MrWill Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Parry, parry, parry.......OK, now STRIKE! Let's hear your evidence that the Bible is divine perfection.....not the SF51 debunking strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Parry, parry, parry.......OK, now STRIKE! Let's hear your evidence that the Bible is divine perfection.....not the SF51 debunking strategy. If you're talking to me, I really don't see any reason to defend that view. Who knows? I might not even hold to it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWill Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 If you're talking to me, I really don't see any reason to defend that view. Who knows? I might not even hold to it... OIC.....just shedding light on inaccurate statements. Sorry I misjudged you.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 OIC.....just shedding light on inaccurate statements. Sorry I misjudged you.... Inaccurate statements? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Inaccurate statements? :munchout: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWill Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 The Council of Nicea wasn't in 135 AD. It's okay, though. You're only about 200 years off... Despite the repeated assertions of Xamiel and chomerics, among others, there is no credible evidence that Constantine (or Nicea) had anything to do with the composition of the Bible. The formation of the Canon began well before Constantine, and wasn't "officially" completed until well after. And no, Xamiel, "I think I saw it on the Discovery Channel" doesn't count. What does an English translation made in the 17th century have to do with anything? How do we know about them? The pre-feudal period? Seems like you were refuting here.......but, I guess I can't be too sure.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 I think the belief in 2) presents a quandry, namely in the form of the various seldom discussed sections of the Bible that are a bit unseemly. Thus, if the Bible is God created and perfect, then what role does these often ignore sections play in Scripture? Actually, if anything, I think the less seemly portions of Scripture and the "contradictions" add to the Bible's credibility, not take away from it. If the Bible was obviously perfect, without a single flaw or even apparent disagreeement, and everything was positive, happy, sweetness and light, then everyone would (perhaps rightly) say that it was doctored, redacted, and edited to make it that way. In other words, Xamiel might actually have a point. On the other hand, the fact that the Biblical authors chose to include the unseemly things argues that they were more concerned with the truth than they were their religion's image. Historians call this the Criterion of Embarrassment, and its one of the important tools in seperating truth from fiction in writings (especially ancient writings). In the same manner, the fact that the various eyewitness accounts in the New Testament agree on the large points, but aren't necessarily lock-step in the details argues that rather than colluding to make up a story, they just recorded what happened. Again, I see this as supporting the story of the text. I guess it's all a matter of perspective... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Yes, MrWill, I know what I wrote. Which of those statements did you feel was inaccurate? Do you think that "I think I saw it on the Discovery Channel" does count? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWill Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Inaccurate statements? Let me make my last quote a little clearer for you. 'Oh, I see......YOU were just shedding light on inaccurate statements. Sorry I misjudged you.....' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWill Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Yes, MrWill, I know what I wrote. Which of those statements did you feel was inaccurate?Do you think that "I think I saw it on the Discovery Channel" does count? Testy, and defensive. If that doesn't describe every religious thread I have ever seen, I don't know what does. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Shot Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Testy, and defensive. If that doesn't describe every religious thread I have ever seen, I don't know what does. :laugh: Sad but true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Testy, and defensive. If that doesn't describe every religious thread I have ever seen, I don't know what does. :laugh: It's not my fault you edited your post. When I responded to that, all that was there was a quote of my text. I was simply attempting to elicit additional information. Sorry if I seemed testy. I can assure you that I am quite relaxed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWill Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 It's not my fault you edited your post. When I responded to that, all that was there was a quote of my text. I was simply attempting to elicit additional information. Sorry if I seemed testy. I can assure you that I am quite relaxed. No, I know you are......I was kidding about 'testy and defensive'. I didn't edit my post.....I clarified my statement. It went from: 'OIC.......just shedding light on inaccurate statements.' Where I did not see the obvious ambiguity that I do now. to: 'Oh, I see.....you were just shedding light on inaccurate statements.' My fault for using an ambiguous statement, but, the result was mildly funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 No, I know you are......I was kidding about 'testy and defensive'. I didn't edit my post.....I clarified my statement. It went from: 'OIC.......just shedding light on inaccurate statements.' Where I did not see the obvious ambiguity that I do now. to: 'Oh, I see.....you were just shedding light on inaccurate statements.' My fault for using an ambiguous statement, but, the result was mildly funny. Actually, when I first responded to your post, all I saw was you quoting me, with no text at all. I thought you were providing an answer to my question about inaccurate statements by quoting them back to me... :laugh: Just a misunderstanding. No harm done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWill Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Actually, when I first responded to your post, all I saw was you quoting me, with no text at all. I thought you were providing an answer to my question about inaccurate statements by quoting them back to me... :laugh: Just a misunderstanding. No harm done. Lol.....I know. I had to put as a reason for editing that I left out my response......DUH! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 It seems an attempt to grant Divine authority directly to a written word is essentially an attempt to advance a particular interpretation of the scripture. "There is only one possible interpretation - the one I'm advocating." Well, there are non-evangelical Christians. Is this more to your liking? It is inspired and inerrant. This is the typical evangelical view. As a Baptist I hold to this view. By Inspiration, we mean that through the superintending influence of God's Spirit on the writers of Holy Scripture, the account and interpretation of God's revelation have been recorded as God intended so that the Bible is actually the Word of God. Inerrancy means, when all the facts are known, the Bible (in its autographs, that is the original documents), properly interpreted in light of the culture and the means of communication that had developed by the time of its composition, is completely true in all that it affirms, to the degree of precision intended by the author's purpose, in all matters relating to God and His creation. From the Doctrine of the Bible, by David Dockery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 1) Man-made, and open to flaws and interpretations... My answer: The Old Testament has probably been man-made for about 3000-3500 years. The events portrayed in it (mainly and especially Genesis) took place LONG before it was compiled and were adapted by the Israelites. The New Testament was written by human witnesses of the life of Jesus Christ and compiled by descendants of those people/places. Or 2) A Godly scripture, and perfect. My answer: I believe many of the writings in Genesis were once much more of a godly scripture but they were dictated or written even before the rise of the Sumerian or Egyptian civilizations. Exodus was added later by a new civilization. The New Testament is once again a man-written account of a life but can be "godly" and perfect where Jesus Christ is quoted. I'd also like to hear how the belief in either 1 or 2 (or 3, if there is another offered opinion) influences your understanding and faith. I believe virtually all the "books" of all the ancient religions are based on fact and I include the Koran, the Hindu Vedas, the Inca and Mayan scriptures and if I knew what the equivalent was for the ancient Chinese, I'd name it. I cannot place any more or any less factuality on one over another because all are the attempts of civilizations to preserve what they saw and how they developed as nations under a higher power. I will say though, that the older it is, the truer and more "godly" it probably is. Keep in mind that Neanderthal burials and living sites have shown evidence of religious worship. It would be interesting to hear what they believed. Cro-Magnon/Homo sapien were roaming this Earth, speaking and worshipping long before the biblical "global flood" that science indicates happened between 11,000 and 8500 BC. They had "gods" or a god as well. Who knows how far our current creation epics have been passed down or how "pure" they remain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 I believe virtually all the "books" of all the ancient religions are based on fact and I include the Koran, the Hindu Vedas, the Inca and Mayan scriptures and if I knew what the equivalent was for the ancient Chinese, I'd name it. I cannot place any more or any less factuality on one over another because all are the attempts of civilizations to preserve what they saw and how they developed as nations under a higher power. I will say though, that the older it is, the truer and more "godly" it probably is. Keep in mind that Neanderthal burials and living sites have shown evidence of religious worship. It would be interesting to hear what they believed. Cro-Magnon/Homo sapien were roaming this Earth, speaking and worshipping long before the biblical "global flood" that science indicates happened between 11,000 and 8500 BC. They had "gods" or a god as well. Who knows how far our current creation epics have been passed down or how "pure" they remain. Didn't the ancient Assyrians record (Royal Library of Ashurbanipal?) that they had writings that survived the Noahic flood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Didn't the ancient Assyrians record (Royal Library of Ashurbanipal?) that they had writings that survived the Noahic flood? Absolutely. Their Noah was called "Ziusiudra" (sp) and the story was eerily similar. They also have a story of how the plural "adamu" (Adam?) was created and put to work in the gardens of the "E.Din." (Eden?) The assyrian versions were at least a thousand years older than genesis and the Assyrians didn't claim to be the first to tell the tales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Absolutely. Their Noah was called "Ziusiudra" (sp) and the story was eerily similar. They also have a story of how the plural "adamu" (Adam?) was created and put to work in the gardens of the "E.Din." (Eden?) The assyrian versions were at least a thousand years older than genesis and the Assyrians didn't claim to be the first to tell the tales.I have no reason to doubt you. Although, I haven't heard that Moses claimed to be the first to tell Noah's story, just that he heard it straight from Yahweh.And Ashurbanipal's library was collected in the sixth century BC, about 600 years after Moses. But I'm sure the writings he had copied were much older. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 I have no reason to doubt you. Although, I haven't heard that Moses claimed to be the first to tell Noah's story, just that he heard it straight from Yahweh.And Ashurbanipal's library was collected in the sixth century BC, about 600 years after Moses. But I'm sure the writings he had copied were much older. My only point is that the events most likely happened. They remained in the "story of man" on through many civilizations, so the Old Testament is a s good as any before it.. The names get changed but the song remains the same. So it's all godly and literal in a way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 After the God - Clause thread, I was pondering the Bible and the various adherents and interpretations of the Bible. I was further thinking about "perfection vs imperfection" in relation to the Bible, and how this relates to our understanding of the Book. Thus, I would like hear opinions on the Bible, and whether it is: 1) Man-made, and open to flaws and interpretations... Or 2) A Godly scripture, and perfect. I'd also like to hear how the belief in either 1 or 2 (or 3, if there is another offered opinion) influences your understanding and faith. No, I am not an aetheist, so I am not going to just harp on someone's belief, but I do believe that 1) is probably closer to the truth. You can't really answer these questions concretely. Parts of the bible are God's direct spoken word to man while others are inspired spectator direct accounts of what they saw, kinda like a reporter reporting the news of what happened at some rally or event. Man will always try to explain the spiritual realm in order to make it less mystical and more real. Some things just cannot be explained, and need faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 You can't really answer these questions concretely. Parts of the bible are God's direct spoken word to man while others are inspired spectator direct accounts of what they saw, kinda like a reporter reporting the news of what happened at some rally or event. Man will always try to explain the spiritual realm in order to make it less mystical and more real. Some things just cannot be explained, and need faith. Completely true. I think Bac was just asking for opinions and knew this when he started the thread. We're just BSing here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USS Redskins Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 I lean towards #1 but the 8 years of catholic school in me tell me that I better believe #2 or else! The argument for #2, from a Catholics POV is that the bible was written by man but that the authors were filled with the Holy Spirit and were writing Gods word at his bidding - I think. It really goes back to faith. I kinda lost mine a few years back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 :mmm: You'v also got Quoted for some serious ****ing emphasis. Screw the actual debate... :drool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.