|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5065 days) Posts: 23 From: Ottawa ON, Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is the Bible acceptable? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reality Man Member (Idle past 5065 days) Posts: 23 From: Ottawa ON, Canada Joined: |
I just wanna know, regardless of whether this was discussed before:
Is the Bible acceptable in discussions? Is it not ignorant to say, "well in the bible, it says" etc. From my point of view, in the Bible, having been translated into over 2300 languages and dialects, and being quite an ancient text written and rewritten by, if I may, primitives, things can become mixed up. Add to that nothing in the Bible is proven to be true. I therefore have difficulty seeing how anything related to the texts from the Bible are at all reliable sources of information. Please enlighten me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I find it difficult to discuss this topic without first addressing the scope of your question.
I would think that in any discussion of christianity, reference to the bible would be not only acceptable, but necessary. In a discussion of the languages that the bible was originally written in, the writings are some evidence of the usage at the time it was written. In a discussion of 17th century english, the KJ translation is some evidence of usage from that time. In a science discussion, the bible is worthless. Thus, the answer to the question "Is the Bible acceptable in discussion?" depends entirely on the topic of the discussion. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reality Man Member (Idle past 5065 days) Posts: 23 From: Ottawa ON, Canada Joined: |
That's true.
But what if the discussion were something like: science vs. religion; evolution vs. creationism, theists vs. atheists? Would the religious side be biased if they brought up their holy sript? Cause otherwise, unless I am mistaken, there isn't really much the religious can prove or use in a discussion to win the discussion. Right?!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Please enlighten me. Fo sho, dirty. With pleasure
Is the Bible acceptable in discussions? Is it not ignorant to say, "well in the bible, it says" etc. When discussing the Bible, the Bible is acceptable in discussions. When discussing science, it is not. I like to argue with fundamentalist Christians about what the Bible really means, so I can certainly accept the Bible as an explanation for an argument. Which is actually kinda ironic because if we are interpreting it then it isn't being taken literally, but that is another topic.
From my point of view, in the Bible, having been translated into over 2300 languages and dialects, and being quite an ancient text written and rewritten by, if I may, primitives, things can become mixed up. I definitely understand that point, but I also understand that if God wanted His message to be accurately translated, then it is perfectly in His capability to make that happen. Do you know what I mean?
Add to that nothing in the Bible is proven to be true. Do you think it is possible for truths to remain unproven? I do.*
I therefore have difficulty seeing how anything related to the texts from the Bible are at all reliable sources of information. If God is capable of preventing mix-ups, and not all truths are proven, then the Bible could easily be The Truth™. But not literally, which I don't subscribe too. The Bible describes all kinds of truths, IMHO, but I am capable of seeing my bias towards the Bible being truthful... ya know, being Catholic and all. *WRT truths being unproven: I was raised Catholic and educated in thesciences. I still find Science's failure to recognize things that I find to be The Truth™ as a reason to accept extra-scientific explanations for the Truth. I just don't find Science to be the authority on what is truth, IMH(ysa)O. However, if the Bible says something that experience claims otherwise, I am not going to lie to myself to maintain validity in the Bible. Kinda like I'm not going to lie to myself to maintain validity in Science. Get it? Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence. Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith. Science has failed our world. Science has failed our Mother Earth. -System of a Down, "Science" He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I hope I don't come off as pedantic, because I'm not trying to be.
In a debate between science and religion, or atheists and theists, I would think it would be necessary for both sides to bring up the bible, since it would be an essential element in creating and assessing the religious side of the argument. To the extent that you are arguing that the bible is worthless in terms of establishing or supporting scientifically reliable statements, you are quite correct. However, I think you go too far in trying to claim that the bible is of no value in proving anything or adding anything to any discussion without detailing the nature of the discussion and the reasons one might bring the bible into the discussion. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Man,
Reality Man writes: Add to that nothing in the Bible is proven to be true. I therefore have difficulty seeing how anything related to the texts from the Bible are at all reliable sources of information. I have seen this statement several times and I would like to question it just a bit if I may. Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Now there is some of that statement that is not believed by most on EvC. Did the universe have a beginning? If it did that proves that the Bible contains proven information. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3319 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
ICANT writes:
Or you could look at it this way. The universe either had a beginning or it didn't. 50/50 chance. Your call... head or tail?
Did the universe have a beginning? If it did that proves that the Bible contains proven information. God Bless,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThreeDogs Member (Idle past 5878 days) Posts: 77 From: noli me calcare Joined: |
quote: Being catholic and all means you subscribe to the following contention about the bible:
quote: For the Christian, who knows what Christian means, the bible is the only resource extant to search for and learn the meaning of salvation.
quote:It means that he believes God has the power to make certain that regardless of the many hands that touch it, the plan of salvation remains intact. Otherwise, why bother at all? And going with the pagan traditions found in the RCC is not an option. Argue with fundamentalists about what the bible really means and it means something to them and nothing to you. Catholics have a specific style of arguing, which they do for the church and what she says and not the bible for what it says. That this is automatically incompatible is clear. Here is the modus well-established of how a discussion with a catholic about biblical truth proceeds:
quote: The book is in its entirety on the internet for those interested about catholicism. Here is another example of how it works for the catholic, from his holy book, the catechism:
quote: And just a minute or so later, it becomes the following:
quote:That's a little too long, but interesting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
First let me say that you argument is a little bit too ad hominem for my taste.
Being catholic and all means you subscribe to the following contention about the bible: Let me let you in on a little secret. Not all catholics believe the same thing and not all catholics believe everything that is suggested they believe.
For the Christian, who knows what Christian means, the bible is the only resource extant to search for and learn the meaning of salvation. That means, then, that there were no Christians before the Bible. That is demonstratably false.
It means that he believes God has the power to make certain that regardless of the many hands that touch it, the plan of salvation remains intact. Sure. And that also means that God has the power to make certain that his plans for His Church remain intact as well.
Argue with fundamentalists about what the bible really means and it means something to them and nothing to you. Ad hominem. Don't tell me what I believe.
Catholics have a specific style of arguing, which they do for the church and what she says and not the bible for what it says. Not always and not necessarily. But anyways, whatever argument you use for the validity of the Bible could be used in the same way for the validity of the Church.
That's a little too long, but interesting. What's so interesting? We all have the power of the holy spirit to understand revelation but the Magisterium is the authority on what is the Word of God. God has the power to keep them accurate in the same way he does with the Bible's translations. What's the problem? Plus, its not like the authority is just pulling shit out of a hat. People have dedicated their entire lives for that authenticity and I'm sure they've done a better job than I have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Man,
Reality Man writes: Add to that nothing in the Bible is proven to be true. Was all the land mass in one place at one time?
Bible: Gene 1:9 (KJS) 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. All the water in one place. All the land in one place. Science agrees. That is two for two. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Now there is some of that statement that is not believed by most on EvC. Did the universe have a beginning? If it did that proves that the Bible contains proven information. AFAIK, the question about the beginning of the universe is still open. I don't think it has been established to any degree of certainty that the universe had a beginning. It may have always existed. However, I'm pretty sure that it's been conclusively determined that the Earth was not either the first or second thing in the universe. I'm also pretty sure that science has nothing to say about when heaven was created. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi subbie,
subbie writes: AFAIK, the question about the beginning of the universe is still open. I don't think it has been established to any degree of certainty that the universe had a beginning. It may have always existed. Hawking in a public lecture on the beginning of time.The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404) In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted. I don't know I am just a Bible thumper. But if they want to move the goal post a few trillion years Genesis 1:1 still is true. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3319 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
ICANT, I see that you're ignoring me. Am I right to assume that I'm a lost cause to you now?
Anyway, let me repeat just in case you didn't notice my previous post. The universe either had a beginning or it didn't. 50/50 chance. Head or tail? Your call.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Taz,
Try Message 13 God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024