible, leading right up to Jesus. This is why he is called the "Lamb of God".

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:13 pm

Kasper wrote:See, I was taught (and still believe) that Jezus died for our sins so that we didn't have to go to hell anymore (Yes I believe no one goes to hell anymore because of that).
First, let me say that I used the wrong word last night, it was late, please forgive me. I should have said: There can be no remission of (not redemption for) sin without the shedding of blood. This is from Hebrews 9:22. It says: "..all things are cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."

You have only been taught half the story. Unfortunately, this is true for many Christians today. It is true that Jesus died for our sins so that we don't have to go to hell but it is not automatically applied to everyone. A person must first ask Jesus to be his Lord and Saviour, then the cleansing blood of Jesus is applied to that person. Those that don't recognize their need to make this request are not saved and will be cast into Hell.

The really sad thing is that so many churches are preaching "feel-good" christianity. They only teach the Love, Mercy, Forgiveness parts of Jesus' message. This is all many want to hear and they flock to these churches. By not teaching they may be giving people a false sense of security. They think that Jesus will not let them go to Hell, They rationalize, "I am a good person. I am not a criminal, I go to church occassionally, I put a dollar in the offering plate last month, and afterall there are many much worse than me". Jesus tells us what will happen to such people on the day of judgement in Matthew 7:21-23.

"Not everyone who says to Me 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in Heaven, will enter. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord', did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles? And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness." Mat 7:21-23

So you see, Jesus died "once for all" but He requires something from us. It is not automatically applied, we must ask for it.

I do not understand how you could call me a pagan, this is straight from the Bible.

Rhuiden

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:17 pm

klewlis wrote:Atonement through the blood of an innocent animal goes right back to the very beginning of Judaism (probably further). It is a continuous theme throughout the Bible, leading right up to Jesus. This is why he is called the "Lamb of God".
Well said, I wish I could be so well spoken.

Rhuiden

User avatar
Emma_85
Global Moderator
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Post by Emma_85 » Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:19 pm

Rhuiden wrote:Emma, please remember that there is only one God and therefore can only be one religion. Men have created false gods to worship and have intentionally taught false doctrines since the beginning of time. These false religions and denominations are easy to spot by comparing their teachings to the Bible. If they are different than the Bible, they are false.

Also, the last time I checked, evolution is still a theory. That is because not one thing about evolution has every been proven scientifically to be fact.

Rhuiden
I will not 'remember' that there is only one God, but that there is no God. That a God or many Gods or anything God-like exists is unproven. How on earth do you know that the Bible is the right book though, couldn't it be the Koran? If you lived in Cairo you'd believe that the Koran was the only proper book and everything else were wrong. You have no real reason to believe the book of your religion to be the only right one.
And as for evolution - just buy a book on it.
phpbb

User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Contact:

Post by klewlis » Fri Oct 22, 2004 3:16 pm

Emma_85 wrote:You have no real reason to believe the book of your religion to be the only right one.
Don't assume. I have plenty of "real" reasons. Unfortunately, discussion of such is nearly always unfruitful since we are starting from opposite premises. :)

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Fri Oct 22, 2004 3:44 pm

Emma_85 wrote:I will not 'remember' that there is only one God, but that there is no God. That a God or many Gods or anything God-like exists is unproven. How on earth do you know that the Bible is the right book though, couldn't it be the Koran? If you lived in Cairo you'd believe that the Koran was the only proper book and everything else were wrong. You have no real reason to believe the book of your religion to be the only right one.
And as for evolution - just buy a book on it.
I am sorry that you, and others, feel this way. I have never been able to understand how people can look at the complexity of our world and not see that is was designed by someone or something more advanced and powerful than us. I believe that someone or something is God. The fact that our world exists is proof that there is a God.

As for evolution, I have read many books on it. I have discussed it with many people. I still have not met anyone who can name one fact about evolution that has been proven true. I addition to that, there is always a nagging question about evolution in my mind: Why would a perfect God, who could simply speak something into existence, use such an imperfect means of creating our world? Some try to fit evolution into the Bible using the Gap theory but there is no basis for this.

Rhuiden

Democritus
Textkit Fan
Posts: 331
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 12:14 am
Location: California

Post by Democritus » Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:26 pm

klewlis wrote:
Democritus wrote:What would you say if Jesus appeared before you, and told you something that was at odds with the Bible?
I would question the apparition's identity. How would I know it is Jesus? If he is saying something contradictory to the Bible, he could not be. Paul himself said that if any spirit comes preaching a gospel different from the one given, that spirit is not from God. :)
Fair enough, but that response sidesteps the question. The point of the question is, who is in charge? God, or the Bible?

If one believes that God cannot do anything that contradicts the Bible, then one is laying down the law, for God. Who tells God what to do? Paul the Apostle? What if God wants to do something that contradicts the Bible? Who will prevent Him?
I am a fundamentalist Christian and am very much aware of my own limitations when it comes to perceiving the truth.

I also believe in evolution. :)
What do you say about Genesis? Creation in six days? Which fundamentalist denominations entertain the idea of an ancient Earth, or the descent of humanity from the apes? The Bible is very clear about these points. Yet the Biblical story conflicts with fossil evidence we find in the Earth.

Democritus
Textkit Fan
Posts: 331
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 12:14 am
Location: California

Post by Democritus » Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:37 pm

Rhuiden wrote:As for evolution, I have read many books on it. I have discussed it with many people. I still have not met anyone who can name one fact about evolution that has been proven true.
The creation story in Genesis was never proven true.

Evolution is not only true, it is openly observable in nature. Most evolution is slow, but some parts of it happen in observable time frames.
Rhuiden wrote:I addition to that, there is always a nagging question about evolution in my mind: Why would a perfect God, who could simply speak something into existence, use such an imperfect means of creating our world?
Well, let's imagine that a perfect God really did choose an imperfect means of creation. Are you going to tell God, "No, you can't do that" ?

God created humans, who are imperfect. So what prevents God from creating evolution? Are you going to prevent God from creating evolution?

User avatar
Emma_85
Global Moderator
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Post by Emma_85 » Fri Oct 22, 2004 5:21 pm

klewlis wrote:
Emma_85 wrote:You have no real reason to believe the book of your religion to be the only right one.
Don't assume. I have plenty of "real" reasons. Unfortunately, discussion of such is nearly always unfruitful since we are starting from opposite premises. :)
Sorry, with 'real' reasons, I was talking of reasons as in 'it has been proven that...' sort of reasons. You may have personal reasons for thinking your religions to be the only correct one, but no objective ones. As I said, if Rhuiden had been living in Cairo at the time of his ‘what’s the point in my life?’-crisis, he would probably not have turned to the Bible, but to the Koran and thought Islam to be the only true religion. He might have had ‘real’ reasons to believe that Islam was the only true religion then too.
I didn't want to offend either you or Rhuiden, even if my words sound harsh. Too me Rhuiden's words sounded harsh and offending though, so I reacted in a similar way.

Rhuiden, why if there was indeed no evolution would God try to trick us humans? I mean, what would be the point of him burying Dino bones for example or of allowing us to breed dogs?

I think I’d better just stop replying, this is not really a philosophical debate and I’m just getting angry and writing angry replies.
phpbb

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:07 pm

Democritus wrote:Fair enough, but that response sidesteps the question. The point of the question is, who is in charge? God, or the Bible?

If one believes that God cannot do anything that contradicts the Bible, then one is laying down the law, for God. Who tells God what to do? Paul the Apostle? What if God wants to do something that contradicts the Bible? Who will prevent Him?
The Bible is simply God's word. It is not a question of one being in charge of the other
Democritus wrote:What do you say about Genesis? Creation in six days? Which fundamentalist denominations entertain the idea of an ancient Earth, or the descent of humanity from the apes? The Bible is very clear about these points. Yet the Biblical story conflicts with fossil evidence we find in the Earth.
I believe Creation was in six literal days. I do not know of any "fundamentalist" donomintions that believe these things. If they did, would they not cease to be "fundamentalist"? Also, what fossil evidence are you referring to? No fossil evidence supports evolution. The evidence that has not been proven to be a hoax supports the world-wide flood as described in Genesis.

Rhuiden

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:14 pm

Democritus wrote:Evolution is not only true, it is openly observable in nature. Most evolution is slow, but some parts of it happen in observable time frames.
Name one instance in which we have observed one creature "evolving" into a completely different creature. It has never happened, observed or unobserved.
Democritus wrote:God created humans, who are imperfect.
God created humans in His imange, therefore they were also perfect but He also gave humans free will. At the point that Adam and Eve chose to sin in the garden of eden, they were no longer perfect and hence the need for Jesus to come.

Rhuiden

chiggles
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:16 am
Location: Madison, WI

Post by chiggles » Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:15 pm

klewlis wrote:
Turpissimus wrote:
If God wrote the Vulgate whether or not directly in Latin God must really suck!
Wasn't it Nietzsche who said that God wrote the worst Greek he had ever read?

' Course, I've never read the Bible in Greek.
Well, we have to understand that most of the authors were Jewish and their first language was Hebrew, not Greek. :)

If I wrote a book in greek it would suck too.
It may have been in reference to the New Testament.
Rhuiden wrote:I have never been able to understand how people can look at the complexity of our world and not see that is was designed by someone or something more advanced and powerful than us. I believe that someone or something is God. The fact that our world exists is proof that there is a God.
It is hard to deny that the world may have been designed by someone or something more advanced and powerful than us, be he divine watchmaker, unmoved mover. However, in believing so one is not conclusively lead to believe in only the Christian God, or even the god(s) of any religion. Deism is fascinating, it is.

If spontaneously in our bodies a certain organism gained sentience, would it not also eventually come to the conclusion that due to the complexity of the environment it exists in, and the patterns it sees, that there was a maker of everything in sight. Restricted to knowing so much, said organisms would probably come to the conclusion that whichever person they existed in, is god. Based on preference and cultural values, they would then impose their beliefs of what is ideal, onto such maker, in an attempt to relate and better relate to this entity, by prescription. All religions do this, only when one gets to the mystical, esoteric side of religion does god become an ineffable being or thing. I do like gnosticism, and the gnostic demiurge.
Rhuiden wrote:Why would a perfect God, who could simply speak something into existence, use such an imperfect means of creating our world?
Why would a perfect god set a doctrine for his faithful, and then alleviate them of most of this by having his son teach them lessons? What changed in the condition of these persons that God decided to manifest in the Christ?

There are a number of books concerning complexities and patterns in nature, here are some that may be of interest:
On Growth and Form by D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson (most likely of interest to yourself, Rhuiden)
Sync: The Emerging Science of Spontaneous Order by Steven Strogatz
The Geometry of Art and Life by Matila Costiescu Ghyka
The Golden Ratio : The Story of PHI, the World's Most Astonishing Number by Mario Livio
The Self-Made Tapestry: Pattern Formation in Nature by Philip Ball
Rhuiden wrote:The evidence that has not been proven to be a hoax supports the world-wide flood as described in Genesis.
Can you provide a URL to evidence of such a flood? Last I knew, the Jews lived in a flood plain or something of the sort, and that is where the story comes from (if not from Mesopotamian myths).

Lastly Rhuiden, please check your private messages.

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:27 pm

Emma_85 wrote:Rhuiden, why if there was indeed no evolution would God try to trick us humans? I mean, what would be the point of him burying Dino bones for example or of allowing us to breed dogs?
God did not try to trick humans. The bones were buried during the world-wide flood in which everything, except those in the ark, was destroyed. How does breeding dogs, or any animal, equate to evolution?

Emma, I appologize if my words sounded harsh. I did intend to offend you or anyone else. My wife is fond of pointing out that I have no tact when it comes to things that I have strong feelings/beliefs about. In the future, I will attempt to make my points without sounding harsh.

Rhuiden

User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Contact:

Post by klewlis » Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:53 pm

chiggles wrote:
klewlis wrote:
Turpissimus wrote: Wasn't it Nietzsche who said that God wrote the worst Greek he had ever read?

' Course, I've never read the Bible in Greek.
Well, we have to understand that most of the authors were Jewish and their first language was Hebrew, not Greek. :)

If I wrote a book in greek it would suck too.
It may have been in reference to the New Testament.
I assumed that it was. Even in the NT, most authors were Jewish--excepting only Luke and possibly the author of Hebrews.

User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Contact:

Post by klewlis » Fri Oct 22, 2004 7:08 pm

Democritus wrote:
klewlis wrote:
Democritus wrote:What would you say if Jesus appeared before you, and told you something that was at odds with the Bible?
I would question the apparition's identity. How would I know it is Jesus? If he is saying something contradictory to the Bible, he could not be. Paul himself said that if any spirit comes preaching a gospel different from the one given, that spirit is not from God. :)
Fair enough, but that response sidesteps the question. The point of the question is, who is in charge? God, or the Bible?

If one believes that God cannot do anything that contradicts the Bible, then one is laying down the law, for God. Who tells God what to do? Paul the Apostle? What if God wants to do something that contradicts the Bible? Who will prevent Him?
Since the Bible is God's word, it is a reflection of himself. To contradict it would be to contradict his own nature, which is as impossible as it would be for him to sin. :)
I am a fundamentalist Christian and am very much aware of my own limitations when it comes to perceiving the truth.

I also believe in evolution. :)
What do you say about Genesis? Creation in six days? Which fundamentalist denominations entertain the idea of an ancient Earth, or the descent of humanity from the apes? The Bible is very clear about these points. Yet the Biblical story conflicts with fossil evidence we find in the Earth.
Who said anything about denominations? :)
I don't know if there exists a denomination which aligns perfectly to my (or anyone's) beliefs. But that is irrelevant.

The definition of "fundamentalist" seems to differ from region to region. In the US it has a definitely negative connotation. In Canada we're more likely to call ourselves "conservative" or something along those lines. What is important to me is to keep a clear line between me and the label "liberal" Christian, which I am not.

I believe that the Bible is inspired and inerrant, and timeless truth. But I don't believe that our interpretation of it is. Genesis is a prime example. I don't think the author ever meant anyone to take the creation story literally. In fact, that's fairly obvious simply by the fact that he gives us two differing accounts within a few pages of each other. There is much to be said on that, but I will defer to Bruce Waltke's article "The Literary Genre of Genesis, Chapter One" which makes the point better than I can (Crux, December 1991/Vol. XXVII, No.4).

The mistake happened when people started to think of the Bible as a book of science. It is not. It is the story of God's relationship with his people. Anything scientific that may be gleaned from it is a bonus.

User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Contact:

Post by klewlis » Fri Oct 22, 2004 7:19 pm

Emma_85 wrote:You may have personal reasons for thinking your religions to be the only correct one, but no objective ones.
How do you know? :) I don't recall you ever asking us if we had any "objective" reasons.
To me there is great poverty in thinking that empirical evidence is the only way to know something. How then does one explain the many human things that are entirely un-empirical (is that a word?) and subjective, such as love, fear, justice, altruism, etc.?
As I said, if Rhuiden had been living in Cairo at the time of his ‘what’s the point in my life?’-crisis, he would probably not have turned to the Bible, but to the Koran and thought Islam to be the only true religion. He might have had ‘real’ reasons to believe that Islam was the only true religion then too.
Exposure to something of course does increase a person's chances of adherence. However, all of those people, whether Christian or Muslim, will tell you that an all-powerful God is quite capable of transcending those cultural restrictions, and in fact does so frequently. There are countless instances of people growing up in surroundings that are either silent about Christianity or antagonistic towards it, but still manage to convert to Christianity. God is not limited that way. :) And I know many people personally who were NOT raised Christian, and their conversion stories can be surprising and fascinating. So be careful not to overgeneralize.
Rhuiden, why if there was indeed no evolution would God try to trick us humans? I mean, what would be the point of him burying Dino bones for example or of allowing us to breed dogs?
This is one of the main reasons I question the traditional interpretation of Genesis: The God of the Bible is not a god of deception. Leaving fossils aside for a moment, consider even Hubble and the evidence for the Big Bang. That sort of stuff cannot be explained through the flood or other means. With Hubble we can quite literally see back in time millions of years. I do not believe that it is in God's nature to pull off such a grand deception, nor do I see any reason that he would want to.

copain
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 9:05 pm

Post by copain » Fri Oct 22, 2004 7:27 pm

Rhuiden wrote: A person must first ask Jesus to be his Lord and Saviour, then the cleansing blood of Jesus is applied to that person. Those that don't recognize their need to make this request are not saved and will be cast into Hell.
  • If this would really comes true - which I do not believe! - even many christians would go to hell.
    (It would be very cramped then there ! :) )

    But I can remember the story of the "rich youngling" - the one - you know -who want´s to know "Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" And after Jesus told him his requirement he goes sadly away, because he was not willing to fulfil all the requirement Jesus demanded from him

    But:
    "When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible"

    Do this word´s of Jesus not contradict your comments and hell then
    will be a far more spacious place ? :wink:
Rhuiden wrote: I believe Creation was in six literal days. I do not know of any "fundamentalist" donomintions that believe these things. If they did, would they not cease to be "fundamentalist"? Also, what fossil evidence are you referring to? No fossil evidence supports evolution. The evidence that has not been proven to be a hoax supports the world-wide flood as described in Genesis.
  • It is really a daring idea to think there was no evolution and God has created the world as described in the genesis.
    It may be possible that God would be able to create this world in six day´s if this pleased him, but then for every human it would be more likely clear that there is a creator!
    But God do not want this !
    What, if he uses evolution as a - let me say - tool, to veil his existence ? So evolution has happend as a part of God´s creation !

User avatar
Phylax
Textkit Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:01 pm
Location: Lewes, East Sussex, UK

Post by Phylax » Sat Oct 23, 2004 1:24 pm

How many books does the Bible comprise?
phpbb

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Sat Oct 23, 2004 1:28 pm

copain wrote:If this would really comes true - which I do not believe! - even many christians would go to hell.
(It would be very cramped then there ! :) )
Some years ago, Billy Graham said that 80% of the people sitting on the pews every Sunday (mostly professing Christians) were not actually saved. I don't know where he got the figure but in my experience, I believe he is correct.
copain wrote:But I can remember the story of the "rich youngling" - the one - you know -who want´s to know "Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" And after Jesus told him his requirement he goes sadly away, because he was not willing to fulfil all the requirement Jesus demanded from him

But:
"When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible"

Do this word´s of Jesus not contradict your comments and hell then
will be a far more spacious place ? :wink:
The passage you quote is quite well known. It is Matthew 19:16-26. It does not contradict my point but enforces it. The context here is of a rich young man who had followed the law of Moses his whole life. He was asking what good work he could do to earn salvation (salvation cannot be earned). Jesus told him to sell all his possessions, give the money to the poor, and follow Him. Had the young man done this, he would have soon recoginzed his need for a saviour, he would have called on Jesus to be that saviour and he would have received the free gift of salvation. The young man was unwilling to turn over everything in his life to the Lord and as a result, did not recognize his need to ask Jesus to be his saviour. No contradiction.
copain wrote:It is really a daring idea to think there was no evolution and God has created the world as described in the genesis.
It may be possible that God would be able to create this world in six day´s if this pleased him, but then for every human it would be more likely clear that there is a creator!
But God do not want this !
What, if he uses evolution as a - let me say - tool, to veil his existence ? So evolution has happend as a part of God´s creation !
I believe it is more daring to believe in evolution. There is no scientific evidence to prove any of it. What purpose would God have in hiding His existence? He created us to have a relationship with us. Also, why would a perfect God use an imperfect means of creation? Yes, if He chose that He could do it, but He would not, it would be contrary to His character.

Rhuiden

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Sat Oct 23, 2004 1:32 pm

A very good website for those interested is: www.answersingenesis.org

It is done by Christian scientists and the discuss science and the Bible. They have many online audio lectures that you can listen to as well as much more.

Rhuiden

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Sat Oct 23, 2004 2:46 pm

chiggles wrote:Understanding that there is one true god, still, how can one say there can be only one religion? The different sects of Christianity, because they believe in the same God and same texts, but with their own dogma set, do they qualify still under the grouping of the same religion?

What about the sects of Christianity that existed until the convening of the Nicene Council? They believed in the same God, but as to the exact nature of Jesus they differed on. And any other sect that believed in texts now apocryphal? And of those with interest in the texts found at Nag Hammadi, and gnosticism? Even the author of John supposes that there are so many things that Jesus did, that if the content of all these adventures he partook of were put to book, the world could not contain them.
There is only one religion when it comes to Jesus. Different denominations, sects, or whatever you wish to call them, have developed over time because of differing interpretations and beliefs. This does not change the fact that their is only one true religion/church. All who believe the principle teaching of the faith are members no matter what the name on the building that the worship in each sunday says. I do not beleive that only Southern Baptists are going to Heaven. In John 14:6 Jesus says "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me". Acts 2:21 says "And it shall be that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved"
chiggles wrote:What were the reasons for man intentionally creating false doctrines and gods?
Power, greed, stupidity, malice.....take your pick
chiggles wrote:If there is a religion whose teachings put merit on the same values as that of the bible, how would this compare? Would it need to have a Son of God to qualify? If yes, where does Judaism lie on this false doctrine meter?

If, in another religion, there exists the prime God, and a number of other gods, but these gods are thought of as nothing more than representations of different aspects of prime God (not worshipped but prayed to in the manner of Saints in Catholicism, for their own specialty). This religion also speaks of God throwing a portion of himself into an avatar and mingling with humans to teach lessons, how would this rest with you?
The same merits are not good enough, it much teach salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Nothing else will do.
chiggles wrote:"These false religions and denominations are easy to spot by comparing their teachings to the Bible"? You admit they are easy to spot, could you pls provide me some comparisons between your Christianity, and another religion? (God and time willing, this is).
Mormanism - teaches a works based salvation. If you do enough good works, you can become a god over your own planet. Joseph Smith said that the Book of Morman was given to him by an "angel of light" on golden tablets and was written in reformed Egyptian hyrogliphics (don't know how to spell that, hope I got close). "Angel of light" is one description of Satan, the golden tablets cannot be found and I don't think they were ever seen by anyone else, and to my understanding, there was never any such language as reformed Egyptian hyrogliphics. Also, the Bible teaches a faith based salvation.

Jehovah's Witness' - they believe that we are already living in the millenial kingdom. That Jesus actually returned sometime in the early 20th centrury (1912 or 1914 I think) and is now living on earth but He is invisible. They have also written their own translation of the Bible. The Bible say that when Jesus returns that everyone in the world will see.

I will say that I wish all Christians were as bold and active with their faith as Mormans and Jehovah's Witness' are.
chiggles wrote:What standard? I too do not know, but I'd expect Him to be consistent. Can you provide any passages which speak of Satan rebelling, or specifically those of his being cast from heaven?
2Peter 2:4 says "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgements"

Jude 6 says "And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgement of the great day"

chiggles wrote:Satan was in heaven no? Was he created unrighteous, if no how did he become so, and how did this unrighteousness enter into heaven? And afterwards, how did Satan and all the other fallen angels exit, if, as you say "Unrighteousness cannot exit, or even enter, in Heaven."
Satan was created and existed in Heaven (as all angels were) until he chose to sin and rebel. As a result they were immediately expelled from Heaven.


Rhuiden

User avatar
Emma_85
Global Moderator
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Post by Emma_85 » Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:19 pm

I believe it is more daring to believe in evolution. There is no scientific evidence to prove any of it. What purpose would God have in hiding His existence? He created us to have a relationship with us. Also, why would a perfect God use an imperfect means of creation? Yes, if He chose that He could do it, but He would not, it would be contrary to His character.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articl ... 9EC588EEDF
phpbb

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Sat Oct 23, 2004 4:07 pm

Emma_85 wrote:
I believe it is more daring to believe in evolution. There is no scientific evidence to prove any of it. What purpose would God have in hiding His existence? He created us to have a relationship with us. Also, why would a perfect God use an imperfect means of creation? Yes, if He chose that He could do it, but He would not, it would be contrary to His character.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articl ... 9EC588EEDF
Looks like an interesting article. I will read it in its entirety as my time permits but skimming the first section, I already see a mistake.

The article starts by saying: "When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago". Darwin's theory had nothing to do with natural selection, he said evolution worked through mutation. The natural selection argument is a fairly recent attempt to redefine the term evolution into something (natural selection) that is not disputed by anyone because it can be readily observed.

I may have more comments as I work through the article.

Rhuiden

User avatar
Turpissimus
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:49 pm
Location: Romford

Post by Turpissimus » Sat Oct 23, 2004 4:15 pm

Darwin's theory had nothing to do with natural selection, he said evolution worked through mutation. The natural selection argument is a fairly recent attempt to redefine the term evolution into something (natural selection) that is not disputed by anyone because it can be readily observed.
Are you sure? The full title of his book:
The Origin of Species (full title On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Species

I'm sure I must be misunderstanding what you're saying. I always thought both natural selection and mutation worked together in evolution.
phpbb

User avatar
Emma_85
Global Moderator
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Post by Emma_85 » Sat Oct 23, 2004 4:32 pm

Mutations too can be readily observed. Mutations occur all the time, often they have no affect what so ever, some kill and very very few offer an advantage, like this mutation for example, which allowed people to sort of survive in the Malaria stricken rain forests:
http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/malaria_sickle.html

If God did create humans and then there was this flood and only Noha and his kin survived and mutation did not happen, they how come these people have sickel-cell mutations and we do not, even though we all had the same ancestors? Did God see them and feel sorry for them all dying from maleria and give them sickel-cell mutation? If he really felt that sorry for them, then why didn't he make them immune at the same time (cause half your kids end up dying from sickle cell mutations - if you have it in both chromosomes it's deadly) and give them the Bible instead of giving it to the jews?
phpbb

copain
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 9:05 pm

Post by copain » Sat Oct 23, 2004 5:13 pm

Rhuiden wrote: What purpose would God have in hiding His existence?
  • Sorry but I can not understand where you get your certainty that God do not hide his existence !
    But please do not refer to the bible - as usefull this book is for the christian community or for
    a single person itself - but the bible is in its complexity and through the many translation a veiling of God itself!
    And I never have felt - and I think many other people as well - the presence of a God like you can felt the presence of the sun for example !
    We only can - because of that world around us and the faith in so many peoples heart´s get an idea of the existence of a God.
    And that´s why Jesus itself said "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed" (John 20.29)

User avatar
Phylax
Textkit Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:01 pm
Location: Lewes, East Sussex, UK

Post by Phylax » Sat Oct 23, 2004 5:13 pm

May I ask my question again? How many books are there in the Bible? I think this is worth exploring, because if we are to accept Rhuiden's or Klewliss' view that the Bible is the word of God, it would be useful to know what constitutes the Bible.
phpbb

User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Contact:

Post by klewlis » Sat Oct 23, 2004 5:31 pm

Phylax wrote:May I ask my question again? How many books are there in the Bible? I think this is worth exploring, because if we are to accept Rhuiden's or Klewliss' view that the Bible is the word of God, it would be useful to know what constitutes the Bible.
There are 66 total, 27 of which are in the New Testament. This does not include the "apocryphal" books of the Roman Catholics.

Here is the structure:

OT:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy: The Hebrew "Torah", which we call the "Pentateuch". Written by Moses (except for the last bit which happened after he died), these books consist of the history of the early Hebrews, including their laws and geneologies.

Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1&2 Chronicles, 1&2 Kings, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job: Written by various authors. More histories of the Hebrews and Israel.

Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon: Poetry. Many of the Psalms were written by King David, but some were written by others. The other three are attributed to King Solomon.

Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel: The "Major Prophets", each of these books was written by its namesake (except Lamentations, which is attributed to Jeremiah). They contain prophecies about the captivity of the Jews (by Babylon in 586BC) and Israel's eventual restoration.

Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zepheniah, Haggai, Zecheriah, Malachi: The "Minor Prophets", again more prophecies about the fate of Israel.

NT:
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John: The Gospels, each telling stories about Jesus--what he did and said, his death and resurrection, etc.

Acts: Attributed to Luke, this book tells of the early church after Christ's ascension.

Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1&2 Thessalonians, 1&2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon: The "Pauline Epistles", these are all letters written by Paul. The first 9 were written to various congregations of the early church, in the locations named in the titles. The rest were written to specific people.

Hebrews: Another epistle, which some believe was written by Paul but authorship is uncertain (and I personally do not think Paul wrote it).

James, 1&2 Peter, 1,2&3 John, Jude: More epistles. In these cases authorship is attributed to the person named in the titles. There is much debate over whether 1&2 Peter were both written by the same person, since the greek in each is quite different.

Revelation: The prophetic vision of the Apostle John.
Last edited by klewlis on Sat Oct 23, 2004 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Contact:

Post by klewlis » Sat Oct 23, 2004 5:35 pm

Turpissimus wrote:
Darwin's theory had nothing to do with natural selection, he said evolution worked through mutation. The natural selection argument is a fairly recent attempt to redefine the term evolution into something (natural selection) that is not disputed by anyone because it can be readily observed.
Are you sure? The full title of his book:
The Origin of Species (full title On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life)
Strange, my copy of the book does not have that longer title. But it is a cheap copy. And I haven't read the book so I guess I shouldn't talk about it. :)

User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Contact:

Post by klewlis » Sat Oct 23, 2004 5:39 pm

copain wrote:But please do not refer to the bible - as usefull this book is for the christian community or for
a single person itself - but the bible is in its complexity and through the many translation a veiling of God itself!
I think his reference to the Bible is quite appropriate in a thread devoted to discussing the Bible as the Word of God. ;)

It seems to me that having a variety of translations actually increases understanding of the Bible, rather than making it tougher to understand. It's always helpful to see how different people translate the same passages, in order to get a fuller understanding of what the greek/hebrew was trying to convey.

The Bible is indeed quite complex--so that scholars spend their whole lives digging through it. But it is also simple enough for a child to read and understand its basic messages.

edit:
And I never have felt - and I think many other people as well - the presence of a God like you can felt the presence of the sun for example !
CS Lewis said something along these lines (not a direct quote!): "I believe in God as I believe in the sun--not because I can see it, but because by it I see everything else."

Democritus
Textkit Fan
Posts: 331
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 12:14 am
Location: California

Post by Democritus » Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:29 pm

Emma_85 wrote:
I believe it is more daring to believe in evolution. There is no scientific evidence to prove any of it.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articl ... 9EC588EEDF
Belief in the literal truth of the Bible does not bother me -- everyone has their own faith. What bugs me is that creation scientists take their religious faith and disguise it as a science, and pretend that their beliefs are based on evidence or proof.

Rhuiden was up front with us. He told us right from the top that he believes in the literal truth of the Bible. Fair enough.

But anyone who believes this has no need of proof or evidence. Fundamentalists have no reason to avoid acknowledging that the evidence does not match their religious beliefs, because indeed, it simply does not matter. If you start out with the presumption that the Bible is literally, factually true in every detail, then you have no need of proof or evidence from the real world.

"Creation scientists," as they style themselves, are pretending that their beliefs stem from science, when in fact they do not stem from any science.

As Emma's article mentions:
Scientific American wrote:[Myth #4] Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.

No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept.

Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. ...

Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly ....
Asserting a belief in the literal truth of the Bible is honest, inasmuch as it represents one's true beliefs. But pretending that scientific doubts exists, where in fact no scientific doubt exists, is not honest. It's fair to claim that "scientists are wrong." But it is unfair and dishonest to claim that "scientists are changing their minds," when in fact they have not changed their minds at all.

IMHO that lack of honesty among creation scientists is more than a little disturbing. Why do these folks have to pretend? What part of Christian doctrine says that Christians should masquerade as scientists and misrepresent the facts?

There are huge volumes of physical evidence that supports the theory of evolution. There is little physical evidence supporting the creation story in Genesis.

copain
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 9:05 pm

Post by copain » Sat Oct 23, 2004 7:05 pm

klewlis wrote: I think his reference to the Bible is quite appropriate in a thread devoted to discussing the Bible as the Word of God. ;)
  • Sorry again, but we are discussing about this book and it´s direct link to God for over five pages with very different opinions so this cannot be a prove of the - clear - existence of God.
    Would we discuss about the existence of the sun, I dare to say we would not get a page together (of different arguments). :)
"I believe in God as I believe in the sun--not because I can see it, but because by it I see everything else."
  • Hey, that´s sounds nice!
    Every time I look up in the star spangled sky I get a notion of the creator, but sadly I can not see nor feel him. I only feel this deep respect about his creation!

User avatar
Emma_85
Global Moderator
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Post by Emma_85 » Sat Oct 23, 2004 9:29 pm

klewlis wrote:Strange, my copy of the book does not have that longer title. But it is a cheap copy. And I haven't read the book so I guess I shouldn't talk about it. :)
My grandmother's copy has the longer title too, but it's an old copy, maybe they shortened it in the newer prints?
phpbb

chiggles
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:16 am
Location: Madison, WI

Post by chiggles » Sat Oct 23, 2004 11:17 pm

I went over to one of my bookshelves and pulled off from my 1954 Great Books of the Western World set, number 49 - Darwin.
There are two books in this volume:
The Origin of Species - By Means of Natural Selection
The Descent of Man - And Selection in Relation to Sex

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Sun Oct 24, 2004 12:32 am

Rhuiden, you are doing an admirable job defending your position.
Your position is very close to mine but you are doing a better job putting it into words. I try not to get into religious dabates on the internet anymore because I have unintentionally ruffled feathers (Not my feathers [Pun intended, my name means -the Rooster-). Maybe I have come across as a bigot.
I did not want you to be alone in this so the least I can do is to say: "I agree".

User avatar
Phylax
Textkit Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:01 pm
Location: Lewes, East Sussex, UK

Post by Phylax » Sun Oct 24, 2004 12:35 am

There are 66 total, 27 of which are in the New Testament.
Very many thanks for that, Klewlis, and for detailing the books for us. You mention that the Roman Catholics have a larger set that they think are 'canonical'. They presumably feel that the additional books are as "God-breathed" as the rest. I have had a quick look through around, and it seems that the various Christian divisions actually have different lists of books which they regard as the word of God.

So I have a problem which you may be able to help me with: why did God 'God-breath' different groups of Christians at different times with different solutions as to what constitutes His word?

Rhuiden has an even more difficult answer to find here, since it seems as if he (in contrast with you, who propose a modicum of human-conscience-based interpretation of what God wishes to communicate) actually proposes it was God who made the Bible writers write exactly what He wanted to communicate. Rhuiden has to explain why a perfect God left it over 1500 years before He told us which books constitute His word, and why quite a substantial number of Christians did not recognize His inspiration on this point at the time of the establishment of the Protestant Canon.

Well, Rhuiden doesn't have to explain, but I would be grateful if the good man could do so for my sake!

With thanks to you, Klewlis, and to Rhuiden, in your endeavour to inform me, and help me be more knowlegeable,

Phylax
phpbb

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:39 am

Phylax wrote:Very many thanks for that, Klewlis, and for detailing the books for us. You mention that the Roman Catholics have a larger set that they think are 'canonical'. They presumably feel that the additional books are as "God-breathed" as the rest. I have had a quick look through around, and it seems that the various Christian divisions actually have different lists of books which they regard as the word of God.

So I have a problem which you may be able to help me with: why did God 'God-breath' different groups of Christians at different times with different solutions as to what constitutes His word?

Rhuiden has an even more difficult answer to find here, since it seems as if he (in contrast with you, who propose a modicum of human-conscience-based interpretation of what God wishes to communicate) actually proposes it was God who made the Bible writers write exactly what He wanted to communicate. Rhuiden has to explain why a perfect God left it over 1500 years before He told us which books constitute His word, and why quite a substantial number of Christians did not recognize His inspiration on this point at the time of the establishment of the Protestant Canon.

Well, Rhuiden doesn't have to explain, but I would be grateful if the good man could do so for my sake!

With thanks to you, Klewlis, and to Rhuiden, in your endeavour to inform me, and help me be more knowlegeable,

Phylax
It is true that there was much debate in the early church about which books were "God-breathed". I believe that God guided the early church fathers, in the same way he does today, into a consensus about which books were to be included and which were not. Are you only referring the the extra books the Catholics use or are there other groups also? Unless you are also referring to the Mormans who use The Book of Morman, I am not sure who else disputes the books of the Bible. The Bible contians 66 books which were written over a vast period of time but there has been agreement on the books contained in the Bible since around 397A.D.

The Roman Catholic Church added tha Apocrypha in 1546 at the Council of Trent. My theology book (Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem) mentions they did this in response to the teachings of Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation. It says they did this because the Apocrypha contained support for the Catholic Church's teachings of prayers for the dead and justification by faith plus works, not faith alone.

Grudem also lists the reasons why Protestants believe the apocrypha shoul not be included in the Bible: 1) they do not claim for themselves the same kind of authority as the Old Testiment writings, 2) they were not regarded as God's words by the Jewish people from whom they originated, 3) there were not considered to be Scripture by Jesus or the NT authors, and 4)they contain teachings inconsistent with the rest of the Bible.

Rhuiden

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:42 am

klewlis wrote:It seems to me that having a variety of translations actually increases understanding of the Bible, rather than making it tougher to understand. It's always helpful to see how different people translate the same passages, in order to get a fuller understanding of what the greek/hebrew was trying to convey.

The Bible is indeed quite complex--so that scholars spend their whole lives digging through it. But it is also simple enough for a child to read and understand its basic messages.
I completely agree.

Rhuiden

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:51 am

Bert wrote:Rhuiden, you are doing an admirable job defending your position.
Your position is very close to mine but you are doing a better job putting it into words. I try not to get into religious dabates on the internet anymore because I have unintentionally ruffled feathers (Not my feathers [Pun intended, my name means -the Rooster-). Maybe I have come across as a bigot.
I did not want you to be alone in this so the least I can do is to say: "I agree".
Thanks for your support. I appreciate the kind words but I am not sure if I am doing an "admirable" job. I am not articulate enough and I too have ruffled feathers unintentionally. My words seem to come accross too harsh sometimes.

Klewlis (my only ally until now) deserves much credit also for her willingness to speak out and defend her faith.

Please feel free to post anytime, you may be able to make a point I am not able to.

Rhuiden

Post Reply