Why the Bible is wrong, according to the Bible

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

I said don't have the information off the top of my head but I have heard proof of the validation of the source material for the bible. If I can find it I'll let you know. This isn't something I was taught in church.

Why do I feel like I keep going in a circle with my answers.

It's because these threads pop up every few months and it's usually always the same way. A few religious people who are generally staunch in their faith but not used to really talking about it or dealing with contradictions or actively seeking answers to questions they used to ignoring face up against people who in actually often have religious backgrounds themselves but have divested themselves of their faith through life experiences or efforts of research and a process of purging beliefs that were ingrained into them from a young age that causes them to be very analytical and critical in these topics. "Just cuz" isn't taken for an answer very well because they feel they've been there before. If it's not the apostate, it's generally atheists or agnostics or the areligious who also don't accept: "I believe just because I believe" for an answer because critical thinking and rational processes are the cornerstones of modern learning.

People aren't saying that the religious don't have a right to their faith. Many people just want to know why people continue to believe in certain things which they find inconceivable or absurd.

Anyway, I'm also interested in what this proof of the validation of the bible is. You don't need to recall exactly what it was, just the general idea.

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by photon

I didn't want to change it to superior, it was just the word I happened to use at the beginning and you were objecting to what I was saying but didn't seem to be objecting to what I was meaning.

In this context superior and correct are synonymous.

So back to what started that, out of the billions and billions of people, an individual thinks their choice is the correct one and the others are incorrect. What makes them so special that they're right?

I'm pretty sure that my answer won't be satisfactory to you, but it's not so much as being so special that they're right but rather that others are led astray and deceived.

Originally Posted by photon

I didn't leave out any piece. I have a universal negative consequence for not choosing (disease = separation from god), and I have the choice (accept the injection = accept salvation from Jesus).

But I'll discard the analogy then, and ask a few questions.

First, if you were in the garden, would you have chosen to eat the apple? Would every human have chosen to eat the apple? Or would some humans have chosen and some not have?

I'm not re-writing history. I can't respond to this question.

Originally Posted by photon

What about the global flood then?

What about it?

Originally Posted by photon

Why not debate it?

Or why is it even an issue, more Christians than not accept evolution as fact.

Because honestly I'm having trouble finding enough time to debate this topic alone, I don't have enough time to debate something else too. I've known Christians that accept evolution and I just disagree with them.

Originally Posted by photon

I'm given a choice to be restored to god, but that the restoration has to happen at all isn't something of my doing, and if I don't choose it I'm damned. That's not free will that's coercion. God is making robots because those that don't choose what he wants them to choose results in their destruction.

Is there free will in heaven? If so, can I sin in heaven?

By not making a choice you are making a choice. I believe there is free will in heaven. Clearly you can sin in heaven but there is a consequence to that sin (fallen angels). I can't honestly say why someone would sin in heaven because being in the presence of God will be more amazing that can even be imagined.

Originally Posted by photon

As I said twice, I'm not saying someone follows god based on experiences, I'm saying that they're already following god by faith, and then change their minds because the promises and things described in the Bible don't actually come to pass.

I don't get nor understand that.

Originally Posted by photon

And actually you are incorrect too, not everyone is required to have a large element of faith. Paul got knocked off his horse and blinded, not a lot of faith required there. John is filled with miracles that Jesus performs simply to show the people he is who he claimed to be. Some people get special treatment, others do not and get damned as a result? Hardly seems just.

Jesus was proving who he was at that time as there were people who were waiting for the Messiah and he was showing that he was the Messiah. Still there was some element of faith that these people needed, after all not everyone believed Jesus was the Messiah.

Originally Posted by photon

Sure! If it's something I haven't read or seen before, we could even do something where I'd read it and give my feedback, and you could read something I bring and you give your feedback.

Sure, but as I mentioned above I don't have a lot of time on my hands

Originally Posted by photon

Honestly, it's because your answers are in fact a circle. You have faith that your beliefs are right. Your beliefs are right because you have faith they are.

It feels right, but in the end it's flawed reasoning.

Actually no, it's more that I feel I keep answering the same questions over and over.

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

It's because these threads pop up every few months and it's usually always the same way. A few religious people who are generally staunch in their faith but not used to really talking about it or dealing with contradictions or actively seeking answers to questions they used to ignoring face up against people who in actually often have religious backgrounds themselves but have divested themselves of their faith through life experiences or efforts of research and a process of purging beliefs that were ingrained into them from a young age that causes them to be very analytical and critical in these topics. "Just cuz" isn't taken for an answer very well because they feel they've been there before. If it's not the apostate, it's generally atheists or agnostics or the areligious who also don't accept: "I believe just because I believe" for an answer because critical thinking and rational processes are the cornerstones of modern learning.

People aren't saying that the religious don't have a right to their faith. Many people just want to know why people continue to believe in certain things which they find inconceivable or absurd.

Anyway, I'm also interested in what this proof of the validation of the bible is. You don't need to recall exactly what it was, just the general idea.

If others find it inconceivable or absurd that is something that others have to deal with. I am secure in my faith and belief.

I did a little searching on the internet and found basically some of the information I'd heard before.

Link to some information regarding authenticity of the bible. And before you ask have a read through everything in the website no, because my time is limited but after finding the website plan on reading through it when I have a chance.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

If others find it inconceivable or absurd that is something that others have to deal with. I am secure in my faith and belief.

I did a little searching on the internet and found basically some of the information I'd heard before.

Link to some information regarding authenticity of the bible. And before you ask have a read through everything in the website no, because my time is limited but after finding the website plan on reading through it when I have a chance.

I'm not suggesting that your research as to the authenticity of the bible is flawed, however do you not think that research should encompass something outside the realms of the church? Do you think that the church will suggest anything that might make it irrelevant?

Christian apologetics is the branch of theology that deals with answering any and all critics who oppose or question the validity of Christianity. It can include studying such subjects as biblical manuscript transmission, philosophy, biology, mathematics, evolution, logic, history, etc. But it can also consist of simply giving an answer to a question about Jesus or a Bible passage.

Try these and read with an open mind...

http://rationalrevolution.net/articl...th_history.htm
http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle.html
http://darwin-online.org.uk/Variorum/index.html

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by Cheese

I'm not suggesting that your research as to the authenticity of the bible is flawed, however do you not think that research should encompass something outside the realms of the church? Do you think that the church will suggest anything that might make it irrelevant?

Christian apologetics is the branch of theology that deals with answering any and all critics who oppose or question the validity of Christianity. It can include studying such subjects as biblical manuscript transmission, philosophy, biology, mathematics, evolution, logic, history, etc. But it can also consist of simply giving an answer to a question about Jesus or a Bible passage.

Try these and read with an open mind...

http://rationalrevolution.net/articl...th_history.htm
http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle.html
http://darwin-online.org.uk/Variorum/index.html

When I get some free time I'll take a look at them. However, you can't just discount an organizations research because they are working to validate Christianity. I would suggest that each one of these other websites have the goal to disprove the authenticity of Christianity so they will find information that they believe supports their cause and thus. I truly doubt that anyone out there has put out any information that is truly independent and do not have a motivation leaning one way or the other.

[Thor]

Textcritic would be the ideal biblical scholar to jump in here, but its hard to coax him into these discussions. The man knows way too much about biblical history that its like getting a free lecture from a theologian when he posts.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

^ Funny enough, that brings up a story that is totally apropos.

When I was fourteen, I totally had the hots for a 20 year old junior librarian (smoking hot and super friendly). Being a big bag of hormones, I spent a lot of the time at the library chatting her up. Eventually she invited me to come out to a "youth group." I had no idea what I was getting into, but I jumped at it because she invited me. Turns out it was a pentecostal church youth group and I got roped into going to this thing for about six months and even went to a weekend retreat, and was 'saved'. Ultimately I realized I was never going to get what I was looking for so I quit going. So I became a pentecostal to impress a girl!!

I spent a horrifying weekend with the Young Conservatives to get with a girl.

Imagine being at a conference with 100 people that would make Rob Anders and Ezra Levant blush.

[onetwo_threefour]

^ Ha, I've eternally damned my soul and you had to spend a weekend with Harper-bots? (Although I assume it was more like Mulroney-bots at that time)...

Not even close my friend...

[troutman]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

^ Ha, I've eternally damned my soul and you had to spend a weekend with Harper-bots? (Although I assume it was more like Mulroney-bots at that time)...

Not even close my friend...

Kim Campbell may have been PM at the time.

[onetwo_threefour]

Yeah that lasted about a weekend didn't it?

Don't worry, it's okay, everyobody experiments with alternative lifestyles in youth...

Back on topic...

What's the more damaging doctrine in the miinds of atheists, papal infallibility or biblical inerrancy? Feel free to discuss in terms of other religious texts as well, I'm just not familiar with the details of Islamic thought regarding inerrancy of the Qu'ran.

Personally, I think bibilical inerrancy is more problematic than papal infallibility. At least popes live in the context of the times and papal decrees are modified by subsequent popes to some degree.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

I'm pretty sure that my answer won't be satisfactory to you, but it's not so much as being so special that they're right but rather that others are led astray and deceived.

Which of course raises the question how do you know they're led astray and deceived, and you are not. I know the answer is that you have faith and trust that your choices are correct, and it's part of that circular logic that restricts the ability to even consider that it's someone else that's correct and that it's one's self that's being led astray.

A more interesting question is why is someone responsible for being deceived? If someone fools you and takes all your money, is it not right for them to be caught and charged, and the money returned to you? If someone fools me out of salvation by leading me astray though I'm responsible for that?

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

I'm not re-writing history. I can't respond to this question.

You can't respond, or you won't respond? Why can't you or why won't you?

No one's rewriting history, it's a very important question, because it determines the nature of the test!

Put every person who ever lived in the garden of Eden, rerun the scenario. Do they all choose to eat the apple? Or do some choose to eat the apple and some do not?

If all people eat the apple, then the test is flawed and humanity is not responsible.

If some people eat the apple and others do not, then the test is flawed because the choice of an individual resulted in consequences for everyone, and humanity is still not responsible.

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

What about it?

The smiley face meant it was a joke, if you don't want to debate evolution you presumably wouldn't want to talk about a global flood either.

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

Because honestly I'm having trouble finding enough time to debate this topic alone, I don't have enough time to debate something else too. I've known Christians that accept evolution and I just disagree with them.

And that's fair, there's only so many hours in a day.

It is a very important topic though because while our discussion about beliefs affects only ourselves, the topic of evolution and how its taught in schools is something else because it impacts everyone. That there is a group out there intentionally being deceptive to try and get religion taught in the science classroom is something that should be worrying to everyone, religious or not.

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

By not making a choice you are making a choice.

I didn't say it wasn't a choice, I said "I don't choose it I'm damned". It's coercion; do what I say or you will die. "I'll save you, but you have to serve me if I do."

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

I believe there is free will in heaven. Clearly you can sin in heaven but there is a consequence to that sin (fallen angels). I can't honestly say why someone would sin in heaven because being in the presence of God will be more amazing that can even be imagined.

Well if there's sin possible in heaven, why go through this whole thing in the first place? Why create Eden, have the choice of a single person cause the eternal damnation of billions, and have a redemption thousands of years later when you could have just created man in heaven to begin with and have each person be responsible for their own actions instead of having the actions of a distant relative condemn them to hell?

No worrying about people being deceived and led astray either, so no having to worry about who's guilty for sending innocently deceived people to hell.

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

I don't get nor understand that.

Aren't there promises in the Bible? If I seek aren't I supposed to find?

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

Jesus was proving who he was at that time as there were people who were waiting for the Messiah and he was showing that he was the Messiah. Still there was some element of faith that these people needed, after all not everyone believed Jesus was the Messiah.

Doesn't get around the fact that they still had the advantage of first hand evidence. God's not supposed to be a respecter of persons.

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

Actually no, it's more that I feel I keep answering the same questions over and over.

Well it's a lot of different questions I am asking, but since the answer is essentially the same for all the questions (I believe because I want to believe) it is answering the same over and over.

I appreciate that you've been willing to discuss things, and I'll of course continue whatever conversation you want to continue, but don't feel obligated if it does take up too much of your time.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

When I get some free time I'll take a look at them. However, you can't just discount an organizations research because they are working to validate Christianity. I would suggest that each one of these other websites have the goal to disprove the authenticity of Christianity so they will find information that they believe supports their cause and thus. I truly doubt that anyone out there has put out any information that is truly independent and do not have a motivation leaning one way or the other.

You dont think that any religious organization, regardless of their stripe, would be willing to be honest about parts of their program being proven wrong do you?
Scholars from both sides of the equation have taken the time to determine the accuracy or lack thereof of in Historical claims by Christians.
Apologists simply do not do anything but...make outrageous claims.

[billybob123]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

inerrancy of the Qu'ran.

The concept of the Qu'ran was that it is the word of God to Muhammad directly through the angel Gabriel. So, not only is it inerrant, it is the actual word of God, unlike the Bible/Torah. That's the reason translations aren't supposed to be official versions. All prayers are recited in Arabic, even with the majority of Muslims non-Arab (Indonesians, Pakistanis, Afghanis, Iranians, Bengalis, etc). Smaller towns in the Muslim world have Qu'ran readers who can read the Qu'ran to followers - this is often the only way people have to learn the Qu'ran.

The issue arises when people interpret the Qu'ran - it's not supposed to be interpreted in any way - it is supposed to be read as-is.

Might explain why there's so much differences within the religion itself.

This all being said - if anyone today was to say "I am hearing directly from God through a magical angel", he/she would be commited; 1400 years ago and they were a prophet.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by photon

Doesn't get around the fact that they still had the advantage of first hand evidence. God's not supposed to be a respecter of persons.

Yeah, he actually purposefully makes it hard for people to understand and be saved? He picks favorites. Geez(us).

"And He was saying to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, so that while seeing, they may see and not perceive, and while hearing, they may hear and not understand, otherwise they might return and be forgiven." (Mark 4:10-12)

Why not clarify the rules that save everybody from eternal torment? Open www.godsofficialrules.com or something. Instead, he entrusts it to human beings in a primitive cult society 2000-6000 years ago with no ability to accurately transmit knowledge and ideas for hundreds of years.

[photon]

Nice.

Lol register that domain, and just put text up saying "Be Excellent to Each Other!"

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Cheese

You dont think that any religious organization, regardless of their stripe, would be willing to be honest about parts of their program being proven wrong do you?
Scholars from both sides of the equation have taken the time to determine the accuracy or lack thereof of in Historical claims by Christians.
Apologists simply do not do anything but...make outrageous claims.

Pretty hypocritical of you question the integrity of christian scholars in a thread started because of an atheist sponsored chart that is deceptive in its presentation and greatly flawed in its formation.

You don't think atheist historians wouldn't be predisposed to interpret tidbits of historical information in a bad light against one of the religons they despise.

Atheist historians have denied the existance of several cities that are mentioned in scriptures that were later found by the pick and the shovel. They even denied the existance of King David until they found a little piece of stone from his reign with his name on it. They denied his existance even though there are six separate historical books in the Old Testament that mention him extensively. Moreover the largest book in the whole Bible is a collection of David's musical compositions. Until independant evidence was found these atheist scholars maintained that the absence physical evidence outside of the canon of scripture was proof that the bible was made up. Pretty much what Sam Harris does with his little chart.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Pretty hypocritical of you question the integrity of christian scholars in a thread started because of an atheist sponsored chart that is deceptive in its presentation and greatly flawed in its formation.

You don't think atheist historians wouldn't be predisposed to interpret tidbits of historical information in a bad light against one of the religons they despise.

Atheist historians have denied the existance of several cities that are mentioned in scriptures that were later found by the pick and the shovel. They even denied the existance of King David until they found a little piece of stone from his reign with his name on it. They denied his existance even though there are six separate historical books in the Old Testament that mention him extensively. Moreover the largest book in the whole Bible is a collection of David's musical compositions. Until independant evidence was found these atheist scholars maintained that the absence physical evidence outside of the canon of scripture was proof that the bible was made up. Pretty much what Sam Harris does with his little chart.

I'm sure you understand the word hypocrite better than anyone CalgaryBorn.
Of course the entire non-Christian world is against you, and anything or anyone that suggests what you believe is wrong is an atheist heathen bound for a glory life in hell.

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by photon

Nice.

Lol register that domain, and just put text up saying "Be Excellent to Each Other!"

Bill and Ted are my prophets.

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Pretty hypocritical of you question the integrity of christian scholars in a thread started because of an atheist sponsored chart that is deceptive in its presentation and greatly flawed in its formation.

You don't think atheist historians wouldn't be predisposed to interpret tidbits of historical information in a bad light against one of the religons they despise.

Atheist historians have denied the existance of several cities that are mentioned in scriptures that were later found by the pick and the shovel. They even denied the existance of King David until they found a little piece of stone from his reign with his name on it. They denied his existance even though there are six separate historical books in the Old Testament that mention him extensively. Moreover the largest book in the whole Bible is a collection of David's musical compositions. Until independant evidence was found these atheist scholars maintained that the absence physical evidence outside of the canon of scripture was proof that the bible was made up. Pretty much what Sam Harris does with his little chart.

Welcome to science; change your theories when evidence is shown. Logical truth is the whole idea of science and reason.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Yasa

Welcome to science; change your theories when evidence is shown. Logical truth is the whole idea of science and reason.

Unfortunately more and more often science's conclusions don't change. They just produce new theories and more subjective "evidence" to back them up. If you want a real time example you need to look no further than 'man caused global warming".