responding to common objections to bible

[Papewaio]

the rest is all unrelated and compeltey unsupported opinions not backed up with any logical reasoning. I cant wait for my last thread.

I'm sure others agree with at least that last statement...

[total relism]

Here's my objection: It's man-made, and heavily edited. It has historically been used by humans and institutions run by humans to control other people, usually by taking parts of it out of context and using them as an excuse for dogma. Even read as a Narrative, where it doesn't contradict itself, it still tells a story that is radically different in message than the one most Christians believe in. Jesus himself occupies a pathetically small part of the text. Everything in the Bible before Jesus is what Jesus was trying to change, and everything after the gospels is just people trying to capitalize on his popularity.

With an objection like that, you would think I'm a staunch Athiest or something, but that's not the case. I do believe in a God, and I do think that Jesus embodied everything that is good about us as a species. Was he Divine? Not for me to say. The nature of divinity itself defies mortal comprehension, so why apply labels for the sake of dogma when you're dealing with a concept you can't understand? The man tried to change things for the better, died for it, and had his message twisted by the very forces he was preaching against. A more tragic tale couldn't be told.

Kinda surprised another one of these threads popped up.

I disagree with your unsupported opinion, you claimed its man made and heavily edited, are you referring to church councils?certain text through the years? what are you referring to ? when were what is your evidence etc. You than go on claiming that many take parts of bible out of context, i agree fully, what does that have to do with anything about objections to bible, not pastors. You than claim that the text tells a story different from what most christian believe, could you give any example? any major doctrine?. it is also false to claim the bible teaches one thing,than jesus changed it all. As far as jesus divinity, either he was mad since he claimed to be god, or he was god in the flesh.

[Montmorency]

There is only one Truth, Total Relism, only one path to Salvation - and you do not apprehend it.

I pray that one day you may perceive the genuine Light of God shining within you, and not sink ever further into the depths of Sin as you do now.

Be rid of your obstinacy, for God loves you despite all. Once you are prepared to See, God will Show you the way.

[Kadagar_AV]

yeah,but for the way he plays football.



or perhaps its what the bible has said all along, as i stated this thread is objections to the bible, not what someone says or thinks about their version of a god.





well its not in english and i have no idea how it is related to this thread. Your opinion above is just that, a unsupported opinion.






this if for a different future thread,this happen so common with me, i do evidence for god/bible, than they claim its not translated etc than i do translation, than say evidence for bible. Because i think you have missed the topic of this thread i will let you in on it. 15 most common objections to the bible, these are people objections to the bible.





as stated you have to accept god for him to communicative with you, i like this quote

Maybe the atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman. ~Author Unknown

A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell. ~C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain


also was it not you who just said i had to prove god is spirit? than claim god should be in a flesh heart?.


as far as those who have never herd of bible see my first link.


how can god be my imagination? if as you say people never herd of bible/god how than could they make him up?. If i believe imagine in something that has nothing to do with if it true or not. I could imagine you are some robot typing as a test, that does not make it so.


"God cannot be a figment of my imagination because He is not at all what I imagined Him to be."
-C.S. Lewis





why bible over any other religion? well there are many reasons for me personally,but that is for future thread, if you notice i have laid out 5 topic that are commonly brought up on this thread and others, care to disuse any?.


the rest is all unrelated and compeltey unsupported opinions not backed up with any logical reasoning. I cant wait for my last thread.

You'r problem is just that. You have a set mind, You have no interest in a debate.

If You already know your next move, it's a clear sign You have no interest in interaction.

[total relism]

You'r problem is just that. You have a set mind, You have no interest in a debate.

If You already know your next move, it's a clear sign You have no interest in interaction.

interesting, i just see it as having debated 15 subjects for years and when people bring up one it makes me want to debate it. I have come to a conclusion after many years, does not mean it cant change i wish all to try.

[Kadagar_AV]

interesting, i just see it as having debated 15 subjects for years and when people bring up one it makes me want to debate it. I have come to a conclusion after many years, does not mean it cant change i wish all to try.

Try harder.

[The Stranger]

Everybody likes an argument

You can't argue with a brick wall!

[total relism]

You can't argue with a brick wall!

i prefer that i am made of steel. But my guess, i would show your worldview is untouchable based on evidence.

[The Stranger]

you dont even know what my worldview is...

[ICantSpellDawg]

Pondering what happens after you die and a reason to live is not a stupid thing. Remarkable men and women have done incredible things because of their beliefs in such things. Even if you believe in nothing and no inherent purpose, it can't be argued to be a frivolous pursuit disconnected from the overall frivolous pursuit of life. You ponder your oblivion, we can ponder the bible and a traditional belief in heaven and hell. I just don't argue theological points.

[Jolt]

or perhaps its what the bible has said all along, as i stated this thread is objections to the bible, not what someone says or thinks about their version of a god.

It wasn't only in the modern age that people became gullible. Obviously, back at the time where the bible was written, people were far more supersticious and prone to believing in magical entities entities than in these days. You need only look at how many modern-day religions have took off the ground and compare it with Pre/Proto/Classical Times. Literally each group had its own religion. And none of them were Christian or even close to it.

well its not in english and i have no idea how it is related to this thread. Your opinion above is just that, a unsupported opinion.

Haha. It's really mindboggling how a human being can consider the overwhelming lack of proof of the existance of any magical entities unsupported in all areas of science, while thinking their own personal opinions, that were taught to them, about an invisible magical person in the sky is supported, justified, credible and legitimate. Never ceases to amaze me. And the video is related and has English subtitles. Unfortunately for you, contrary to English, which is an irrelevant language as far as historical liturgical scriptures go, Portuguese (Which is the language of the video) is far closer to languages relevant for historical Christianity. Even the title of the video is actually the word "God" written in a language which have been sanctioned by the Church for millenia. It's a pity your magical person did not embue you with the power to learn new languages. Just another thing you need to do it yourself, eh?

this if for a different future thread,this happen so common with me, i do evidence for god/bible, than they claim its not translated etc than i do translation, than say evidence for bible. Because i think you have missed the topic of this thread i will let you in on it. 15 most common objections to the bible, these are people objections to the bible.

You need to realize that your religion's book has zero weight when fundamenting the existance of anything. It has as much weight proving the existance of god magic as the Harry Potter books have weight proving the existance of wizard magic.

as stated you have to accept god for him to communicative with you, i like this quote

"You have to accept God, otherwise he won't talk to you!" Impressive how brainwashed people can become. This is religious sect crazy level.

also was it not you who just said i had to prove god is spirit? than claim god should be in a flesh heart?.

That's the crap you and other religious people are always spouting off, I'm not claiming anything.

how can god be my imagination? if as you say people never herd of bible/god how than could they make him up?. If i believe imagine in something that has nothing to do with if it true or not. I could imagine you are some robot typing as a test, that does not make it so.

God is your imagination because you have no proof of his existance besides what you're told to believe, and what you imagine.

"God cannot be a figment of my imagination because He is not at all what I imagined Him to be."
-C.S. Lewis

Alas, this happens oh, so often to people who suffer from delusions. They imagine someone they remembered, and then that someone starts acting in ways they couldn't "imagine". :)

the rest is all unrelated and compeltey unsupported opinions not backed up with any logical reasoning. I cant wait for my last thread.

But for someone who's talking about how magic fairies exists, trying to say other opinions are unsupported comes at as particularly hilarious and crazy.

[Greyblades]

Would you people please stop feeding the troll.

[Papewaio]

You can't argue with a brick wall!

When presented with a immovable object play parkour.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Total relism has generally demonstrated a refusal to examine any evidence which he disagrees with, he uses the word "evidence" but he has about as much understanding of its meaning as ATPG has in this context.

If one wishes to examine the matter of translation, for example, one should examine in parallel multiple translation into the same language from the same period. This is easily done in English, and the only conclusion to be drawn is that the translator's bias influences the translation.

If one wishes to examine the stability of the Biblical corpus, one need only examine the variable canons, whereby we see that different Christian cults revere different Books to differing degrees.

If one wishes to consider additions or subtractions to the Books themselves, one need turn only to the Gospel of Mark, which has two extant endings, or to the Lord's Prayer, of which two version exist.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Still, the scriptures are remarkably well-preserved in a way that no other document or set of documents of a similar age can claim to be.

If the different books were as isolated or changed as much as people say they are, I don't see how there could be so much continuity between those that were written more than a millenia apart. Much of the New Testament, especially when Jesus is speaking, is effectively paraphrased Old Testament excerpts - often word for word.

There is also not a single semi-significant point of Christian faith that is challenged as a result of translation differences/errors.

[HoreTore]

Still, the scriptures are remarkably well-preserved in a way that no other document or set of documents of a similar age can claim to be.

Aren't you forgetting a bunch of other religious/philosophical texts now? The first who springs to mind are those of the ancient chinese... And the code of Hammurabi, of course.

[Brenus]

"There is also not a single semi-significant point of Christian faith that is challenged as a result of translation differences/errors." Probably why the need of the Orange Bible was not so accurate... And of course, the various streams in the Christianity never happened, nor Religious Wars. Just minors disagreements on Mary (Virgin or not), the holly Trinity, and marriage of the Priests...

[Sigurd]

There is also not a single semi-significant point of Christian faith that is challenged as a result of translation differences/errors.

*cough*

What about salvation? you only need to compare King James Version (KJV) to the New English Bible (NEB) and you will run into reformation bias on this particular subject.

[spankythehippo]

I got flooded with facebook posts with quotes from the Bible. After the 20th post, I couldn't take it anymore. I joined in. This is the quote I posted.

"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses" Ezekiel 23:20

Following that post, I posted a picture of bukkake. I think I made my message clear.

[HoreTore]

*cough*

What about salvation? you only need to compare King James Version (KJV) to the New English Bible (NEB) and you will run into reformation bias on this particular subject.

Also, the Norwegian Lutherans just turned the virgin Mary into the "young woman Mary"... And her virginity is kinda important to the catholics, isn't it?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Aren't you forgetting a bunch of other religious/philosophical texts now? The first who springs to mind are those of the ancient chinese... And the code of Hammurabi, of course.

Rhy only works in the context of the Latin West, in that context he is correct. There has generally been a strenuous effort to faithfully copy the Biblical texts, rather than to doctor them.

*cough*

What about salvation? you only need to compare King James Version (KJV) to the New English Bible (NEB) and you will run into reformation bias on this particular subject.

In his defense, Rhy is a proper fundamentalist, he probably doesn't consider those substantive differences.

Also, the Norwegian Lutherans just turned the virgin Mary into the "young woman Mary"... And her virginity is kinda important to the catholics, isn't it?

That's actually a fault with the English translation of the Latin - Mary is described as a "maiden" in the Bible, which means the same as virgin is Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and most other Europeans languages. The reason being that young, unmarried, women are supposed to be virgins.

So big wup on that one - may I suggest trying again?

Good points of contention are Jesus' final words on the cross, and their precise inflection.

[HoreTore]

Rhy only works in the context of the Latin West, in that context he is correct. There has generally been a strenuous effort to faithfully copy the Biblical texts, rather than to doctor them.

Even so, I have a book with a number of Cicero's(and a few others) speeches. Well preserved.

As for the "big wup"... I won't claim to have followed the debate closely, but it was a hotly debated point when the new norwegian translation was released. Apparently a bunch of christians do consider changing Mary's status from "virgin" to "young woman" a big deal. They didn't use english texts in their works, btw, from what I remember they used greek and hebrew texts.

[drone]

Even so, I have a book with a number of Cicero's(and a few others) speeches. Well preserved.

Nobody is trying to control the population by getting them to worship Cicero.

[HoreTore]

Nobody is trying to control the population by getting them to worship Cicero.

I'm sure quite a few of history's demagogues have learned a thing or two from Cicero

[Rhyfelwyr]

"There is also not a single semi-significant point of Christian faith that is challenged as a result of translation differences/errors." Probably why the need of the Orange Bible was not so accurate... And of course, the various streams in the Christianity never happened, nor Religious Wars. Just minors disagreements on Mary (Virgin or not), the holly Trinity, and marriage of the Priests...

Presuming you are referring to the wars surrounding the Reformation, the controversy there was largely because one side believed that sources outside the scripture had authority to reveal or determine fundamentals of the faith.

*cough*

What about salvation? you only need to compare King James Version (KJV) to the New English Bible (NEB) and you will run into reformation bias on this particular subject.

Salvation? I have heard that the KJV leans towards a Calvinistic/predestination position, although the examples I've seen have never shown blatant mistranslation - if a particular word or phrase is questionable, then it is actually good and honest practice to assess its meaning by referring to that found throughout the rest of the scripture - I believe that is what happened with the KJV when certain verses in it that appear to support predestination might be contested by some as being more neutral on the topic.

Certainly, the KJV does (ironically, given its adoration by presbyterians and congregationalists) lean towards an episcopalian position on church governance. But this is less a dishonest translation, and more playing into how words have changed - preferring the term 'bishop' for example when elder would be equally appropriate, even though the term 'bishop' in the Apostles' time would have meant what we mean by 'elder' nowadays.

I suppose there is the rather blant addition of a certain excerpt to support the concept of the Trinity, although I think that concept is proven by scripture anyway (even if it is always expressed wrong, there's a reason the term 'Trinity' is never used in the scripture).

Aren't you forgetting a bunch of other religious/philosophical texts now? The first who springs to mind are those of the ancient chinese... And the code of Hammurabi, of course.

Well, perhaps. But the Code of Hammurabi is a major political/legal document, the scripture is just the writings of nobodies that were part of an obscure cult or minor desert people. The Code of Hammurabi is also carved in rock, and is I would think (apologies if wrong) much shorter in length that the entirety of the scripture. So what stands out as being more miraculous?

Plus, for all the stuff we are talking about here, with the confusion that could have come about from copying dubious copies, we have access to documents now that are at least extremely close to the originals, so we can compare them more directly.

[Brenus]

“Presuming you are referring to the wars surrounding the Reformation,”: Not only, not only. I refer as well to the Orthodox Churches (Greek, Russian, Serbian, Ethiopian and all others) that have a different lecture of the Latin/Greek translations of the original text we don’t have any more but only copies. Copies made of course with personal input and spelling mistakes and wrong punctuation…
So we have modified copies of a very old and primitive language that was written by people wanting to boost their military and sexual prowess, and justifying their lust, loot, betrayal and mass murders by saying it was because of a God… Then it was “purified” then translated for political/religious purpose.

[Rhyfelwyr]

“Presuming you are referring to the wars surrounding the Reformation,”: Not only, not only. I refer as well to the Orthodox Churches (Greek, Russian, Serbian, Ethiopian and all others) that have a different lecture of the Latin/Greek translations of the original text we don’t have any more but only copies. Copies made of course with personal input and spelling mistakes and wrong punctuation…
So we have modified copies of a very old and primitive language that was written by people wanting to boost their military and sexual prowess, and justifying their lust, loot, betrayal and mass murders by saying it was because of a God… Then it was “purified” then translated for political/religious purpose.

Spelling mistakes, wrong punctuation... big deal. For all the different translations by all the different branches, so far the only thing of any sort of substance anybody has been able to come up with is the virgin/young woman issue with Mary. And as PVC said, I wouldn't regard that as a fundamental of the faith.

For all the drama about corrupt these translations are, I never see any solid examples of significant alterations being made.

Please stop giving me rhetoric about wars and lust and mass murder, and just put some solid examples on the table.

As a result of the apparently oh-so-corrupt KJV that I have always read, what parts of my faith are false and would have been different if I read a version closer to the original?

[Sigurd]

A little selection of commonly used scripture and proposed Pauline teaching of salvation. (KJV = King James Version / NEB = New English Bible)

Acts 11:14

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

KJV:

Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved

NEB:

He shall speak words that will bring salvation to you and your household.

Romans 10:1

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

KJV

Brethren my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

NEB

Brothers, my deepest desire and my prayer to God is for their salvation.

Romans 10:9

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

KJV:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

NEB

If on your lips is the confession, 'Jesus is Lord', and in your heart the faith that God raised him from the dead, then you will find salvation.

1. Cor 1:18

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

KJV:

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

NEB:

This doctrine of the cross is sheer folly to those on their way to ruin, but to us who are on the way to salvation it is the power of God

1.Cor 15:2

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

KJV:

By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

NEB:

On which you have taken your stand, and which is now bringing you salvation.

2 Cor 2:15

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

KJV:

For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish

NEB:

We are indeed the incense offered by Christ to God, both for those who are on the way to salvation, and for those on the way to perdition.

So.. if we go by the NEB translation Paul consistently spoke of salvation as a process that is life long. The Reformationists liked to teach that salvation was attainable whilst in this life, that one could be considered saved or I am saved rather than you await your salvation.

[Slyspy]

I love these threads. Not because of the content, which is frankly rambling and largely unreadable. Not for the purpose, which is futile. But for the completely random punctuation, capitalisation and use of bold letters.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Even so, I have a book with a number of Cicero's(and a few others) speeches. Well preserved.

So do I, but Cicero's core output was in Latin (which is easier to copy than Hebrew) of his works have been lost over the centuries, and his total corupus was never as great as the totality of surviving scripture.

As for the "big wup"... I won't claim to have followed the debate closely, but it was a hotly debated point when the new norwegian translation was released. Apparently a bunch of christians do consider changing Mary's status from "virgin" to "young woman" a big deal. They didn't use english texts in their works, btw, from what I remember they used greek and hebrew texts.

It gets argued about, but it's a slight inflection which says more about our modern sexual practices than the interpretation of the Bible. Irrc Mary is referred to as a girl and a virgin by Jerome.