<!--QuoteBegin--Josiah Bartlet+Sep 22 2003, 08:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Josiah Bartlet @ Sep 22 2003, 08:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How do you know they were all written by people being dictated to by God? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, how do you know that someone wasn't just making up stuff? And if it's dictated by god, then shouldn't we all just do EXCACTLY what it says in the bible? And why New and old testament are so different then? Did God suddenly change his mind on several things? God should know everything and hence should have dictated everything right the first time.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Well, that wasn't an obvious evasion of the previous post at all... asking about specifics, and being swept aside with a broad generalization. Which oddly seems to happen every time a contradiction comes up in the Bible.
Okay then, if God is all-knowing, are women still simply companions, not worthy of inclusion into a holy book? THERE's a loaded question for you. Basing upon that assumption, was it god that decided they were not important enough to include, or was that a filtration through the fallible human mind? Or are we wrong in our current position of treating females as equal, in this regard?
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Sep 22 2003, 07:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Sep 22 2003, 07:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->how do you know that this is real? how do you know we aren't in some matrix or something? How do you know ANYTHING?
yes
my point exactly<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What a cop out.
Science - The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
These two contradict each other like black and white, light and day, hot and cold. You're not going be able to resolve this argument EVER.
Assuming scientists found evidence to show that the Bible is complete utter crap, do you think the christians will lose faith?
Conversely, assuming scientists have some sort of "supernatural" phenomenal experience, do you think they will hop on the other foot and say God exists?
No. Faith does not need evidence, so the faithful will never believe anything else. Scientists need evidence, so the scientists will never believe God exists without proof. You're stuck! End of discussion!
<!--QuoteBegin--Talesin+Sep 22 2003, 08:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Sep 22 2003, 08:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, that wasn't an obvious evasion of the previous post at all... asking about specifics, and being swept aside with a broad generalization. Which oddly seems to happen every time a contradiction comes up in the Bible. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> ok then, i will charge striaght into the question and answer in such a way as to open up numerous opportunities for debate.
We don't. its called faith
debate
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Okay then, if God is all-knowing, are women still simply companions, not worthy of inclusion into a holy book? THERE's a loaded question for you. Basing upon that assumption, was it god that decided they were not important enough to include, or was that a filtration through the fallible human mind? Or are we wrong in our current position of treating females as equal, in this regard?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yes, there is a loaded question. Its a very good question. Women were created as companions to men. Women are mentioned in the bible. some of them even have a whole book about them. if you had read my post you would see that women do not carry the family line, men do. It is therefore only important to a jew of that time to know the men in his family, hence the women were not mentioned. Does this mean that women are not important? of course not. what a foolish question. of course they are. without them, we would not be here. are they more important than men? no. are men more important that women just becasue man was created first? no. Are men and women equal? Yes
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Sep 22 2003, 08:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Sep 22 2003, 08:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Does this mean that women are not important? of course not. what a foolish question. of course they are. without them, we would not be here. are they more important than men? no. are men more important that women just becasue man was created first? no. Are men and women equal? Yes<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Unless you go with St Paul who didn't seem to like women at all, yet you say wrote with God dictating.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or in <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even though Adam and Eve have fallen God still commands women to be subjects of their husbands.
Or in <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1 Timothy 2:11-13 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So with all these writers being dictated to by God in what they wrote, you are picking which of God's teachings you follow? Or could it be that each person was writing their own point of view on the subject?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We don't. its called faith<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well I'm trying to defend the Bible without "Well, he is God so he could make it happen in definace of everything logic tells us" because that is an arguement purely from Faith. And its impossible to argue against faith. And thats what this thread is for, friendly arguementation or discussion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It would seem that that argument is not good enough for this thread Z.X. Bogglesteinsky.
Women are less than men. they should only speak when spoken to and should only leave the house when absolutely necessary.
there we go. God's word is just as true and correct today as it was 2000 years ago
do you honestly think that God is going to stop me from entering heaven because i treat women equally? Its not picking and choosing Gods commands, its called decency and respect.
The women in the corinthian church were leading the congregation away from God. Paul told them to make sure that that didnt happen
in Genesis, that was becasue it was Eve who was originally tempted by the devil, and had fallen. if God was to maintain his perfect fairness, she had to be punished as much as (if not more than) the man
in timothy, it is the same as in corinthians (written by the same person btw) Adam was created before Eve.
Two things that might shed some light on this matter.
If this was brought up earlier sorry, but to those of you saying the Church never had the power to manipulate and change the bible I point to the mid 1400's when most of Europe was Catholic by law, and the Church was in charge and not just a religious body. During this time education was restricted almost completely to religious teaching, and the people in charge of the production of the Bibles were European Catholics and could give a damn what ancient Hebrews thought about how they translated it. A lot of educated people were exiled from Europe into Islamic nations during this time because they refused to accept Catholic doctrine (1492 3/4 of Jews exiled from Spain), leaving for the most part slightly less educated complacent people to accept the doctrine and the traditions that the Church dictated, and unfortunately it is form this time that most Catholic traditions are upheld today.
After years of rampant corruption by the Catholic Church around 1517 Martin Luther finally broke away from the Church and created his own Protestant movement and the bible was translated for the first time into different languages. The Protestant movement was shortly followed up by the Calvinist movement and several others, all of which were very political in nature and all of which rebelled against oppressive Catholic views, each movement made their own translations of the Bible. Now in between hundreds of years of war, oppression, destructions of libraries, raiding of villages, conversion of faiths, and the general splintering of Christianity how the Bible could stay completely unaltered is beyond any logical reasoning.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Essentially the Bible is a collection of stories, laws, prayers, and all manner of things written by different people at different times so there are bound to be some problems in the accuracy and consistency of the Bible because it was not written directly by God or by someone transcribing for God, like the Koran is understood to have been.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me get this straight, you criticise the bible for being written by a large collection of authors, but not the Koran based on a loose interpretation? That is a bit odd, because it can be equally as argued that the bible is just as divinely inspired as the Koran. Sure, I think a lot of the bible was from very human authors who simply wrote down historical events with their relgious twist on things. If they were inspired by God or a pink elephant on venus is entirely up to faith and or further interpretation.
I just find that a little odd an argument.
And as an amendment to my previous post, it isn't 300,000,000 million insect species, I was trying to say 300 million (with emphases on the million). Unfortunately, I had a brain fart and made a number that is something like 300,000,000,000,000,000 (which would be 300 million million) which is utterly astronomical (and thouroughly impossible).
Talesin, women not included into the holy book? Ever heard of a chick called Ester? She gets an entire book devoted to her. She was a Jew who was one of the kings wives. And she risked her life by asking her husband to spare her people. The woman is man's companion, helper and general alround w00t. The man is to love his wife, and take care of her. In return, she is to respect him (and his position as head of the household) and support him. I cant agree with you there boogle, women are not LESS then men - they are merely given different roles. And it is the mans role to lead.
Paul said that women should only speak when spoken too IN CHURCH. Appearently, these ladies at a certain ancient church had been disrupting the meeting because they constantly asked their husbands questions during the service. It is even possible that they did this deliberately to try and drown out speakers they didnt agree with. They were asked to desist, they didnt. The church told Paul, who they all respected, and he laid the smack down.
Dr. d it is impossible for them to have twisted it - impossible. Because we have THOUSANDS of copies of the scriptures both New and Old Testament, some over 2000 years old (the OT obvious). Many of the NT scripture sources date back to the 2nd Century AD. The church in the beginning was NOT a political organisation, but a small group of people worshipping Christ. And doing so under extreme persecution. And the Bible of today is (apart from translation problems) identical to these ancient scriptures. It would seem that the Bible (in sections, not as a book with a big BIBLE sticker on the front) has come through the ages unscathed, despite the catholics etc. Yet you say that somehow defies logic?
And NO hawkeye, faith and logic do NOT contradict each other. Trying to attack faith with logic is like trying to put a nail in two pieces of wood to hold them together by using napalm. Its impossible, you are using the wrong tool. Faith exists outside of logic, not in contradiction to it. You want to go after faith, use theology. You want to go after logic, grab a textbook.
EDIT Dread the New Testament is NOT the correction of the Old, its the fullfilment. In the Old Testament, it gives instruction on at what age calves are to be castrated. Does that mean that therefore all humans must be castrated at that age? No, because its talking about animals, not humans. In that same respect, many of the Laws in the OT are given to the Jews, not to the Gentiles. To ask why we dont all follow the laws specific to the Jews is illogical. How can we tell the difference between laws in the OT? First off reading it would be a great start. Second of all, I find it no coincidence that despite the fact that God dedicated practically a whole book to giving the Jews their laws and customs, he still decides to hold them up at Mt Sinai in order to give em the Ten Commandments. Nothing in the Ten Commandments wasnt already given to the Jews in (leviticus I think, or Exodus, one of those books anyway). So I think that the Ten Commandments apply to everyone, while a lot of the Jewish law and customs dont. There is gold in those laws and customs tho, which is why they are still in there.
<!--QuoteBegin--Cpl.Davis+Sep 22 2003, 12:20 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cpl.Davis @ Sep 22 2003, 12:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I did a report/presentation on this last year in college. I used the King James version which is the most historically accurate version in terms of translations over time. I had 14 pages of direct qoutes in size 10 font. Everything from tiny "who cares" topics to larger ideas such as murder, sexism, slavery etc
here are some examples.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are we saved through works? Galatians 2:16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ." vs James 2:24 "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are we punished for our parents' sins? Exodus 20:5 "For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." (Repeated in Deuteronomy 5:9) vs Deuteronomy 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Is God peaceable? Romans 15:33 "The God of peace." vs Exodus 15:3 "The Lord is a man of war." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Has anyone seen God? John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time." vs Genesis 32:30 "For I have seen God face to face." Job 42:5 "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are we all sinners? Romans 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one." vs Job 1:1 "There was a man . . . who name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright." Genesis 7:1 "And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation." Luke 1:6 "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How old was Ahaziah? II Kings 8:26 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." vs II Chronicles 22:2 "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When was Jesus crucified? Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour, and they crucified him. vs John 19:14-15 "And about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out . . . crucify him." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I could go on here forever and make this a 10 page reply but I wont. Each example I posted here was only a part of many more under each catagory.
Am I trying to say the Bible or religion is total crap because of this, No. im just pointing out a few of hundreds of points where it just doesnt make up its mind. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> These sorta got lost in the midst of another argument. So I'm bumping them up here. Hopefully Marine01 has had a chance to look over the surounding passages and come up with something.
Edit: Or maybe my sense of time is warped, because these were brought up less than a day ago, so he probably didn't have time... oh well
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Sep 23 2003, 07:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 23 2003, 07:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I cant agree with you there boogle, women are not LESS then men - they are merely given different roles. And it is the mans role to lead. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> i dont agree with myself there, which is why i went on to argue against it later in the post
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->do you honestly think that God is going to stop me from entering heaven because i treat women equally? Its not picking and choosing Gods commands, its called decency and respect.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Sep 22 2003, 10:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Sep 22 2003, 10:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> its called decency and respect. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> decency and respect are changing concepts. They were certainly different 500 years ago and they will be different after 500 hundred years. So basically you(religious people) are tweaking the ideals of Bible how ever you think it fits best the current times.
your respect and decency may be changing, mine isn't.
i am not tweaking the ideals of the bible, i am realising that they were written in a completely different time, place and culture, and Pauls letters especially were written to specific people about specific issues, such as women leading the men astray in church. they are not the important part of the bible. the important part is the message of the gospels, and i am not tweaking that
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Unless you go with St Paul who didn't seem to like women at all<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's nonsensical to read 1 Cor 14:34 as a command of <i>absolute</i> silence, when in the very same latter (11:5) he talks about the conditions for women praying and prophesying in church. Also note how fondly Paul speaks of his female assistants. Portraying him as misogynic is absurd.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin--Twex+Sep 23 2003, 05:59 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Twex @ Sep 23 2003, 05:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's nonsensical to read 1 Cor 14:34 as a command of <i>absolute</i> silence, when in the very same latter (11:5) he talks about the conditions for women praying and prophesying in church. Also note how fondly Paul speaks of his female assistants. Portraying him as misogynic is absurd. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You can speak fondly of your dog, and the importance of cleaning and feeding them, but that doesn't mean you respect your dog.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Sep 23 2003, 06:57 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Sep 23 2003, 06:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> what has that got to do with it?
im sorry, i just dont see how we got from women to dogs so suddenly <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Him speaking fondly about his female assistants, and talking about the conditions under which they can pray in the church, is no proof that he respects women, because the same type of statements could be made about one's pet without any implication of respect.
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Sep 23 2003, 12:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Sep 23 2003, 12:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> your respect and decency may be changing, mine isn't.
i am not tweaking the ideals of the bible, i am realising that they were written in a completely different time, place and culture, and Pauls letters especially were written to specific people about specific issues, such as women leading the men astray in church. they are not the important part of the bible. the important part is the message of the gospels, and i am not tweaking that <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I thought eveything in the Bible was directoly from god, no? And if not, who can say which parts are from god and which parts from normal people? And are you doing _everything_ like it's said in the gospels?
Everything in the Bible is there because God willed it there. Its all devinely inspired. That does NOT translate to - therefore every little instruction given in it must be followed regardless of the target audience of that instruction.
Paul was in prision for a long time. And he was pretty much the most respected member of the Early Church. They looked to him for guidance. While he was in prision, he wrote them letters answering their problems and giving instruction. He wrote a lot, as you would with that amount of time on your hands. Now his letters are in the Bible because God decided they had something to teach us, and read them, they do. Pauls probably my favourite author in the Bible to read.
Anyway, I digress. The point is that his letters aren't there to lay down law, they are there for us to study and learn from. How do we know this? Read it, read the massive dissections people have done on his works.
Now some people find it a bit hard to swallow that Christians get to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they follow to the letter, and those that are merely good learning material. And I can understand that. We even differ amongst ourselves. Take the homosexuality arguement current in the Church. The largest arguement against homosexuals being without sin is a verse which says that homosexual practise is an abomination before God, and anyone following it must be put to death. However, this is in the Old Testament, and surrounded by laws such as "Dont eat pork" etc that Christians dont follow. But it only appears that way at a shallow glance.
There is a reason almost all attacks on Biblical consistency come at a shallow level, at a precursory glance. Because anyone who has actually studied the thing, actually got in there and tried to understand it has found it to be pretty much streamlined. So you can toss a few verses around, leave context to weep in shame, refuse to acknowledge the possibility that the translation might be less than perfect, and you'll be able to walk away convinced that the whole book is a bunch of piffle.
Question like "Who gets to decide which laws are from God and which arent" are really hard to answer, because you really cant understand till you've actually read and studied the thing. There are masses of theological scholars, not necissarily Christian and Jewish, who are absolutely stunned at the coherence and lack of inconsistency that seem almost inevitable given the timespan over which all the books were written, and all the different authors, some of whom had never read the writings of the others.
Oh, and I'm not sure that Paul did respect women. He certainly expressed his admiration of them, and of their usefulness. But its VERY interesting to note that no where in the Bible are men actually ordered to respect their wives. Couple that with the fact that women are specifically told to respect their husbands, and it leaves you wondering. Men are told to love and care for their wives, but not necissarily respect. I really dont know what the Jewish definition of respect is though, so possibly it could be something entirely different.
Oh and skulkbait, I am on those atm. I sent a copy of Davis' report to my Dad whose heavily into Christian apologetics, and also to my Pastor. Unfortunately Dad got confused and ended up sending his reply to Davis. LoL. Anyway from the preliminairy overview, those inconsistencies seem to stem from the use of the King James Bible (its pretty accurate, but its strange language can make inconsistencies seem appearent to modern English speakers). A few others suffer from a serious vitamin "context" deficiency, but quite a few there are still making me wonder - so yeah I'm still looking em up.
I think you can't mistranslate something like "Don't eat pork or I'll bust a lightning in j00 arse"
Now that seems pretty much like a w0rd of god to me. No one can possibly misinterpret it, and yet some christians just ignore it and say "Well, I like pork so it can't be that serious anyway". Hell, couldn't I just say "Well, I like to kill people so I just do that. Those 10 commandments are stupid anyway: like don't lust your neighbours wife? Get a grip d00d, I can't help my feelings".
Many believers first look what law and current society says about the thing, then they look at the bible and if they have to choose between the two, they pick the current society and convince thmeselves that it's actually ment to be interpreted by people how they want. We look in the past and think that it was wrong what was done in the name of bible back then, but has human mind changed that much in couple of hundred years? They interpreted Bible so that it was suitable for them, I think modern people are doing just like that.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Sep 23 2003, 09:11 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 23 2003, 09:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Everything in the Bible is there because God willed it there. Its all devinely inspired. That does NOT translate to - therefore every little instruction given in it must be followed regardless of the target audience of that instruction.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It is my opinion that we as a society have "outgrown" the Bible for lack of a better term. Clearly, we have a much better scientific understanding of how the world works - in terms of natural phenomena and so forth - than what any of the authors had at the time of its conception. As Aegeri has already pointed out, great tales such as that of the Ark, while interesting reading, really do not have much of a leg to stand on when viewed with the cold light of science and reality.
Our technological capabilities have created situations that the bible has no clear cut answer for. It is lacking for any number of issues such as pollution created by industry, space exploration and cloning. I would then argue that the bible might have been accurate for the time period in which it was created but it is no longer accurate for the modern world.
As for whether it was divinely inspired or not, I doubt I could shift any Christian's viewpoint. Let's consider some things though:
i) Many different cultures/religions have a 'creation' story. The one in Genesis is frankly no better an explanation than just about any other story I can think of off-hand. Here's a different viewpoint [URL=african creation]http://www.fandm.edu/departments/Anthropology/Bastian/ANT269/cosmo.html[/URL]
ii) Most religions attempt to explain the world, the Bible is no different.
iii) Sex sells. Seems the Bible is no exception (see Song of Songs).
iv) Many religions have a moral code, the Bible is no exception.
Lastly, if it really was accurate and divinely inspired... why are we having to debate this ? Why is it not clear ? Seems odd that such an important work would be open to interpretation and include so much superfluous material.
So I lied, one more point: The Bible makes mention of putting man above animals (dominion), try explaining that to a lion or a great-white !
You kind of have to manipulate it a bit. Things change, so should that book. I don't think its decent to beat my wife if she dosen't listen, whislt 500+ years ago that might've been ok because the woman wouldn't listen. The only way for the bible to retain its good morals is to change with the times. If it is not treated as a dynamic scripture, then its meaning can be lost.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So I lied, one more point: The Bible makes mention of putting man above animals (dominion), try explaining that to a lion or a great-white ! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah yes, that reminds me. Didn't an apostle (or a saint or something) once baptise a lion? If the beasts of the world are simply slaves to man then why would he do this?
Since when did God allow the slaughtering of animals?
I take it that this is still a sin. Killing anything is a sin.
So a true christian wouldn't eat meat, right? So only a true christian is a vegetarian as well.
Do you see where I'm getting this? Reductum ad absurdum for those of you that know latin. Reduce things to a ridiculous idea, and you can either accept or reject one of my premises.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I thought eveything in the Bible was directoly from god, no?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The Qu'ran claims direct divine authorship, but the Bible doesn't. The words of the Bible were written by humans, giving truthful inspired testimony of their thoughts and experiences. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But its VERY interesting to note that no where in the Bible are men actually ordered to respect their wives. Couple that with the fact that women are specifically told to respect their husbands, and it leaves you wondering. Men are told to love and care for their wives, but not necissarily respect.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But love implies respect, at least in every definition that makes sense. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think you can't mistranslate something like "Don't eat pork or I'll bust a lightning in j00 arse"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The Jewish dietary restrictions were abolished in the New Covenant. That troubled the conscience of early Christians quite a bit, by the way. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is my opinion that we as a society have "outgrown" the Bible for lack of a better term. Clearly, we have a much better scientific understanding of how the world works<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Science is about <i>how</i> the world works, but religion is about <i>why</i> the world works. Science cannot give us a purpose, a meaning or a way to happiness. It's very restricted in its usefulness. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Most religions attempt to explain the world, the Bible is no different.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That many different explanations of a phenomenon exist doesn't mean that they're all true. If you have a patient who has certain symptoms, and you consult ten different doctors, they might give you ten different explanations. Yet nine of the doctors are wrong, and their medicine will not cure the disease. But one doctor is right, and his medicine brings life. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sex sells. Seems the Bible is no exception (see Song of Songs)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It seems you have a vivid fantasy. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The only way for the bible to retain its good morals is to change with the times. If it is not treated as a dynamic scripture, then its meaning can be lost.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The Scripture cannot change. But that doesn't mean our understanding of its meaning cannot grow. That's why wise men study it all the time. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Didn't an apostle (or a saint or something) once baptise a lion?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No. Who spreads such nonsense? <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Since when did God allow the slaughtering of animals?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> He doesn't. Holding dominion implies responsible treatment of your subjects. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I take it that this is still a sin. Killing anything is a sin. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, it isn't. Unlawful murder is a sin. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So a true christian wouldn't eat meat, right?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Christians can eat whatever they want. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do you see where I'm getting this? Reductum ad absurdum for those of you that know latin.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Reduct<b>io</b> ad absurdum. And you need correct premises for it to work.
God gave us dominion. that means we can do what we want with animals - kill them, keep them as pets. (god did say that we shouldnt practice bestiality though) Real christians dont have to be vegitarian. in Acts, Peter was on a roof praying and a whole load of animals came down from heaven, God said "<b>kill</b> and eat"
Comments
Yes, how do you know that someone wasn't just making up stuff? And if it's dictated by god, then shouldn't we all just do EXCACTLY what it says in the bible? And why New and old testament are so different then? Did God suddenly change his mind on several things? God should know everything and hence should have dictated everything right the first time.
/rambling. It's late.
yes
my point exactly
Okay then, if God is all-knowing, are women still simply companions, not worthy of inclusion into a holy book? THERE's a loaded question for you. Basing upon that assumption, was it god that decided they were not important enough to include, or was that a filtration through the fallible human mind? Or are we wrong in our current position of treating females as equal, in this regard?
yes
my point exactly<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What a cop out.
Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
These two contradict each other like black and white, light and day, hot and cold. You're not going be able to resolve this argument EVER.
Assuming scientists found evidence to show that the Bible is complete utter crap, do you think the christians will lose faith?
Conversely, assuming scientists have some sort of "supernatural" phenomenal experience, do you think they will hop on the other foot and say God exists?
No. Faith does not need evidence, so the faithful will never believe anything else. Scientists need evidence, so the scientists will never believe God exists without proof. You're stuck! End of discussion!
ok then, i will charge striaght into the question and answer in such a way as to open up numerous opportunities for debate.
We don't. its called faith
debate
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Okay then, if God is all-knowing, are women still simply companions, not worthy of inclusion into a holy book? THERE's a loaded question for you. Basing upon that assumption, was it god that decided they were not important enough to include, or was that a filtration through the fallible human mind? Or are we wrong in our current position of treating females as equal, in this regard?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yes, there is a loaded question. Its a very good question. Women were created as companions to men. Women are mentioned in the bible. some of them even have a whole book about them. if you had read my post you would see that women do not carry the family line, men do. It is therefore only important to a jew of that time to know the men in his family, hence the women were not mentioned. Does this mean that women are not important? of course not. what a foolish question. of course they are. without them, we would not be here. are they more important than men? no. are men more important that women just becasue man was created first? no. Are men and women equal? Yes
Unless you go with St Paul who didn't seem to like women at all, yet you say wrote with God dictating.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or in <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even though Adam and Eve have fallen God still commands women to be subjects of their husbands.
Or in <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1 Timothy 2:11-13 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So with all these writers being dictated to by God in what they wrote, you are picking which of God's teachings you follow? Or could it be that each person was writing their own point of view on the subject?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well I'm trying to defend the Bible without "Well, he is God so he could make it happen in definace of everything logic tells us" because that is an arguement purely from Faith. And its impossible to argue against faith. And thats what this thread is for, friendly arguementation or discussion.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It would seem that that argument is not good enough for this thread Z.X. Bogglesteinsky.
fine.
Women are less than men. they should only speak when spoken to and should only leave the house when absolutely necessary.
there we go. God's word is just as true and correct today as it was 2000 years ago
do you honestly think that God is going to stop me from entering heaven because i treat women equally? Its not picking and choosing Gods commands, its called decency and respect.
The women in the corinthian church were leading the congregation away from God. Paul told them to make sure that that didnt happen
in Genesis, that was becasue it was Eve who was originally tempted by the devil, and had fallen. if God was to maintain his perfect fairness, she had to be punished as much as (if not more than) the man
in timothy, it is the same as in corinthians (written by the same person btw) Adam was created before Eve.
let me get back to you on this one.
If this was brought up earlier sorry, but to those of you saying the Church never had the power to manipulate and change the bible I point to the mid 1400's when most of Europe was Catholic by law, and the Church was in charge and not just a religious body. During this time education was restricted almost completely to religious teaching, and the people in charge of the production of the Bibles were European Catholics and could give a damn what ancient Hebrews thought about how they translated it. A lot of educated people were exiled from Europe into Islamic nations during this time because they refused to accept Catholic doctrine (1492 3/4 of Jews exiled from Spain), leaving for the most part slightly less educated complacent people to accept the doctrine and the traditions that the Church dictated, and unfortunately it is form this time that most Catholic traditions are upheld today.
After years of rampant corruption by the Catholic Church around 1517 Martin Luther finally broke away from the Church and created his own Protestant movement and the bible was translated for the first time into different languages. The Protestant movement was shortly followed up by the Calvinist movement and several others, all of which were very political in nature and all of which rebelled against oppressive Catholic views, each movement made their own translations of the Bible. Now in between hundreds of years of war, oppression, destructions of libraries, raiding of villages, conversion of faiths, and the general splintering of Christianity how the Bible could stay completely unaltered is beyond any logical reasoning.
Let me get this straight, you criticise the bible for being written by a large collection of authors, but not the Koran based on a loose interpretation? That is a bit odd, because it can be equally as argued that the bible is just as divinely inspired as the Koran. Sure, I think a lot of the bible was from very human authors who simply wrote down historical events with their relgious twist on things. If they were inspired by God or a pink elephant on venus is entirely up to faith and or further interpretation.
I just find that a little odd an argument.
And as an amendment to my previous post, it isn't 300,000,000 million insect species, I was trying to say 300 million (with emphases on the million). Unfortunately, I had a brain fart and made a number that is something like 300,000,000,000,000,000 (which would be 300 million million) which is utterly astronomical (and thouroughly impossible).
So ummm...oops D:
Paul said that women should only speak when spoken too IN CHURCH. Appearently, these ladies at a certain ancient church had been disrupting the meeting because they constantly asked their husbands questions during the service. It is even possible that they did this deliberately to try and drown out speakers they didnt agree with. They were asked to desist, they didnt. The church told Paul, who they all respected, and he laid the smack down.
Dr. d it is impossible for them to have twisted it - impossible. Because we have THOUSANDS of copies of the scriptures both New and Old Testament, some over 2000 years old (the OT obvious). Many of the NT scripture sources date back to the 2nd Century AD. The church in the beginning was NOT a political organisation, but a small group of people worshipping Christ. And doing so under extreme persecution. And the Bible of today is (apart from translation problems) identical to these ancient scriptures. It would seem that the Bible (in sections, not as a book with a big BIBLE sticker on the front) has come through the ages unscathed, despite the catholics etc. Yet you say that somehow defies logic?
And NO hawkeye, faith and logic do NOT contradict each other. Trying to attack faith with logic is like trying to put a nail in two pieces of wood to hold them together by using napalm. Its impossible, you are using the wrong tool. Faith exists outside of logic, not in contradiction to it. You want to go after faith, use theology. You want to go after logic, grab a textbook.
EDIT Dread the New Testament is NOT the correction of the Old, its the fullfilment. In the Old Testament, it gives instruction on at what age calves are to be castrated. Does that mean that therefore all humans must be castrated at that age? No, because its talking about animals, not humans. In that same respect, many of the Laws in the OT are given to the Jews, not to the Gentiles. To ask why we dont all follow the laws specific to the Jews is illogical. How can we tell the difference between laws in the OT? First off reading it would be a great start. Second of all, I find it no coincidence that despite the fact that God dedicated practically a whole book to giving the Jews their laws and customs, he still decides to hold them up at Mt Sinai in order to give em the Ten Commandments. Nothing in the Ten Commandments wasnt already given to the Jews in (leviticus I think, or Exodus, one of those books anyway). So I think that the Ten Commandments apply to everyone, while a lot of the Jewish law and customs dont. There is gold in those laws and customs tho, which is why they are still in there.
I had 14 pages of direct qoutes in size 10 font.
Everything from tiny "who cares" topics to larger ideas such as murder, sexism, slavery etc
here are some examples.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are we saved through works?
Galatians 2:16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ."
vs
James 2:24 "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are we punished for our parents' sins?
Exodus 20:5 "For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." (Repeated in Deuteronomy 5:9)
vs
Deuteronomy 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Is God peaceable?
Romans 15:33 "The God of peace."
vs
Exodus 15:3 "The Lord is a man of war." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Has anyone seen God?
John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time."
vs
Genesis 32:30 "For I have seen God face to face."
Job 42:5 "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are we all sinners?
Romans 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one."
vs
Job 1:1 "There was a man . . . who name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright."
Genesis 7:1 "And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation."
Luke 1:6 "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How old was Ahaziah?
II Kings 8:26 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign."
vs
II Chronicles 22:2 "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When was Jesus crucified?
Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
vs
John 19:14-15 "And about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out . . . crucify him." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I could go on here forever and make this a 10 page reply but I wont.
Each example I posted here was only a part of many more under each catagory.
Am I trying to say the Bible or religion is total crap because of this, No. im just pointing out a few of hundreds of points where it just doesnt make up its mind. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These sorta got lost in the midst of another argument. So I'm bumping them up here. Hopefully Marine01 has had a chance to look over the surounding passages and come up with something.
Edit: Or maybe my sense of time is warped, because these were brought up less than a day ago, so he probably didn't have time... oh well
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
i dont agree with myself there, which is why i went on to argue against it later in the post
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->do you honestly think that God is going to stop me from entering heaven because i treat women equally? Its not picking and choosing Gods commands, its called decency and respect.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
see?
decency and respect are changing concepts. They were certainly different 500 years ago and they will be different after 500 hundred years. So basically you(religious people) are tweaking the ideals of Bible how ever you think it fits best the current times.
People who do that are kind of pseudo-believers.
i am not tweaking the ideals of the bible, i am realising that they were written in a completely different time, place and culture, and Pauls letters especially were written to specific people about specific issues, such as women leading the men astray in church. they are not the important part of the bible. the important part is the message of the gospels, and i am not tweaking that
It's nonsensical to read 1 Cor 14:34 as a command of <i>absolute</i> silence, when in the very same latter (11:5) he talks about the conditions for women praying and prophesying in church. Also note how fondly Paul speaks of his female assistants. Portraying him as misogynic is absurd.
You can speak fondly of your dog, and the importance of cleaning and feeding them, but that doesn't mean you respect your dog.
im sorry, i just dont see how we got from women to dogs so suddenly
im sorry, i just dont see how we got from women to dogs so suddenly <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Him speaking fondly about his female assistants, and talking about the conditions under which they can pray in the church, is no proof that he respects women, because the same type of statements could be made about one's pet without any implication of respect.
i am not tweaking the ideals of the bible, i am realising that they were written in a completely different time, place and culture, and Pauls letters especially were written to specific people about specific issues, such as women leading the men astray in church. they are not the important part of the bible. the important part is the message of the gospels, and i am not tweaking that <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought eveything in the Bible was directoly from god, no? And if not, who can say which parts are from god and which parts from normal people? And are you doing _everything_ like it's said in the gospels?
Paul was in prision for a long time. And he was pretty much the most respected member of the Early Church. They looked to him for guidance. While he was in prision, he wrote them letters answering their problems and giving instruction. He wrote a lot, as you would with that amount of time on your hands. Now his letters are in the Bible because God decided they had something to teach us, and read them, they do. Pauls probably my favourite author in the Bible to read.
Anyway, I digress. The point is that his letters aren't there to lay down law, they are there for us to study and learn from. How do we know this? Read it, read the massive dissections people have done on his works.
Now some people find it a bit hard to swallow that Christians get to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they follow to the letter, and those that are merely good learning material. And I can understand that. We even differ amongst ourselves. Take the homosexuality arguement current in the Church. The largest arguement against homosexuals being without sin is a verse which says that homosexual practise is an abomination before God, and anyone following it must be put to death. However, this is in the Old Testament, and surrounded by laws such as "Dont eat pork" etc that Christians dont follow. But it only appears that way at a shallow glance.
There is a reason almost all attacks on Biblical consistency come at a shallow level, at a precursory glance. Because anyone who has actually studied the thing, actually got in there and tried to understand it has found it to be pretty much streamlined. So you can toss a few verses around, leave context to weep in shame, refuse to acknowledge the possibility that the translation might be less than perfect, and you'll be able to walk away convinced that the whole book is a bunch of piffle.
Question like "Who gets to decide which laws are from God and which arent" are really hard to answer, because you really cant understand till you've actually read and studied the thing. There are masses of theological scholars, not necissarily Christian and Jewish, who are absolutely stunned at the coherence and lack of inconsistency that seem almost inevitable given the timespan over which all the books were written, and all the different authors, some of whom had never read the writings of the others.
Oh, and I'm not sure that Paul did respect women. He certainly expressed his admiration of them, and of their usefulness. But its VERY interesting to note that no where in the Bible are men actually ordered to respect their wives. Couple that with the fact that women are specifically told to respect their husbands, and it leaves you wondering. Men are told to love and care for their wives, but not necissarily respect. I really dont know what the Jewish definition of respect is though, so possibly it could be something entirely different.
Oh and skulkbait, I am on those atm. I sent a copy of Davis' report to my Dad whose heavily into Christian apologetics, and also to my Pastor. Unfortunately Dad got confused and ended up sending his reply to Davis. LoL. Anyway from the preliminairy overview, those inconsistencies seem to stem from the use of the King James Bible (its pretty accurate, but its strange language can make inconsistencies seem appearent to modern English speakers). A few others suffer from a serious vitamin "context" deficiency, but quite a few there are still making me wonder - so yeah I'm still looking em up.
Now that seems pretty much like a w0rd of god to me. No one can possibly misinterpret it, and yet some christians just ignore it and say "Well, I like pork so it can't be that serious anyway". Hell, couldn't I just say "Well, I like to kill people so I just do that. Those 10 commandments are stupid anyway: like don't lust your neighbours wife? Get a grip d00d, I can't help my feelings".
Many believers first look what law and current society says about the thing, then they look at the bible and if they have to choose between the two, they pick the current society and convince thmeselves that it's actually ment to be interpreted by people how they want. We look in the past and think that it was wrong what was done in the name of bible back then, but has human mind changed that much in couple of hundred years? They interpreted Bible so that it was suitable for them, I think modern people are doing just like that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is my opinion that we as a society have "outgrown" the Bible for lack of a better term. Clearly, we have a much better scientific understanding of how the world works - in terms of natural phenomena and so forth - than what any of the authors had at the time of its conception. As Aegeri has already pointed out, great tales such as that of the Ark, while interesting reading, really do not have much of a leg to stand on when viewed with the cold light of science and reality.
Our technological capabilities have created situations that the bible has no clear cut answer for. It is lacking for any number of issues such as pollution created by industry, space exploration and cloning. I would then argue that the bible might have been accurate for the time period in which it was created but it is no longer accurate for the modern world.
As for whether it was divinely inspired or not, I doubt I could shift any Christian's viewpoint. Let's consider some things though:
i) Many different cultures/religions have a 'creation' story. The one in Genesis is frankly no better an explanation than just about any other story I can think of off-hand. Here's a different viewpoint
[URL=african creation]http://www.fandm.edu/departments/Anthropology/Bastian/ANT269/cosmo.html[/URL]
ii) Most religions attempt to explain the world, the Bible is no different.
iii) Sex sells. Seems the Bible is no exception (see Song of Songs).
iv) Many religions have a moral code, the Bible is no exception.
Lastly, if it really was accurate and divinely inspired... why are we having to debate this ? Why is it not clear ? Seems odd that such an important work would be open to interpretation and include so much superfluous material.
So I lied, one more point: The Bible makes mention of putting man above animals (dominion), try explaining that to a lion or a great-white !
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah yes, that reminds me. Didn't an apostle (or a saint or something) once baptise a lion? If the beasts of the world are simply slaves to man then why would he do this?
I take it that this is still a sin. Killing anything is a sin.
So a true christian wouldn't eat meat, right?
So only a true christian is a vegetarian as well.
Do you see where I'm getting this? Reductum ad absurdum for those of you that know latin.
Reduce things to a ridiculous idea, and you can either accept or reject one of my premises.
The Qu'ran claims direct divine authorship, but the Bible doesn't. The words of the Bible were written by humans, giving truthful inspired testimony of their thoughts and experiences.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But its VERY interesting to note that no where in the Bible are men actually ordered to respect their wives. Couple that with the fact that women are specifically told to respect their husbands, and it leaves you wondering. Men are told to love and care for their wives, but not necissarily respect.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But love implies respect, at least in every definition that makes sense.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think you can't mistranslate something like "Don't eat pork or I'll bust a lightning in j00 arse"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Jewish dietary restrictions were abolished in the New Covenant. That troubled the conscience of early Christians quite a bit, by the way.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is my opinion that we as a society have "outgrown" the Bible for lack of a better term. Clearly, we have a much better scientific understanding of how the world works<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Science is about <i>how</i> the world works, but religion is about <i>why</i> the world works. Science cannot give us a purpose, a meaning or a way to happiness. It's very restricted in its usefulness.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Most religions attempt to explain the world, the Bible is no different.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That many different explanations of a phenomenon exist doesn't mean that they're all true. If you have a patient who has certain symptoms, and you consult ten different doctors, they might give you ten different explanations. Yet nine of the doctors are wrong, and their medicine will not cure the disease. But one doctor is right, and his medicine brings life.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sex sells. Seems the Bible is no exception (see Song of Songs)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It seems you have a vivid fantasy. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The only way for the bible to retain its good morals is to change with the times. If it is not treated as a dynamic scripture, then its meaning can be lost.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Scripture cannot change. But that doesn't mean our understanding of its meaning cannot grow. That's why wise men study it all the time.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Didn't an apostle (or a saint or something) once baptise a lion?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. Who spreads such nonsense?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Since when did God allow the slaughtering of animals?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He doesn't. Holding dominion implies responsible treatment of your subjects.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I take it that this is still a sin. Killing anything is a sin. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, it isn't. Unlawful murder is a sin.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So a true christian wouldn't eat meat, right?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Christians can eat whatever they want.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do you see where I'm getting this? Reductum ad absurdum for those of you that know latin.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Reduct<b>io</b> ad absurdum. And you need correct premises for it to work.