The Bible

[Jimbozu]

This is just a thought that randomly popped into my mind while I was browsing through GC and I decided I would post it.

Christians claim that the bible is the literal word of god, but what I don't understand is how a religion based on the flaws of humanity, believe that their forefathers (the ones who wrote, translated, and have taught the word of god throughout history) were incapable of altering the bible. Even if God is infallible, humans most definitely are not.

The bible isn't subject to an form of peer review, the writers didn't have to go through any rigorous screening process. In general, the bible is a pretty shabbily thrown together work of scripture. Why are the books of the other apostles (i don't remember which ones are and aren't in the new testament) part of the bible?

I don't mean to rag on Christianity, but seeing as it is un-official, official religion of the US, it interests me. Mostly I just don't understand how a religion that is based off of the sinful nature of humanity believes in the trustworthiness of people in the past.

[pbmike15]

No, they're just here to worship something they can't see.

[Jimbozu]

Originally Posted by pbmike15

No, they're just here to worship something they can't see.

Thats not constructive, it's just a mindless insult. If you want to contribute to the thread, by maybe pointing out some reason why my original question is invalid, then feel free to post, but if you just want to be argumentative, make your own thread, don't troll here.

Everyone has a right to their own point of view (It may not be valid, thats why I we are always questioning) but just dismissing someone because they believe in something contrary to your own beliefs, doesn't make your view of the world seem much better than theirs.

[pbmike15]

Did I ever state my opinion on religion? Nope.

What kind of responses are you looking for? How do you think Christians feel when they read 'how is your bible so great if it's written by ordinary people'?

[Jimbozu]

You did state your opinion, if you write something, and you don't specify who is thinking it, who should I assume it is? Some etherial "other" that has the definitive answer to all things? No, thats rediculous, I'm going to assume that you're the one that is thinking in.

And what i was HOPING for, was that someone would be kind enough to explain their faith, tell me what the physical qualities they associate with that faith is, be it happyness when you imagine Jesus, or some direct commune with God himself. I'm not Christian, so I don't know how Christians think, so I try to pick their brain by asking questions.

[pbmike15]

Well when you assume.. eh, nevermind. Also, this is how you spell ridiculous.

I think that if anybody believes the Bible 100% is a fool. (Opinion) Some of the information in the Bible is actual facts. Very little, but some.

You can still have faith in something without having to have a book of guidelines and short stories. I'm also interested to see what Christians have to say about the Bible.

Good thread, +rep.

[weedseed]

Originally Posted by Jimbozu

This is just a thought that randomly popped into my mind while I was browsing through GC and I decided I would post it.

Christians claim that the bible is the literal word of god, but what I don't understand is how a religion based on the flaws of humanity, believe that their forefathers (the ones who wrote, translated, and have taught the word of god throughout history) were incapable of altering the bible. Even if God is infallible, humans most definitely are not.

The bible isn't subject to an form of peer review, the writers didn't have to go through any rigorous screening process. In general, the bible is a pretty shabbily thrown together work of scripture. Why are the books of the other apostles (i don't remember which ones are and aren't in the new testament) part of the bible?

I don't mean to rag on Christianity, but seeing as it is un-official, official religion of the US, it interests me. Mostly I just don't understand how a religion that is based off of the sinful nature of humanity believes in the trustworthiness of people in the past.

First, Christianity isn't based on the sinful nature of humanity (maybe the satanic bible...)--it's based Christ alone. Our sinful nature is why we need him.

All men are capable of sin and all would be capable of altering the Bible. If God is who we say He is, and He wants to ensure that future generations have access to the truth, don't you think He'd do just that? How? I bet you could think of a few ways but that's not what's important--

Shabbily thrown together? ? ? What ever do you mean by that?

Apocryphal books...non canonical gospels...and so on-- either the author wasn't who they claimed to be (using other texts by the same author to compare), or these books weren't pertinent to God's cause (though some of them may possibly have been authored by whom they actually claimed to be). Many of the OT books are quoted by either the apostles or Jesus himself so we know they are worth keeping. There's a lot to this.

After I finish with the scientific arguments I will start a new thread on this very topic. I'll have 10 good reasons why the NT is God's Word. If you actually want to know then you can check it out. I have a big load so this may be a bit. I'm gonna hit C14 dating and Darwinism next--trying to give everybody enough argue over!

[pbmike15]

Oh come on, the new testament is a story book.

[HighGrowMan]

There is a lot of hidden truth in the bible. Although sometimes it is in the form of letting you know where the problems of society come from, it still can teach you a lot about the nature of western civilization.

My honest opinion is to try to understand the various archetypes in the bible, and how they weave their way through it's pages.

The bible is most certainly not evil, nor is it inherently good; it is only as good as the person who is interpreting it. That is the nature of all communication.

One thing to think about is that it is logically proven that communication looses all of its effectiveness when the receiver does not have all the knowledge of the sender. (for this reason communication with words is far less effective than communication with symbols and sounds)

truth is impossible unless it is sent from God to God.

So unless God lives in you and you and enlightens your path, you will only see from your prejustices.

[weedseed]

I disagree (just a little). The Bible isn't neutral. It's nothing but good. How you interpret doesn't make it bad or good. That sounds like something the old catholic papacy would say.

If you interpret it wrong that's on you and you alone. Like I've been saying, "What people believe has no effect on truth." And the truth is that the Bible is nothing but the goods.

[HighGrowMan]

Originally Posted by weedseed

I disagree (just a little). The Bible isn't neutral. It's nothing but good. How you interpret doesn't make it bad or good. That sounds like something the old catholic papacy would say.

If you interpret it wrong that's on you and you alone. Like I've been saying, "What people believe has no effect on truth." And the truth is that the Bible is nothing but the goods.

I have never heard a priest say that the bible is anything but the inspired word of God and it is infallible in all its ways.

However, that is not my argument.

My argument is that you take a step back from what the bible represents as a symbol (and therefor what it means to you) and look at it for what it is; paper and ink, written in a phonetic alphabet.

This means that it is at the mercy of not only the paper, but also the ink, and the alphabet in which it is tranlated into (so there is another level of separation, because we are reading the understanding colective understanding of a group of translators, so that brings up the point that it is not fully translated by one individual, it is at the mercy of group think), never mind the readers understanding of the language and moral lessons contained therein.

Now I do not disagree with you that truth does not change, and that it remains constant, however we as the reader are not constant, and neither is the environment. That is why truth, like say math, just represents the symbols and numbers, the reader is doing all the interpreting.

Granted, the symbols and ideas are commonly agreed upon, and there is a level of shared understanding. However, one can never truly understand the intentions of a symbol, (math or otherwise) until he has seen that symbol in practical application.

Likewise, the story of Jesus, however powerful and convicting it can be for millions (if not billions of people) it means a pile of nothing, unless the reader has seen a practical application of the symbol of Jesus, in his or her life.

One must always be aware that the bible isn't true because it is written, however the bible is written because it is true.

God does not exist in a dead book, good exists in his creation, because he is in everything, and everybody. However, god is far more capable of speaking to somebody when they look to him and ask him for their answers; because as a book you can only see a confirmation of what you already know. The thinking and reasoning happens in your mind, and that can lead you to greater understanding.

Edit: The reason why I do not say that the bible is nothing but the 'goods' is because it was developed and used by the roman empire for over a thousand years, and is now the poster of western civilization.

If the bible was nothing but good, then all of the people who follow it to the letter would be nothing but good. However one must realize, that the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life. (Colosians)

[weedseed]

Originally Posted by HighGrowMan

My argument is that you take a step back from what the bible represents as a symbol (and therefor what it means to you) and look at it for what it is; paper and ink, written in a phonetic alphabet.

This means that it is at the mercy of not only the paper, but also the ink, and the alphabet in which it is tranlated into (so there is another level of separation, because we are reading the understanding colective understanding of a group of translators, so that brings up the point that it is not fully translated by one individual, it is at the mercy of group think), never mind the readers understanding of the language and moral lessons contained therein.

Which doesn't make it bad, but its good possibly unknown to some.

Originally Posted by HighGrowMan

Edit: The reason why I do not say that the bible is nothing but the 'goods' is because it was developed and used by the roman empire for over a thousand years, and is now the poster of western civilization.

If the bible was nothing but good, then all of the people who follow it to the letter would be nothing but good. However one must realize, that the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life. (Colosians)

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Word is obviously Christ--Christ came to earth so that all might be saved--He taught them the truth with "words"-- you can't undermind the importance of the Bible. It's been a part of His plan since day one.

The Bible teaches that there are none righteouss, no not one. By good you don't mean perfect do you? That's quite impossible for us. I do believe that those who follow the Bible whole-heartedly and seek to Glorify the name of God are all good in a sense.

I believe it was 2 Corinthians 3:6 "He has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit produces life."

The "letter" Paul is talking about is the mosaic law--not the Bible.

[HighGrowMan]

I understand paul was referring to the mosaic law (or rather the orgin and history of christianity) however I would take that with a grain of salt, because you defeat yourself when you try to argue that Paul's law is higher than Moses; Paul was preaching against the children of Isreal, and their God. Jesus did not. Because jesus did not come to destroy the law, but that the law might be manifest through him.

You write that Jesus is the Word of God; this is no more or less correct than saying that the Sun is the Word of God. For by the word of God both exist. We, the Sun, the Moon, the dogs that you see running down the street, are all the word of God; God has no need to elevate one part of his creation higher than the next. We are all members in particular with indvidual roles and responsibilities. It is true that Jesus has a special role and responsibility, that has made him the single most important person of our age; however if you understand that importance to God is in the role performed not in the position, then you will really understand what importance means.

Do you think that if Jesus walked into your congregation, as a Man, that he would expect the same treatment that you give each and every other person that walks through the door?

Does he not tell us that in honoring the sick and the homeless we are doing his will? Why then do we worship him like an idol when the keys to the kingdom of heaven rest firmly in your own hands?

You just said that nobody is perfect, the same argument could be laid that every human is perfect, because they are alive, whereas the bible is dead so it is imperfect.

Paul was a man who believed that salvation can be obtained through faith, without works. Making God a lier and Jesus a Curse. (That is pretty much verbatim out of Pauls writings). So if

James, the brother of Jesus (also called James the Righeous) has this to say about our ability to become perfect:

James 1
3Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. 4But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
5If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

22But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. 23For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
24For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
25But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.



James 2

1My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
2For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
3And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
4Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
5Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
6But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
7Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?
8If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
9But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
10For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

[Chaohinon]

I do my best to understand religious devotees, but this is where I draw the line. I can't have respect for anyone who would attempt to derive morality, or, god forbid (!), history from the Roman Empire's propaganda tool. You may as well put your faith in the Oddysey, or The Canterbury Tales, or The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion. They're all equally valid.

[HighGrowMan]

Originally Posted by Chaohinon

I do my best to understand religious devotees, but this is where I draw the line. I can't have respect for anyone who would attempt to derive morality, or, god forbid (!), history from the Roman Empire's propaganda tool. You may as well put your faith in the Oddysey, or The Canterbury Tales, or The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion. They're all equally valid.

You make a valid point, if your ready to believe anything on the basis of faith alone, then you might as well throw 9/11 and the Iraq war in their, because both of those require a hell of a lot of faith (with little evidence to back them up).

That said, a friend of mine was reading the Dune books and although I haven't read the books (I have seen the movies though) the quotes that he was finding in the books showing frank herbert's view of the Massiah, would cause me to put Frank Herbert's collective works on the must read shelf; while what Paul in the New Testiment says about the Massiah, would cause me to put him on the 'Read with Caution' shelf.