Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is the Bible acceptable?
Reality Man
Member (Idle past 5037 days)
Posts: 23
From: Ottawa ON, Canada
Joined: 01-10-2008


Message 1 of 111 (455240)
02-11-2008 3:59 PM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 02-11-2008 9:02 PM Reality Man has replied
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2008 10:37 PM Reality Man has not replied
 Message 7 by ICANT, posted 02-12-2008 12:19 AM Reality Man has not replied
 Message 11 by ICANT, posted 02-12-2008 10:30 PM Reality Man has not replied
 Message 26 by graft2vine, posted 02-25-2008 3:38 PM Reality Man has not replied
 Message 103 by npilotk, posted 04-15-2008 9:02 PM Reality Man has not replied
 Message 106 by key2god, posted 04-22-2008 12:39 PM Reality Man has not replied
 Message 107 by MentalSword, posted 02-19-2009 11:12 PM Reality Man has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 111 (455311)
02-11-2008 8:49 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 3 of 111 (455314)
02-11-2008 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Reality Man
02-11-2008 3:59 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Reality Man, posted 02-11-2008 3:59 PM Reality Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Reality Man, posted 02-11-2008 10:33 PM subbie has replied

  
Reality Man
Member (Idle past 5037 days)
Posts: 23
From: Ottawa ON, Canada
Joined: 01-10-2008


Message 4 of 111 (455340)
02-11-2008 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by subbie
02-11-2008 9:02 PM


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?!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 02-11-2008 9:02 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by subbie, posted 02-11-2008 10:58 PM Reality Man has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 111 (455341)
02-11-2008 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Reality Man
02-11-2008 3:59 PM


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 the
sciences. 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"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Reality Man, posted 02-11-2008 3:59 PM Reality Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by ThreeDogs, posted 02-12-2008 9:57 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 6 of 111 (455344)
02-11-2008 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Reality Man
02-11-2008 10:33 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Reality Man, posted 02-11-2008 10:33 PM Reality Man has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 7 of 111 (455351)
02-12-2008 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Reality Man
02-11-2008 3:59 PM


Re Nothing Proven
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Reality Man, posted 02-11-2008 3:59 PM Reality Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 02-12-2008 12:23 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 02-12-2008 10:48 PM ICANT has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 8 of 111 (455352)
02-12-2008 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by ICANT
02-12-2008 12:19 AM


Re: Re Nothing Proven
ICANT writes:
Did the universe have a beginning?
If it did that proves that the Bible contains proven information.
God Bless,
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ICANT, posted 02-12-2008 12:19 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ThreeDogs
Member (Idle past 5850 days)
Posts: 77
From: noli me calcare
Joined: 01-08-2008


Message 9 of 111 (455390)
02-12-2008 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by New Cat's Eye
02-11-2008 10:37 PM


quote:
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.
Being catholic and all means you subscribe to the following contention about the bible:
quote:
Q. Are the doctrines of the Catholic Church then entirely independent of Scripture ?
A. They are; because she taught her doctrines, and they were believed by the early Christians before the New Testament was written”centuries, indeed, before the Bible was collected into its present form; and she would have done so, in precisely the same manner, had they never been written.
(Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine for the Family and More Advanced Students in Catholic Schools and Colleges. Rev M. Muller, 1875, p.83)
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:
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. John 5:39
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:
“We cannot allow that every private Priest or member of the Church of Rome should give his own opinions merely as the standard of doctrine. We will have recourse to the oracular response of the Church, and insist that they be represented by themselves; not, however, by private individuals, but by their legal representatives. But, then, there is nothing which they dread so much as the testimony of their own Church. ... IT IS A PRINCIPAL AIM OF ALL [ROMAN CATHOLIC] CONTROVERTISTS TO EMPLOY EVERY MODE OF EVASION IN ORDER TO DISCONCERT THEIR OPPOSERS. There is even a marked difference between the tone of these Romish Divines who speak dogmatically for the instruction of their own members and that of those who attempt to answer the objections of their antagonists. With the former, all is matter of downright certainty; with the latter, all is doubt, difficulty, subterfuge, and evasion. When the faithful are to be instructed, every Priest becomes the sure depositary of the infallible decisions of an infallible Church; but when Protestants are to be confuted, the declarations of their most illustrious men are of no authority. Councils are discovered to have been but partly approved; Popes did not speak ex cathedra; Cardinals and Bishops are but private Doctors; and who cares for the opinion of an obscure Priest or Friar? Thus nothing is so difficult as to know what the belief of Roman Catholics really is; and WHEN A PROTESTANT ADDUCES THEIR OWN WRITERS AS WITNESSES, HE IS FREQUENTLY TOLD THAT HE IS A MISREPRESENTER OF THEIR CHURCH” (Charles Elliott, Delineation of Roman Catholicism, London: John Mason, 1851, p. 23).
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:
91. "All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them[Cf. 1Jn 2:20, 27 .] and guides them into all truth.[Cf. .Jn 16:13 .]" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, © 1994 United States Catholic Conference, Inc. - Libreria Editrice Vaticana, p. 33)
And just a minute or so later, it becomes the following:
quote:
100. "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, © 1994 United States Catholic Conference, Inc. - Libreria Editrice Vaticana, pp. 37-38)
That's a little too long, but interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2008 10:37 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-12-2008 10:24 AM ThreeDogs has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 111 (455396)
02-12-2008 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by ThreeDogs
02-12-2008 9:57 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ThreeDogs, posted 02-12-2008 9:57 AM ThreeDogs has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 11 of 111 (455581)
02-12-2008 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Reality Man
02-11-2008 3:59 PM


Re-Nothing in Bible True
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Reality Man, posted 02-11-2008 3:59 PM Reality Man has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 12 of 111 (455587)
02-12-2008 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by ICANT
02-12-2008 12:19 AM


Re: Re Nothing Proven
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ICANT, posted 02-12-2008 12:19 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by ICANT, posted 02-12-2008 11:36 PM subbie has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 13 of 111 (455593)
02-12-2008 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by subbie
02-12-2008 10:48 PM


Re Nothing Proven
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 02-12-2008 10:48 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Taz, posted 02-12-2008 11:48 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 16 by subbie, posted 02-13-2008 12:13 AM ICANT has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 14 of 111 (455598)
02-12-2008 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by ICANT
02-12-2008 11:36 PM


Re: Re Nothing Proven
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ICANT, posted 02-12-2008 11:36 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by ICANT, posted 02-13-2008 12:10 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 108 by Peg, posted 02-20-2009 2:27 AM Taz has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 15 of 111 (455601)
02-13-2008 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Taz
02-12-2008 11:48 PM


Re: Re Nothing Proven
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Taz, posted 02-12-2008 11:48 PM Taz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024