The Bible is 100% true and to be read literally

That's awfully convenient. So if something doesn't look right, it can be dismissed as a seeming contradiction or a trick to snare the proud. What that means is that even if there WERE a contradiction there would be no way to establish it.

The fact of the matter is, you didn't assert that the bible was 100% correct, you asserted it was 100% literal. And yet you have already spoken for figurative meanings of selective verses. To be consistent, you don't need to give up believing the bible is right... you just need to acknowledge that in some places it isn't literal. It's hard to do because it's difficult for a person to admit that they might be wrong about something... which can happen if a part of the Bible doesn't have an exact meaning to lord over another one's opinion... it's a frightening realization for the insecure, but a virtuously humble choice to make that the bible might mean something besides what YOU think it means.
 
jesus_freak said:
The godly base their confidence on two truths: 1) “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16); and 2) an elementary rule of Scripture is that God has deliberately included seeming contradictions in His Word to “snare” the proud. He has “hidden” things from the “wise and prudent” and “revealed them to babes” (Luke 10:21), purposely choosing foolish things to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27).
Click to expand...

So your lack of pride, wisdom and prudence allows you to understand the Bible? Why would your god limit his message to only those people who lack these qualities?
 
If I started a thread claiming to be able to answer questions on the legitimacy of my beliefs, I imagine I would have at least made one decent response by this point.
 
jesus_freak said:
Luk 23:46And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost

Whats your point?or are you gonna change the question for the third time and make me answer it again untill you get what you want me to say?
Click to expand...


None one of these then?


Matthew 27:46

About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" - which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

John 19:30

When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.



I mean, I'm no bible scholar, but this does seem a little contradictory?
 
JF, here are some things I talked about in a post in the evolution topic.

Okay, you've made the choice to believe the Bible literally.
(Obviously many people who have the same info as you do, including Biblical scholars, did NOT make that choice. There are many Christians who do not take Genesis literally or who do not take any part of the Bible literally, as well as many people who are religious but not Christian, and many people who are not religious at all. So the contents of the Bible do NOT compell most people to believe it literally - at some point you have made a choice that is not based on overwhelmingly compelling information. I just wanted to say that.)

Okay, so you've chosen to believe Genesis literally. But there isn't a whole lot of detail about how God actually created the plants and animals. No morphological, physiological, genetic comments in there. He just did it without sharing His process. So you don't have any idea HOW He did it. (And no human was there to observe and take notes.)

Also there is Job, chapter 38, where God says, "Where wast thou when I laid down the foundations of the earth?" and so on. It seems to me that a Bible believer would need a lot of pride, a lot of hubris, to second-guess God about HOW he created the earth and the animals and plants. (non-literal-Bible-believers don't have this issue, of course.) You insist that science is wrong, is trash, is contemptous nonsense that even a child would laugh at, because it measures the earth and its creatures and comes up with a time estimate that disagrees with what YOU THINK a creation according to the BIble should look like. Aren't you second-guessing the Creator here? Aren't you assuming that YOU, puny mortal, know just how He created the lion and the lamb? Were you there when He (according to your belief) laid down the foundations of the earth? Why don't you just look in awe at the way it ACTUALLY IS?

If you believe in the omnipotence of God, surely you believe He could have created the earth and its creatures in one week but with any appearance He chose? All you have to do to keep your literal belief is to say that for whatever Divine reason, the earth appears to be billions of years old, according to the meaurements of science, and that the species of animals and plants and people appear to have evolved from earlier life-forms.

Why do your creationist friends fall back on lies and distortions and strawmen to make their arguments in order to claim that the earth looks the way THEY THINK God (being a sensible fellow) must have created it? Isn't that hubris? And why do creationist Christians, who should be in dread of breaking the ten commandants, find it so comfortable to use lies and distortions to try to convince the public that the science of evolution is without basis? Isn't that 'bearing false witness'
JF, are you comfortable with them using lies and distortions?
 
Last edited:
jesus_freak said:
The original is going to be the most accurate obviously,
Click to expand...

You really didn't have a look at anything I posted for you, did you. The original what? In what form? With which bits added or subtracted?

To match your thread title "The Bible is 100% true and to be read literally" please let us know how your Ancient Greek and/or your Hebrew/Aramaic skills are.

Which of these old languages should be compulsory so that "the original" can be read?

jesus_freak said:
I do not believe that my KJV is as accurate but it is the MOST accurate.
Click to expand...

"MOST accurate"?

You have contradicted yourself in one sentence.

How can both the "original" AND the KJV be the "MOST accurate"?

As usual with your ilk you have failed to answer just about every sensible question asked of you.

You have failed in this thread (and others) to meet any question with appropriate evidence.

You have failed to answer any question with appropriate evidence from outside the bible.

You have failed to answer any question with appropriate evidence from inside the bible.

You can't even decide which or even what is the MOST accurate of your supposed inerrant fairy tales.

You are obviously completely unsure of what you believe in away from what a person-on-the-pulpit has told you.

Don't expect anyone to believe you when you have no evidence inside or outside of the bible to support any of your assertions.

Finally. Your assumption that we are all Trekkies is pathetic and insulting. I, like many here, were once as convinced in our beliefs as you pretend to be.

That changed.

I will finish with a quote (paraphrased?) from a great man:

"Read the goddamn Bible!
We need more atheists..."

.
 
jesus_freak said:
God gets mad at people like you that fall for Satans tricks because he sent his only Son to die for you so that you could have etenal life but you are not willing to see admit that...it's like you have closed your eyes and coplain because you can not see!
Click to expand...
You'd be better off putting your wang in a blender than bringing that style of argument on the road. This is a tough room. Your punchlines aren't up to scratch.

DR
 
God gets mad at people like you that fall for Satans tricks because he sent his only Son to die for you so that you could have etenal life but you are not willing to see admit that...it's like you have closed your eyes and coplain because you can not see!
Click to expand...

jesus_freak said:
The godly base their confidence on two truths: 1) “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16); and 2) an elementary rule of Scripture is that God has deliberately included seeming contradictions in His Word to “snare” the proud. He has “hidden” things from the “wise and prudent” and “revealed them to babes” (Luke 10:21), purposely choosing foolish things to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27).
Click to expand...
Satan's tricks bad, God's tricks good. Check.

Oh, and what is the point of God snaring the proud with his seeming contradictions? Is he trying to send us into the arms of Satan? This God of yours sure practices a tough love.
 
Last edited:
hgc said:
Satan's tricks bad, God's tricks good. Check.
Click to expand...
That seems to be consistent, if you go by definitions. Satan is Evil and God is Good, so it should follow that Satan's tricks are bad, and God's tricks are good, based on their source.

Mary Magdalene's tricks, on the other hand, cost a few sheckels before she left the oldest profession . . .

DR
 
Hey, some of you guys are really derailing this thread into silliness. jesus_freak, let me go back to the age of Ahaziah. Clearly, this is a contradiction in the original text. For the Old Testament, there are basically only two texts, one in Hebrew, one in Greek. The Greek is actually older, but it was translated from a Hebrew text now lost to us and we have to rely on copies of the translation. The Hebrew text all comes from one particular piece of parchment (it was kept in the temple at Jerusalem) and it was checked with letter counts and the like, so we have a pretty good idea what was on that one piece of parchment. That particular parchment is long gone, though.

There are some other old pieces of parchment, some as old as the temple parchment, and they do have some differences.

Most Protestant Old Testaments are based on this Hebrew document, known as the Masoretic text. Some Jews (and Christians) believe the Masoretic text is an accurate transcript of words that were dictated by God. In any case, there is no doubt that there is a mistake in the text here.

You can't get around it, without resorting to "mysteries" and conjectures like "he reigned twice" which are completely contradicted by the rest of the text.

So I'd like you to clarify your feelings on this. I freely admit that this could be a simple typo (sans typewriter, of course) but it does pretty much throw the whole question of Bible inerrancy into question. There are many such errors in the Bible. Many of them could just be typos, but others are clearly not typos. Before we start talking about those sorts of errors, lets start with this sort of error--the obvious typo.
 
For the rest of you guys:

Since Cain et al lived thousands of years, Cain's wife could have been a sister, niece, grand niece, great grand niece, etc. etc. At some time brothers and sisters would have had incestuous sex, but this is the Bible--worse things are routinely excused.

Mary Magdelene was never a prostitute. In some of the early Gnostic Christian sects she was actually revered almost as much as Jesus. It is speculated that the identification of Mary with various prostitutes mentioned in the gospels was an attempt to suppress the idea of male/female equality, which was central to some gnostic doctrine.
 
ChristineR said:
Mary Magdelene was never a prostitute. In some of the early Gnostic Christian sects she was actually revered almost as much as Jesus. It is speculated that the identification of Mary with various prostitutes mentioned in the gospels was an attempt to suppress the idea of male/female equality, which was central to some gnostic doctrine.
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing, Dan. Or is it Elaine?

Raining on my little joke scores you zero points. :p

DR
 
ChristineR said:
Since Cain et al lived thousands of years, Cain's wife could have been a sister, niece, grand niece, great grand niece, etc. etc. At some time brothers and sisters would have had incestuous sex, but this is the Bible--worse things are routinely excused.
Click to expand...

A Nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat....Nudge-nudge... East of Eden...Know-what-I-mean....Wink-wink....Abel..Eh!...Eh!!!...Abel? I bet she was...I BET she was...Nudge-nudge.


.
 
hgc said:
Satan's tricks bad, God's tricks good. Check.

Oh, and what is the point of God snaring the proud with his seeming contradictions? Is he trying to send us into the arms of Satan? This God of yours sure practices a tough love.
Click to expand...

Book of Job anyone?:)
 
So, therefore...

RenaissanceBiker said:
So your lack of pride, wisdom and prudence allows you to understand the Bible? Why would your god limit his message to only those people who lack these qualities?
Click to expand...

If Timothy is literally correct, God does not want people to gain or use wisdom, prudence, or intelligence. Your God wants us to remain dumb, obedient sheep and cattle, who cannot think for themselves, and merely obey orders without question and function dumbly by rote.

Sounds like the management techniques of dictators, like Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Salazar, Charles Manson, Jim Jones, Jimmy Bakker, are we seeing a pattern here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom