- This topic has 899 replies, 46 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 27 2008,20:20) Hi KJ,
Marcion wrote the first canon apparently.
http://www.marcion.info/Others disagree with his choice of books.
So tell me Nick, who mentioned 1&2 Timothy before Marcion then?No, but it is telling of when a book was recognized as being worth mentioning. All of Paul's authentic works were mentioned well before 1&2 Timothy. Plus, the style was different from Paul's authentic works.
Quote So when the bible God makes mistakes, to retain faith in His “perfection” we must always apply such logic to His failings. KEJONN,
What logic? What scripture says God always uses his ability to know the future? Again, your assumptions.
You can fast forward to the end of a movie and see how things are going to end. You have that ability. So I'm going to “assume” you always know the end of every movie once it begins.
Would that be stupid of me to assume? Or wise? All this assuming makes people look foolish I think. If something is neither stated for or against, and is neutral, then why make such strong assumptions?
Quote How are we to trust prophecy then? What if the prophecies were only looking so far ahead but did not take in account what would happen as the result of such prophecies coming true even a week after?
Well I guess KEJONN, prophecies are instances where he decided to fast forward it to the end of the movie. And if someone who has this ability to do so has never lied, and his prophecies have come true, what reason is there to doubt?Quote Do you not see the slippery slope you are sliding down with these excuses?
Perhaps you'll have to explain it to me. Use a scripture if possible. I couldn't find any that support your assumptions. For someone who only has assumptions and negative bias, why accuse others of “excuses.”? All I'm doing is pointing out you don't have anything more than your assumptions. You cling to them as though they were proof of something.Quote Since you have no way to answer this, then the contradictions are every bit as real and valid as there supposedly not being a contradiction. Again, there are assumptions on both sides and the bible leaves it wide open to do so.
“Since” I [AND YOU] have no way of knowing whether God chooses to see the future….”then the contradictions are every bit as real and valid as there supposedly not being a contradiction. “
Yes, very good. Fancy and complicated way to say “THERE MAY BE A CONTRADICTION OR THERE MAY NOT.” Or, “the possibility of contradiction is as real as the possibility of no contradiction.”Again, WHY DID YOU BRING UP THESE SCRIPTURES THEN? They might be contradictions, or they might not. Well, that applies to most every statement, doesn't it?
So, I guess, can we say for the record that those scriptures are: EITHER CONTRADICTIONS OR NOT CONTRADICTION?
In other words, say nothing?Quote Again, there are assumptions on both sides and the bible leaves it wide open to do so.
Right, the difference is, I'm not basing my belief or disbelief of scripture on something that EITHER IS OR ISN'T A CONTRADICTION.You, however, have chosen to show us why the Bible is wrong–because it contains these 'possible contradictions, possible not contradictions.'
Quote What trouble? I'm not into any trouble that I am aware of. Oh, unless you mean my lack of belief in the view of God presented in the bible. I can't see any trouble in that, just your imagined trouble that you suppose I'm in.
I guess I'm guilty of assuming too. I was assuming that since you like to make so many assumptions, and base important beliefs on them, your life would be wildly confused. I apologize.Quote Its 2008 David, time to stop looking at cave paintings and drop the superstitions.
Ok?Quote Yet aren't you also assuming as you try to fill in the obvious missing pieces that allow me to assume what I do? Thus the assumption is on both sides, and the incomplete stories allow this to occur. The Bible's a big book. How much bigger would you like it to be? Thus far you have shown no actual contradictions. Being as big as it is, you'd expect many contradictions.
And for the seventh time, while you assume everything negative about those scriptures, there is no actual contradictions. And unlike you, I am not basing my beliefs on something that can go either way.Quote You love that word, yet you fail to see that you are applying your own assumptions that fall in line with your theology. There is nothing there to answer the question so its wide open to speculation of all sorts.
Right, so “speculation” is what you're basing your beliefs on? speculation and assumptions. I wouldn't base my beliefs on such things, would you?A story:
“Johnny goes into the house. Johnny takes a nap. Johnny drives away.”Wait a second. Johnny was in the house. How did he drive away?
Is that a contradiction, or is it a not very detailed account of what happened? I correctly assume he left the house, got into his car and drove away. I have reason to assume this, because it's a common happening.
The things you speak of and assume about and base your beliefs about are things that don't happen so often. Yet, you base beliefs on these assumptions. I do not.
Nowhere on this thread or any other thread, have I picked this set of scriptures and said: “Look, this proves the Bible true.”Quote Because the story is incomplete and full of holes.
Quote
It's full of holes in much the same way my story about Johnny was “full of holes.” In other words, it's not highly detailed. Yet, no contradictions.Quote So were they opened in two days? Two years? Two minutes? Two seconds?
Just read the ordering — the women ate, her eyes were not opened, the man ate, then both of their eyes were opened.We don't know if it was 2 minutes or 2 hours or 1 minute or 1 day, etc. THAT'S THE POINT! It does not say. Yet, you base your beliefs on things we do not know. Why?
Quote Today, unless you are dogmatic they really look rather silly.
So, we've reverted to fallacies.The two letters to Timothy have been accepted from the earliest times as written by Paul and as being part of the inspired Scriptures. The early Christian writers, including Polycarp, Ignatius, and Clement of Rome, all agree on this, and the letters are included in the catalogs of the first few centuries as Paul’s writings.
“There are few N[ew] T[estament] writings which have stronger attestation . . . Objections to authenticity must therefore be regarded as modern innovations contrary to the strong evidence from the early church.”–New Bible Dictionary, second edition, 1986, edited by J. D. Douglas, page 1203.
How was the style different?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 27 2008,20:38) Hi KJ,
But you despise Paul.
Why fuss about such detail if so?
Who said I despise Paul? Just your assumption. Paul is long dead, how can I despise dead man? Paul was enamored with starting a new religion and he succeeded. Hooray for him.Quote (david @ Mar. 27 2008,21:04) The two letters to Timothy have been accepted from the earliest times as written by Paul and as being part of the inspired Scriptures. The early Christian writers, including Polycarp, Ignatius, and Clement of Rome, all agree on this, and the letters are included in the catalogs of the first few centuries as Paul’s writings. “There are few N[ew] T[estament] writings which have stronger attestation . . . Objections to authenticity must therefore be regarded as modern innovations contrary to the strong evidence from the early church.”–New Bible Dictionary, second edition, 1986, edited by J. D. Douglas, page 1203.
How was the style different?
Show me where Polycarp, Clement, and Ignatius (not the spurious writings) acknowledged the epistles of Timothy.Quote (david @ Mar. 27 2008,20:38) Quote So when the bible God makes mistakes, to retain faith in His “perfection” we must always apply such logic to His failings. KEJONN,
What logic? What scripture says God always uses his ability to know the future? Again, your assumptions.
So He turns it on and off, so that you may claim as much when He goofs in His decisions. Oh, how convenient.Quote You can fast forward to the end of a movie and see how things are going to end. You have that ability. So I'm going to “assume” you always know the end of every movie once it begins. Would that be stupid of me to assume? Or wise? All this assuming makes people look foolish I think. If something is neither stated for or against, and is neutral, then why make such strong assumptions?
Ditto. Faith in a peanut shell.Quote Quote How are we to trust prophecy then? What if the prophecies were only looking so far ahead but did not take in account what would happen as the result of such prophecies coming true even a week after?
Well I guess KEJONN, prophecies are instances where he decided to fast forward it to the end of the movie. And if someone who has this ability to do so has never lied, and his prophecies have come true, what reason is there to doubt?
What prophecies came true? If prophecies are “proved” inside the same set of writings, how are we to be certain that the original prophecies were not edited and redacted to appear to be true?I've read enough fantasy fiction to know that prophecies can be made to look true by the writer who made them. Yeehah.
Quote Quote Do you not see the slippery slope you are sliding down with these excuses?
Perhaps you'll have to explain it to me. Use a scripture if possible. I couldn't find any that support your assumptions. For someone who only has assumptions and negative bias, why accuse others of “excuses.”? All I'm doing is pointing out you don't have anything more than your assumptions. You cling to them as though they were proof of something.
And in turn you cling to yours to prove your faith. It seems we both come up with speculation eh?Quote Quote Since you have no way to answer this, then the contradictions are every bit as real and valid as there supposedly not being a contradiction. Again, there are assumptions on both sides and the bible leaves it wide open to do so.
“Since” I [AND YOU] have no way of knowing whether God chooses to see the future….”then the contradictions are every bit as real and valid as there supposedly not being a contradiction. “
Yes, very good. Fancy and complicated way to say “THERE MAY BE A CONTRADICTION OR THERE MAY NOT.” Or, “the possibility of contradiction is as real as the possibility of no contradiction.”
In other words, we choose what suits our desires. You have no valid case to prove the reality of scripture, I have no proof of the fallacy of scripture. Stalemate.But a stalemate hurts your case much more than mine. Think hard and long about that.
Quote Again, WHY DID YOU BRING UP THESE SCRIPTURES THEN? They might be contradictions, or they might not. Well, that applies to most every statement, doesn't it? So, I guess, can we say for the record that those scriptures are: EITHER CONTRADICTIONS OR NOT CONTRADICTION?
In other words, say nothing?
In other words, this passage is to be thrown out because there is too much contention. If God had truly inspired it, it would be without doubt. Since it has not been clarified in 1000s of years, throw it out.Quote Quote Again, there are assumptions on both sides and the bible leaves it wide open to do so.
Right, the difference is, I'm not basing my belief or disbelief of scripture on something that EITHER IS OR ISN'T A CONTRADICTION.
What ARE you basing your belief on? Dogma and blind faith?Quote You, however, have chosen to show us why the Bible is wrong–because it contains these 'possible contradictions, possible not contradictions.'
Have I? You failed to read my last post in your haste to discredit me. I said that I only want to show that the bible is very questionable, thus making it fallible. Such a work cannot be the writings of a perfect God.Quote What trouble? I'm not into any trouble that I am aware of. Oh, unless you mean my lack of belief in the view of God presented in the bible. I can't see any trouble in that, just your imagined trouble that you suppose I'm in.
I guess I'm guilty of assuming too. I was assuming that since you like to make so many assumptions, and base important beliefs on them, your life would be wildly confused. I apologize.Quote Its 2008 David, time to stop looking at cave paintings and drop the superstitions.
Ok?Quote Yet aren't
you also assuming as you try to fill in the obvious missing pieces that allow me to assume what I do? Thus the assumption is on both sides, and the incomplete stories allow this to occur.The Bible's a big book. How much bigger would you like it to be? Thus far you have shown no actual contradictions. Being as big as it is, you'd expect many contradictions.
Why do you continue to use the word “contradictions”? I never used it. I just said it was flawed and thus not perfectly inspired. It is a totally human work. Just like out posts, yet with more thought and editing.Quote And for the seventh time, while you assume everything negative about those scriptures, there is no actual contradictions. And unlike you, I am not basing my beliefs on something that can go either way. Quote You love that word, yet you fail to see that you are applying your own assumptions that fall in line with your theology. There is nothing there to answer the question so its wide open to speculation of all sorts.
Right, so “speculation” is what you're basing your beliefs on? speculation and assumptions. I wouldn't base my beliefs on such things, would you?
Yet you do. You fill in the missing pieces with speculation.Quote A story:
“Johnny goes into the house. Johnny takes a nap. Johnny drives away.”Wait a second. Johnny was in the house. How did he drive away?
Is that a contradiction, or is it a not very detailed account of what happened? I correctly assume he left the house, got into his car and drove away. I have reason to assume this, because it's a common happening.
The things you speak of and assume about and base your beliefs about are things that don't happen so often. Yet, you base beliefs on these assumptions. I do not.
Nowhere on this thread or any other thread, have I picked this set of scriptures and said: “Look, this proves the Bible true.”
Why are you so hung up on the word “contradiction”? Do I sense that you are now struggling with the bible because YOU see “contradictions”? The only time I mentioned “contradiction” is in relation to a concept about God knowing the future yet selectively choosing not to know the future and thus making poor decisions.Stop putting false words in my virtual mouth.
Quote Quote Because the story is incomplete and full of holes.
Quote
It's full of holes in much the same way my story about Johnny was “full of holes.” In other words, it's not highly detailed. Yet, no contradictions.
There's that word again. Freud would pick you apart.Quote Quote So were they opened in two days? Two years? Two minutes? Two seconds?
Just read the ordering — the women ate, her eyes were not opened, the man ate, then both of their eyes were opened.We don't know if it was 2 minutes or 2 hours or 1 minute or 1 day, etc. THAT'S THE POINT! It does not say. Yet, you base your beliefs on things we do not know. Why?
Quote Today, unless you are dogmatic they really look rather silly.
So, we've reverted to fallacies.
Snore.Hi KJ,
So since you have disowned Paul the only motive you could have here is to spread doubts?
Is that a righteous role?Am I seeking righteousness? That is an Abrahamic goal, one that says “look at me”. I am just trying to bring people back to reality so that they can contribute to the world they live in, not just wait on some world they might get to live in.
Hi KJ,
You are dealing with God's children.
They are a people of real hope and not humanist despair.
You should not contaminate their food with negativity and doubt.Quote In other words, we choose what suits our desires. You have no valid case to prove the reality of scripture, I have no proof of the fallacy of scripture. Stalemate. But a stalemate hurts your case much more than mine. Think hard and long about that.
Not really. It hurts your case. YOU chose these things to discuss because you thought they showed how the Bible has faults.
As it turns out, we now see that you base this on assumptions.
I can only imagine that if you're trying to show the Bible has faults, you'd pick “faults” that are strong or easy to see. Yet, these ones were not proven to be such. They are weak and based only on assumptions.
I did not choose these things as positive proof of anything, you did.
These scriptures neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the Bible. You chose them to prove something. I didn't.
Again, since you chose them, and felt confident about them, this really hurts your case. Is the best you can do based on assumptions and speculation?
Quote In other words, this passage is to be thrown out because there is too much contention. If God had truly inspired it, it would be without doubt.
It doesn't take a genius or someone with understanding to doubt. Even a fool can doubt.Hi again David
Stu: If you define them to mean exactly one year or exactly two weeks, or goodness me, ‘one day’ then they do not match science. Since you can redefine Genesis in the way you want then it means nothing at all.
Quote No stu, I define it as dictionies define it: “epoch.” “Epoch” agrees with science, stu.
And I am not redefining Genesis in the way I want. I am using genesis itself to understand that it was not referring to “24 hour periods” because all those “days” are called one “day.” In the genesis account, THEREFORE, it appears that it's referring to very unspecific periods of time.
I would do a study of “false memories.” What I remember is you truly wanting Genesis to be referring to your definition of “day” while neither genesis nor science allows for it. You wanted it to be wrong. Unfortunately, in this case, because “day” is so general, it's a very difficult task you choose.I am very happy to see you reproduce your distortion here as a reminder to all (the literalists especially) of the manner of your apologia:
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Gen1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. (and so on)
Now read these definitions, not forgetting the iterations of “the evening and the morning were the nth day”, where n is an integer between 0 and 8:
day
Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old English dæg; akin to Old High German tag day Date: before 12th century
1 a: the time of light between one night and the next b: daylight 1 c: daytime
2: the period of rotation of a planet (as earth) or a moon on its axis
3: the mean solar day of 24 hours beginning at mean midnight
4: a specified day or date
5: a specified time or period : age —often used in plural
6: the conflict or contention of the day 7: the time established by usage or law for work, school, or businessNow tell me that Genesis means the sense of day listed as 5: above. If you meant ‘epoch’, why would you mention mornings and evenings?
And tell me about that firmament. Does science agree with that too?
Stu: You bend it out of shape then accuse me of some kind of dishonesty or mental inability.
Quote I am only accusing you of not understanding that words may have more than one definition. You seem blind to that fact.
You said You my friend are delusional.Stu: Your tirade was certainly anti-democratic. Do you not believe people should be allowed to follow a ‘permissive lifestyle’ if they democratically want that option?
Quote People can do whatever they wish. Question: do you think believe people should be allowed to follow the Bible if they democratically want that option?
Yes, by the same principle. However name a single country where a biblical constitution / system of laws is what the people have truly democratically voted for.You did say:
They have taught Babylonian and Grecian philosophies instead of the pure Word of God and have contributed to the moral delinquency of entire nations by approving permissive life-styles that flout Bible principles
… which contains the word ‘approved’, which implies clearly a desire for some kind of dictatorship. Is there not a hint of inconsistency here?Quote which part (is delusional)? To think that the U.N. would ban religion? Is that delusional? Or is it delusional to think that 100 years ago or any time past that, the very idea of banning all religion was ludicris? Which part of my statement is delusional?
What I did notice was me pointing out that many have believed that we are living in the last days of this system of things and that before the end came, the end of religion as a whole would come. Decades ago, that seemed an impossible idea. Today, it is not. The waters of babylon are drying up today, just as they did back then, before she was conquered…
…is delusional.Stuart
Quote (david @ Mar. 28 2008,16:15) Quote In other words, this passage is to be thrown out because there is too much contention. If God had truly inspired it, it would be without doubt.
It doesn't take a genius or someone with understanding to doubt. Even a fool can doubt.
It is an act of high intellect to doubt; even if performed by one who is otherwise a fool.Stuart
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 27 2008,22:31) Hi KJ,
You are dealing with God's children.
They are a people of real hope and not humanist despair.
You should not contaminate their food with negativity and doubt.
How do you know your hope is real? You place your hope in something that no one has ever been able to verify. Since I have shed much of my Abrahamic beliefs, I find I am much less judgmental of my fellow man. I find that I can be friends with many people who I used to shun. I am much more concerned with this life, because I believe God would have us improve what He has given us, not just look forward to some life that may not be real. I read this from a post on a blog about Ron Weinland recently and it was good IMHO. From, blogger Ironwolf said:- Or, here’s a scary thought: what if the return of Jesus is really a symbolic, spiritual concept, and the “soon” God is speaking of is the end of your mortal life, and the time of your testing is right now, and God is testing all you believers to see whether you will truly fight to be good stewards and make the world He created a better place for all His creation, and that most “Christians” are failing the test like wet toilet paper because they’re so fixated on Superhero Jesus returning in the next few years and wiping up their mess that they let themselves sink into a pitiful, pious, apathetic funk and can’t be bothered to lift a finger (much less work together) to solve the problems that face everything and everyone on Earth?
Oh, forgot the link, http://ironwolf.dangerousgames.com/blog/archives/483
Quote (david @ Mar. 27 2008,23:13) Quote In other words, we choose what suits our desires. You have no valid case to prove the reality of scripture, I have no proof of the fallacy of scripture. Stalemate. But a stalemate hurts your case much more than mine. Think hard and long about that.
Not really. It hurts your case. YOU chose these things to discuss because you thought they showed how the Bible has faults.
And the only one to step in and take up your side of the argument was you. Oh, I'm sure Nick might chime in but all he'd all was some 2-3 line cryptic Nickism. Thus, we can never know whose “case” was really more valid.Quote As it turns out, we now see that you base this on assumptions.
Yet you have to use your own assumptions to counter my assumptions. Where does that lead you?Quote I can only imagine that if you're trying to show the Bible has faults, you'd pick “faults” that are strong or easy to see. Yet, these ones were not proven to be such. They are weak and based only on assumptions.
Well, since the percentage of people statistically who believe in the Genesis creation story is dropping over time, it seems more and more are coming to similar conclusions. Modern science and archeology is really taking a toll on Genesis.Quote I did not choose these things as positive proof of anything, you did.
So I guess I can make another assumption by this statement that you don't find the story believable either
.Quote These scriptures neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the Bible. You chose them to prove something. I didn't.
Again, it is you who keeps saying I am trying to “prove”. All I am doing is appealing to simple reason to show the story is flawed, and that such actions should not have resulted in the “fall of man”.Quote Again, since you chose them, and felt confident about them, this really hurts your case. Is the best you can do based on assumptions and speculation?
Is that the best you can do to counter me, is to base your response on assumptions and speculation? For all the assumptions I put forward, you were forced to assume the opposite.Here are my assumptions based on the A&E story:
(1) God said all he created was good, and overall very good. That included then the serpent, so A&E had no reason to suspect that the serpent was “evil” or “bad”.
(2) Since A&E did not know “evil” only “good”, they had no concept of wrong and right. While they were told not to do something, without a sense of wrong and right, they could not really grasp the concept of their disobedience until after they actually ate of the tree.
(3) There is no indication that A&E had ever seen death, so logically, they could not understand what death even was.
(4) In Job, the one called “Satan” had to seek permission from God to afflict Job. If the serpent really was “satan” then he would have had to seek permission from God to interact with Eve. Thus God knew that the serpent would try to tempt Eve and gave His permission. Even so, God decided to “curse” the serpent for his actions.
(5) Man was supposed to be made in God's image and likeness. The serpent said that to eat of the fruit would allow A&E to be like God. Since A&E did not know what “evil” was until eating of the tree, all Eve likely heard was that they would be like God. The “evil” part was not comprehendable at the time. Thus, why would one blame Eve for wanting to be like her Creator?Taking these into account, how can the “fall of man” come from what appears to be an illogical test?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
