|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total) |
| |
anil dahar | |
Total: 919,519 Year: 6,776/9,624 Month: 116/238 Week: 33/83 Day: 3/6 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Using the Bible as fact... | |||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 4083 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
[QUOTE][B]The Bible doesn't give a non-believer much to go on. Most of it is unsupported by external evidence whether written or archeological, and what is supported is pretty trivial-- meaning it is well within human ability to observe and record.[/QUOTE]
[/B] Biblical apologetics does not interest me, it never seems to accomplish anything. Really the best indicator is the Holy Spirit, a highly personal form of revelation that is easily explained away by non-believers as us believers simply trying to trick ourselves into believing through wishful thinking. I believe in the Holy Spirit but I can certainly respect and understand the opinion of nonbelievers on the matter.
[QUOTE][B]While an internally inconsistent book doesn't prove anything, an internally consistent book would.[/QUOTE] [/B] Depending on the quality of the paper trail, if we could use the original manuscripts it would help a great deal. I allow that a consistent book is better than an inconsistent one. I don't think a consistent book with no paper trail would "prove" anything though, except perhaps good editing.
[QUOTE][B]Agreed, but I was raised with exactly the opposite dogma, and I cannot tell you how many times I have heard the phrase repeated "There is not one single contradiction in the entire book"
[/QUOTE] [/B] When you haven't had a prophet in 2000 years and your professors of religion get their divine authority in Bible colleges, this is the result.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: If you're going to be religious, might as well 'fess up to the Holy Spirit.
quote: Yeah, no kidding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Gene90
The depressing context of the compilation of the Bible is no more depressing than the early life of Joseph, Egypt, the captivity in Babylon or the crucifiction of Jesus. We are in the world not of it - so is the Bible. The dead sea scrolls and numerous other evidence suggest that tthe Bibl we have is in pretty good nick. And which books do you want to remove from the canon? I hardly think any teaching of scripture would be compromised if you threw away 25%. As food for thought I will repeat my two littel hints that we might have the right Bible: 1. 66 book Isaiah appears to be a picture of the entire word. The 40th chapter begins with 'a new coveant' as does the 40th book of the Bible (Matthew, 1st book of NT). The 66th chapter discusses the 'new heavens and the new earth' as does the 66th book of the Bible (Revelations).2. The 7-sticked candlestick was the source of light (cf the word) in the Tabernacle. It had 66 pieces. When broken in 'half' (4/3 sticks) it breaks into 39 and 27 part components. But I agree with you that the 'letter of the law' killeth whilst the Holy Sprit brings the word of God alive. There is no reason to suspect that the Bible we have is not essentially the direct word of God. Have a look at Jesus' use of the Old Testament.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: You are beginning to sound like a Kabbalist.... ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 4083 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
[QUOTE][B]The depressing context of the compilation of the Bible is no more depressing than the early life of Joseph, Egypt, the captivity in Babylon or the crucifiction of Jesus.[/QUOTE]
[/B] The teachings of the Christian religion were chosen by a Pagan to accomplish a political end. Now there are those factions in the Christian world that believe that book is inerrant?
[QUOTE][B]The 66th chapter discusses the 'new heavens and the new earth' as does the 66th book of the Bible (Revelations).[/QUOTE] [/B] The order of the books of the Bible was decided by the Council of Nicea. This goes back to editing. If this is not coincidence, it is not divine either.
[QUOTE][B]The 7-sticked candlestick was the source of light (cf the word) in the Tabernacle. It had 66 pieces. When broken in 'half' (4/3 sticks) it breaks into 39 and 27 part components.[/QUOTE] [/B] George W Bush = 11 letters.New York City = 11 letters. Afghanistan = 11 letters. The Pentagon = 11 letters. Air Force One = 11 letters. Colin Powell = 11 letters. Shakesville (Pennsylvania) = 11 letters. "It's Bull****" = 11 letters. Flight 11, first to strike WTC, had 92 passengers, 9+2 = 11 65 passengers on Flight 77, 6+5 = 11 WTC Building 7, 47 stories, 4+7 = 11 Quick Loans Even With Bad Credit | Don't Wait! | PDUK (By the way, I'm not religiously affiliated with the link above)
[QUOTE][B]Have a look at Jesus' use of the Old Testament.[/QUOTE] [/B] Jesus frequently spoke in metaphors. The incidents he refered to did not necessarily have to happen for them to be useful in teaching.
[QUOTE][B]And which books do you want to remove from the canon?[/QUOTE] [/B] I don't feel qualified to remove any books from the canon, but I would like to suggest the possible additions of Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41) and The Book of the Wars of the LORD (Numbers 21:14). [This message has been edited by gene90, 08-06-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
w_fortenberry Member (Idle past 6367 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: |
quote: Please explain how your example is an proof of a lack of consistency. I am not aware of any Scripture which is contradicted by the salvation of the said thief.
quote: That is incorrect. Constantine established what was to become known as the Catholic Church, but the teachings of Christianity were established long before his rise to power. Please read the on-line booklet, The Trail of Blood found at, http://www.biblepreaching.com/trailofblood.html I have read biographies of Constantine by both Catholic and secular historians and have found that they agree that Constantine only established a denomination not the teachings of Christianity itself. They agree that those teachings were in existence even before his birth.
quote: The early Christians were most likely aware of each portion of Scripture upon its completion. This is evidenced by II Peter 3:15-16. The complete canon of the 66 books was known to and mentioned by the church fathers of the first, second, and third centuries.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 4083 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
[QUOTE][B]Please explain how your example is an proof of a lack of consistency. I am not aware of any Scripture which is contradicted by the salvation of the said thief.[/QUOTE]
[/B] Mark 15:32, "They that were crucified with him reviled him".
[QUOTE][B]That is incorrect. Constantine established what was to become known as the Catholic Church, but the teachings of Christianity were established long before his rise to power.[/QUOTE] [/B] The teachings of mainstream Christianity are (supposedly) in the Bible (though not everything in the Bible is taught or practiced by mainline Christianity). The Bible was compiled by Constantine. Constantine is not infallible. Therefore the Bible is not necessarily infallible.
[QUOTE][B]They agree that those teachings were in existence even before his birth.[/QUOTE] [/B] By the time of Constantine those teachings had begun to change and Christianity was split into sects. He chose a particular sect and founded the universal Christian Church upon the notions that suited his purposes. Some things were lost. Other unnecessary practices(baptism for infants) were adopted. Another problem we have here is the lack of prophecy in the Christian religion for 2000 years. Teachings are interpreted by man, they inevitably turn from the Godly into the work of man unless they are being regularly renewed through prophecy. Mainline Christianity is almost a dead faith, circulated by men according to the principles and logic as they see fit with no prophecy and very few works, and certainly none like unto old. First it was Constantine, then Martin Luther and hundreds of other people who took it upon themselves to further alter the doctrine of the Christian church to fit their own personal ideals. This is true apostasy, and it is almost everywhere. [QUOTE][B]The early Christians were most likely aware of each portion of Scripture upon its completion. This is evidenced by II Peter 3:15-16.[/QUOTE] [/B] The Scripture cite only mentions the epistles of Paul. I would expect that the Christian church would indeed be aware of a letter addressed to it. I'm concerned about other books that were lost, such as the ones mentioned in the Bible but are absent. I'm also concerned, that if everyone is so sure about the Bible being perfect and inerrant, why there has ever been uncertainty regarding the Apocrypha.
[QUOTE][B]The complete canon of the 66 books was known to and mentioned by the church fathers of the first, second, and third centuries.[/QUOTE] [/B] That's incorrect, because the "complete canon" consists of more than 66 books. The modern canon of mainline Christianity, as of AD 300, has 66 books. As I have pointed out, there are books referenced in the OT that were lost. Also, unless some verse in the NT actually lists the entire contents of the Holy Bible, how do you know this? Finally, if the list were known, there would have been no need for the Council of Nicea to compile the Bible in the first place. (You realize of course that there was a time when you could just ask a prophet and not have to debate things like this.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Different books of Gospel "quote" the characters in the story as saying different things. It is minor, but it is an inconsistency.
quote: Please read: No webpage found at provided URL: http://bidstrup.com/bible.htm You have to skip three quarters to the end to get to the part about Constantine, but I suggest reading the whole essay.
quote: It wasn't just the order that was editted. Huge numbers of books were thrown out and/or altered. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1739 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: In other words, you are not questioning whether the Bible is a fact but whether any one interpretation can be said to be a factual account of the events stated? Peter:: Exactly.
quote: Are you denying the possibility that an interpretation can be 100% factual? Peter:: No. But since we cannot know that without extra biblical confirmation we are stuck. quote: You must have me confused with another poster; I have not said nything about ELS. Peter:: I wasn't suggesting that it was you who had raised ELS, sorry if that was unclear. I was simply pointing that there is a dispute even amongst biblical scholars over which version may be considered the most correct/accurate. My acceptance of the KJV as the Bible is based primarily on the fact that it is completely internally consistent. It does not contradict itself. Peter:: Is it a fact that it is internally consistent? Is internal consistency sufficient to suggest that something isfactual? If a work of fiction is internally consistent does that make it fact? Which is more likely to have internal consistency; fact (whichrelates events that have transpired as interpreted through the filter of the author) or fiction (which is designed to suspend disbelief and is therefore designed to be internally consistent)? {Edited it to add some formatting .... should have previewed } [This message has been edited by Peter, 08-12-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
w_fortenberry Member (Idle past 6367 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: |
John, we have each referenced on-line material in defense of our different positions on the history of Christianity. I would like to point out two glaring differences between the two sites mentioned.
I) The site you referred to presented twelve books used in the research of the material.In contrast the site I referenced presented a partial listing of sources which mentioned seventy-nine books. II) I also noticed that while the site you presented refers to historical events to support its conclusion, the other site refers to traceable historical documents to support its conclusion. For these two reasons, as well as many others that I could mention were we to debate the contents of the essay, I do not accept the material you have referenced as a valid record of the history of the Bible and Christianity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
w_fortenberry Member (Idle past 6367 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: |
Peter, let me make sure that we understand each other.
The question as it now stands is that of whether a specific translation or interpretation of the Bible exists which maintains internal consistency and which presents a factual account of historical events.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: You did notice that only a handfull of those references actually dealt with the very early church? The rest deal with the history of the Waldenses, the Baptists,.... etc. This is a very lame way to add credentials to a paper or to a point.
quote: I have just reread the the site you posted with your comments in mind. The part of the online essay dealing with the early church -- 30-500ad-- lists not one traceable historical document (unless of course, you count any document published prior to today as a traceable historical document) except for verses of the Bible itself. The Bible can't verify the Bible. This is silly. Your link is a compendium of two thousand years worth of christian apologetics. This is not the same as providing historical fact. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 08-12-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
w_fortenberry Member (Idle past 6367 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: |
quote: Have you ever studied the histories of the Waldenses, the Baptists, or the Albigenses? All three of these groups trace their history back to the early Church. The Catholic church does the same. However, even if we did not include the histories of these groups, we would still be left with 26 books whose titles indicate a possible focus on early church history.
quote: I also have reread the portion in question and found six direct references to historical documents. They are as follows.
quote: In each reference, the author presented a description of the contents of the document and the date of publication. I also found several indirect references to historical documents. For instance...
quote: The word "appears" indicates that the author is refering to an actual historical document even though he chose not to reference that document directly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1739 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Not entirely ... internal consistency does not equate tofact. Any good work of fiction will have an internal consistency at least as good as any version of the Bible, mainly because a work of fiction is designed to be internally consistent. But yes, my contention is that the use of a particular interpretationof the bible cannot be claimed to be fact for a number of reasons: a) The reader will impose their own context onto anything theyattempt to interpret. b) The writer will impose his/her context onto the events they describe. c) The writer may (or may not but we don't know) have politicalmotives for mis-representing events to show one side in a better light than others (the winners write the history). d) Translators filter the translation through their own context. An argument I have come across in connection with this issueis that God informed the translators and writers ... my problem with this is that 'the Bible prooves the existence of God becuase God wrote it' is not logical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: hmmm..... "Let us start with the basic premise about Baptist History: the modern Baptist denomination originated in England and Holland in the early seventeenth century"
Open main menu quote: I also have reread the portion in question and found six direct references to historical documents. They are as follows.
quote: Here is the full text, "7. Let it be remembered that changes like these here mentioned were not made in a day, nor even within a year. They came about slowly and never within all the churches. Some of the churches vigorously repudiated them. So much so that in A.D. 251, the loyal churches declared non-fellowship for those churches which accepted and practiced these errors. And thus came about the first real official separation among the churches." Where exactly is a reference to a HISTORICAL DOCUMENT?
quote: "12. Persecutions have become increasingly bitter. Near the beginning of the fourth century comes possibly the first definite government edict of persecution. The wonderful growth of Christianity has alarmed the pagan leaders of the Roman Empire. Hence Galerius, the emperor, sent out a direct edict of more savage persecution. This occurred Feb. 24, 303 A.D. Up to this time Paganism seems to have persecuted without any definite laws to that effect." How about this one? Where is the reference to a HISTORICAL DOCUMENT?
quote: ???????? Oh really? {quoteI also found several indirect references to historical documents. For instance...
quote: ][/quote] And again:"29. It was early in the period of the "dark ages" when real Popery had its definite beginnings. This was by Leo II, A.D. 440 to 461. This, however, was not the first time the title was ever used. This title, similar to the Catholic church itself, was largely a development. The name appears, as first applied to the Bishop of Rome 296-304. It was formally adopted by Siricius, Bishop of Rome 384-398. Then officially adopted by Leo II, 440-461. Then claimed to be universal, 707. Then some centuries later declared by Gregory VII to be the exclusive right of the papacy." Where is the citation? Naming dates is not enough.
quote: ummm.... so if I use the word "appears" a lot you'll believe me cause it will mean I have actual historical documents at my disposal? ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024