The Bible is 100% true and to be read literally

[chris epic]

Sorry but no it is Satan that causes you to sin!

Wow, and you haven't read the bible either... no, you're quoting...nevermind, you're just clueless.

Satan tempts, he causes nothing
God guides, he forces no one

Humans have free will: they can be tempted either way, but they choose in the end. They choose to walk in the fulness of God's plan or walk away.

Hey- this is elementary bible stuff, what the hell are you talking about?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I don't know he is still alive, He doesn't talk to me sorry!

Well that stripped a few cogs in my English parser machine!

 

[Darth Rotor]

For Heaven's sake, Brother Chris, try proofreading. It makes you more credible when you present yourself with a modicum of precision. While this should be a PM, this is the fifth page of chum in the water, so here goes.

*shakes head*

Far be it from me to judge anybody's personal walk with God, but with YOU, I'm not going to make any excuses for myself.

A Marine Gunny once told me that it is best to commend in public, but reprove in private. You spelled all of that correctly. Well done.

I see not an ounce of "love" from you in any way. Your attitude is the very antithesis of Christ's teachings, you know, the lesson on the "fulfillment of the law," the law summarized into two comandments: loving God and loving others.

Still going strong on message, not on style, and the Gunny would be grinding his teeth.

I just don't see it. In you I see a critical person that would rather be right than be compassionate. The bottom line is that the book which the bible is printed in and reproduced in a factory, and sold for as much as $100 is only a conduit for "the Word." Why?

*looks up into the air*
Sorry Gunny, I'm gonna break form. I will drop and give you fifty when I am done.
A critical person who, not a critical person that.

Because St Paul talks about how Christians will be challenged and how their revelations of "truth" seem like "foolishness" to the minds of men.

The Because makes this gramatically incorrect, but your message is still doing well.

That's because, like the printed book that preachers read from, the minds of men are of the flesh, a conduit for the Spirit. Only by the Spirit can people receive devine revelation. So, no, I don't trust a word in the bible.

Try "divine" and the Bible. Brother Chris, if you don't trust a word in the Bible, why do you read it, and then quote the Greatest Commandment as related by Jesus in the Gospels: "To love thy God, and to love thy neighbor as thyself?" If you don't trust the words, what's going on here? I think some of the words are pretty darned good.

Again, Brother Chris, coherence is aided by proofreading. It allows you to catch your own mistakes. (Trust me, I learned this by botching many posts, on many forums.) Use the Preview button, it is your friend.

I would go so far as to say that anyone who says a reproduced "bible" is the infallable word of God is an idolator.

in·fal·li·ble[in-fal-uh-buhl] adj 1. absolutely trustworthy or sure: an infallible rule.

I had not considered that take on it, but find your idolatry remark interesting. Thanks for that.

God isn't going to renig his gift of free will so he can enslave a bunch of guys to write the truth down and reprint it over and over again.

renege \rih-NIG; -NEG\, vi: to go back on a promise or commitment.

People are infallable- people wrote those words- people printed them and bound them, left them in hotel rooms or sold them for rediculous amounts of money.

You meant to say people are fallible. Your post is good evidence of that. So are many of mine.

The word of God cant be purchased. And you are going to get anywhere telling anybody anything different, especially in a forum for SKEPTICS!

The apostrophe is your friend.

Are you winning any souls with your cause? No, I would surmount that you're driving them away, so what the hell is your problem?

You wanted to say "surmise." Perhaps you are speaking in tongues? As to problems, Brother Chris, this lambasting probably needed to be via PM, as you have now given your ideological foe a source innocent merriment: two Christians disagreeing on a Skeptic's Forum over Scripture, and both arguing with the wit of eighth graders. Way to witness, guys, the both of you.

This is well played, in terms of entertainment value provided, but not for your mission.

St Paul NEVER said his letters were the infallable word of God, remember that, too.

I don't think he ever doubted the Truth of what he wrote. A True Believer, that was the Apostle Paul.

Believing that the Bible is "the living word" is just like believing that the Eucharist really is the process of wine and bread turning into the flesh and blood of Christ, and that is something that protestants just dont buy (which I'm assuming you are).

A Catholic may stuff that one up your arse, but your guess is probably correct. Protestant is capitalized, Brother Chris.

Good luck with your engagement of legalizim, its futilty at its best.

Legalism. It is futility = it's futility.

I suggest you get a field dressing, and bandage your foot. You just shot it, Brother Chris.

I sometimes get insights into why Jesus wept.

I owe the Gunny fifty. I am too old for this, it's gonna hurt.

*drops, and begins the push ups*

DR

 

[NobbyNobbs]

My personal favourite....

The Brick Testament

Definitely the best as the most repugnant, immoral, violent, sadistic, misogynistic, pro-slave, petulant and vile parts are easier to stomach with little Lego men.

That link was absolutely awesome.

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?

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).

Just a thought here. Isn't knowledge of the true meaning of the bible a source of pride? And since it is a source of pride, then haven't you been snared?

So understanding the bible=falling for God's tricks.

Satan created the bible just to deceive you. That's why there are so many errors and contradictions.

I have a related story on this. Way, way back when i was in 10th grade, we had a world history class. Part of learning world history was learning about world religions. Each Friday during one semester, the teacher would bring in a different religious leader. We had a rabbi, a Baptist minister, a Buddhist priest, etc.

One day, he brought in a Fundamentalist. We learned that they believe the literal word of the bible. So after class I, the pain-in-the-a$$-science-geek, went up to ask a question. Here's the approximate conversation:

Me: So you believe the world was created 6000 years ago?
Preacher-Man: Yes, that's right.
Me: Then what about all the fossils that are millions of years old?
Preacher-Man: The Bible is Truth, and the fossils were put here by God to confuse man.

Now, I could have asked why God would want to confuse his creation. Instead, I thought for a moment and said....

Me: Isn't it more likely that the fossils are truth and the bible was put here by God to confuse man?

Preacher-Man turned red in the face and said "That's not how it is! That's not how it is!", getting louder and redder as he went. That's all he could say. Spittle flew from his mouth. I flew from the room.

 

[Wowbagger]

Anyone attempting to refute the interpretation of bible verses, with other bible verses, is not really getting to the point. It's like refuting one person's opinions of favorite ice cream flavors with other opinions of favorite ice cream flavors. Anyone can make anything mean whatever they want.

We can deduce that the biblical stories are not really 100% true, on the basis of other things: The documented evolution of its textual content; geographic, archeological, and biological evidence; the fact that all those amazing miracles of god no longer seem to happen: If Mr. God really had all those powers, why doesn't he use them anymore?; and the simple fact that people are interpreting the text in different ways: The more ways a story is told, the harder it becomes to know which one is the "true" one. There is no basis for deciding other than "It was the interpretation I was brought up to believe".
I'm sure there are other reasons people could give.

 

[skeptifem]

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).

lol that god is such a kidder!

ok, Here is a whopper of a contradiction.

The ten commandments tell us not to kill,
yet god tells us to kill people for all kinds of minor things, like breaking the sabbath.

 

[hgc]

Anyone attempting to refute the interpretation of bible verses, with other bible verses, is not really getting to the point. It's like refuting one person's opinions of favorite ice cream flavors with other opinions of favorite ice cream flavors. Anyone can make anything mean whatever they want.

We can deduce that the biblical stories are not really 100% true, on the basis of other things: The documented evolution of its textual content; geographic, archeological, and biological evidence; the fact that all those amazing miracles of god no longer seem to happen: If Mr. God really had all those powers, why doesn't he use them anymore?; and the simple fact that people are interpreting the text in different ways: The more ways a story is told, the harder it becomes to know which one is the "true" one. There is no basis for deciding other than "It was the interpretation I was brought up to believe".
I'm sure there are other reasons people could give.

All that makes sense, but you're missing a crucial factor. Many adherents to a bible literalism are little impressed by the evidentiary nature of these external factors. This information has always been readily available, and to ignore is it a tendency of character and not due a lack of information. Primacy is given to the Word. So if internally contradicted Word-bites can be found, then you at least have data on both sides of equal validity to the believer. As we've seen, though, this is no new challenge, and answers are either ready-at-hand or a practiced apologist can invent them on cue.

(The above generalization does not necessarily apply to any specific individual posting here, nor do I pretend to know to what portion of bible literalists it applies.)

 

[chris epic]

I sometimes get insights into why Jesus wept.

I owe the Gunny fifty. I am too old for this, it's gonna hurt.

*drops, and begins the push ups*

DR

That was awesome

Brother Darth, what makes you think I'm Christian? I'm just showing the Freak Correct Christianity

 

[jesus_freak]

I like this one regarding Judas' death, however, and how you try to reconcile it. Would you like to start another thread where THIS topic --and this topic alone ("Judas' Death") is covered? I can't reply every time there is a new post; I have a busy life outside this forum, but I promise to give the topic the attention it deserves if you are patient enough to bear with me

The Greek word translated "hanged himself" is the word apanchomai which is used in Greek literature to mean choking or squeezing one's self as with great emotion or grief. In English we have a similar expression when we say that someone is "all choked up." We do not mean that they have died. We mean that they are overcome with emotion. Judas cast down the pieces of silver in the temple and left doubling himself over with grief.
from http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.html

 

[skeptifem]

Tony, did you two rehearse this, your Larry to his Moe?

DR

I lol'd

 

[prewitt81]

If we're still on the 100% correct part, can anyone reconcile 1 Cor. 15 with Gal. 1?

In Corinthians, Paul says he is passing on what he has been preached from the scripture. In Galatians, he says that he did not receive his gospel from man.

Paul couldn't have really said both of these things.

Also, if you try to justify this, don't stick with the English translation. The words in Corinthians are paralambanein and paradidonai. They indicate a receiving and then a passing on of tradition.

(Thanks to Dr. Robert Price and this article.)

 

[Kopji]

The Greek word translated "hanged himself" is the word apanchomai which is used in Greek literature to mean choking or squeezing one's self as with great emotion or grief. In English we have a similar expression when we say that someone is "all choked up." We do not mean that they have died. We mean that they are overcome with emotion. Judas cast down the pieces of silver in the temple and left doubling himself over with grief.
from http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.html

And the rest of the quote:

A check of the lexicons shows that such a meaning is indeed possible, but I found only one actual example listed -- the vast majority of the meanings given were for a physical hanging; there was only one example of a figurative meaning as described. So I would say that this is a possible solution, but not likely.

Falling and having your bowels gush out seems more likely to be associated with the hanging idea.

 

[Kopji]

Humm, I should try and contribute something. How about something a little more abstract?

The following is commonly quoted as ironclad evidence of a true prophet:

...When a PROPHET SPEAKETH IN THE NAME OF THE LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath NOT spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptyously: thou shalt no be afraid of him," (Deuteronomy 18:21-22).

If Christians deny this passage is a litmus test of prophetic utterances they are liars, I've had most of a lifetime hearing false prophet this or that.

But in Jonah, God makes a liar out of Jonah and relents:

Jonah 3:10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened.

Now Jonah was actually a little upset over this, a genuinely interesting turn in the story. From Jonah's pov God said he would do something and he did not do it. Jonah fails the Deuteronomy litmus test and should be judged a false prophet.

The tektonics source on this topic btw, is pretty lame. I will save you the trouble of looking up the link:
http://tektonics.org/gk/godchangemind.html

When they start equivocating and don't have a good answer they get really wordy and take a long time to explain.

 

[SimonD]

The Greek word translated "hanged himself" is the word apanchomai which is used in Greek literature to mean choking or squeezing one's self as with great emotion or grief. In English we have a similar expression when we say that someone is "all choked up." We do not mean that they have died. We mean that they are overcome with emotion. Judas cast down the pieces of silver in the temple and left doubling himself over with grief.
from http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.html

But none of this is in the Bible is it? You are going outside the Bible, which according to you is 100% correct of the time, to justify a clear contradiction. This is the 3rd time you have done so, without answering the direct question - which verse is correct - did he hang himself or did he fall?

 

[Donn]

Let's sock it to him

Who votes we should use the "socks" from the CT forum?

I don't see the diff between peeps like 'Freak and a CT -- one question at a time is the only way to move forward.

Don't you find it boring letting the same of weasling and wriggling happen thread after thread? I say pin 'em down and keep 'em there. Either they'll wise up, or educate us (ja never know) or they'll just go away in a huff. All fine with me.

Oh, and Freak has pretty much 'fessed up:

I do not believe that my KJV is as accurate <weasel>but it is the MOST accurate.</weasel>

"MOST accurate" does not mean "100% true"

 

[Myriad]

Much as I enjoy spectating a game of "gotcha" with contradictory Bible quotations, my own opposition to Bilblical literalism comes from a completely different source. It's the vast amounts of the real meaning of the Bible that you lose when you limit yourself to literal readings, or even give the literal meaning priority over the metaphorical ones.

Consider one example: the story of Exodus. For centuries that story has been the inspiration for Abolitionist ideas and movements. It inspires us to recognize that people should be free. Sentences like "Go down, Moses," "Let my people go," and "I have seen the Promised Land" reverberate not just in Jewish tradition but also, for instance, in America's all-too-recent history.

But literally, the story is only about one tribe who deserved freedom only because they were God's chosen people with a special Covenant that no one else had. Literally, the laws given to the Hebrews after the Exodus tell us that slavery of everyone else was perfectly okay, if administered according to certain rules. Literally, at least three of Paul's epistles subsequent to Christ's new Covenant confirms that slavery is an acceptable condition by exhorting slaves to serve their masters (even cruel masters) well.

Reading it literally, clearly, takes quite a bit away from the meaning.

Revelation 22:19
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Of course, literally that passage only applies to taking words away, not meanings, so it's only relevant to copyists and printers. (If I were to remove words from Bible quotations posted on the Internet I haven't, of course, removed anything from any literal book.) And "this book of prophecy" literally refers only to the Book of Revelation, not the rest of the Bible (or at least, not the parts that don't contain prophecy), so I suppose it's therefore okay to remove whatever words you don't like from Genesis or Acts. And literally, I didn't grow on a tree and I don't own any real estate in Jerusalem so having those taken away isn't much of a threat anyhow.

In fact, if taken literally, there's hardly anything useful or meaningful at all in any passage of the whole Bible. That's why most sermons, Sunday School lessons, lessons in Bible study books, and principle of Christian theology begins with the quoting of a Bible passage, followed by "That means..." or a similar phrase, followed by an (often lengthy) explanation of something that can be learned from the passage by not taking it literally.

Jesus, God's word made flesh, taught in parables. Could the message that the significance of Scripture lies not in the literal words but in their metaphorical meanings be any clearer?

Read it literally, and the Parable of the Lost Sheep tells you only that God doesn't want you to lose any of your sheep! (Go look it up. Matthew 12:14-18.) Is that what you think Jesus is trying to tell you in that passage, jesus_freak? You must, if you believe that the entire Bible is to be read literally. But I can't imagine that you could really be that foolish.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[DRBUZZ0]

This is a thread that I was asked to start by others in another forum that wanted to continually bring up the Bible and contradictions in an evolution discussion...so lets have at it

Look it's very simple: As long as you are 100% committed to the bible you cannot accept anything else and you will be able to come up with a string of excuses why the bible is not disprove.

Therefore I ask you this. (And I know this is not supposed to be a good thing because you've worked on your 'faith' for a long time and that means never allowing the idea that the bible may be untrue),....

Just step aside and pretend you are not a person of faith but have a completely open mind. Imagine that you, with no previous notions of religion are looking at the bible objectively. Then ask how plausible it seems.


I somehow doubt that is gona happen...

 

[Darth Rotor]

Therefore I ask you this. (And I know this is not supposed to be a good thing because you've worked on your 'faith' for a long time and that means never allowing the idea that the bible may be untrue),....

Just step aside and pretend you are not a person of faith but have a completely open mind. Imagine that you, with no previous notions of religion are looking at the bible objectively. Then ask how plausible it seems.

He should do this on your say so? What makes you the expert?

Love your new avatar, by the way.

DR

 

[Beerina]

If you google "cain's wife" you get a bunch of links including Answers in Genesis. www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp Ken Ham claims that Adam and Eve had many children

Which is quite reasonable...

and these other siblings are who Cain feared. He even mentions that Josephus claimed Adam and Eve had 33 sons and 23 daughters (!).

Seems a bit on the light side given how long he lived.

Ham says the Bible only mentions "many sons and daughters" so the exact number is not confirmed. Ham states that Cain's wife was either one of his siblings or another close relative. Ham rationalizes this by saying that God did not create the incest taboo until much later and even attempts to use DNA and genetics in his explanation.

These people were much closer to the perfect, direct creation by God. Of course they wouldn't have any genetic flaws, so brother-sister mating, or even mother-son, wouldn't lead to any defects.
















(wait for it)

















(keep waiting)





















Confused Heathen: So defects cropped up by evolution?

Missionary: No, the devil inserted them.

Confused Heathen: Where is that in the Bible?

 

[kmortis]

Beerina,
It doesn't really matter all that much where Cain got his wife, or any of that. According to the Bible, all humans are descended from Noah.

So...where'd Shem, Japeth and Ham get wives? Was Mrs. Noah called in for triple duty? Did they have unnamed sisters? Or, could it be that not all of mankind was killed off?

It would appear that for a book that's supposed to be the Complete and Inerrant Literal Word of God^tm it sure does leave a lot out.