There is nothing rude in my post. If you think there is, I would encourage you to hit that big old RTM button in the lower left corner of your screen. Pointing out that your faith is based on faith (as it should be) and not facts (as it cannot be) is not rude.
I guess it must depend on what facts you are talking about. If you object to what Christians believe; that Jesus existed, was crucified, died, and rose again, a Christians facts are the Bible. Do you believe there are any facts in the Bible, or do you think it is all non-fact?
Inserting your comments inside the quoted text makes it a real pain in the *** to reply. Maybe you could break up the post if you want to reply to individual points?
That's what I said. They didn't support the position of the editors. See the Gospels of Mary, which asserts the equality of women, for one sterling example.
I'm sorry, that seems to be to be rather playing with words and being insincere. By saying it didn't support the position of the editors, and not commenting on why the editors had their position, you leave out something very important; they weren't being selfish or overly conservative in refusing to accept another book. Rather, the other book did not support Christian beliefs which were already accepted. Those of us who believe the King James Bible to be the very word of God, would also say they were preventing errors the be allowed in the Bible.
Well, you'd be hard pressed to find me saying that. But the claims in the gnostic gospels are every bit as supportable as those included in the Christian bible. That is to say... not at all.
That is just too broad a statement. Commenting on dietary restrictions, the Bible makes a claim that there are animals with cloven hooves, is that incorrect and unsupportable? Of course not. So you need to give some few specifics.
My bad. I find it difficult to type falsehoods; the statement should be "bats are birds", which is what is claimed in the bible.
If you go to
www.internationalstandardbible.com/f/fowl.html you will see in the first paragraph that at one time the Hebrew word for fowl at one time was used to denote all flying creatures. If you look at Leviticus 11:20, in the King James Bible, you will find "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."
And I can't help but notice that you only addressed the statement that was mistyped...
Sorry, it didn't seem worthwhile after you comment on bats now being mammals. The Bible makes no such claim, but as I pointed out, seems to simply be implying that of all flying things, bats are not to be eaten.
But, leprosy at least the type that killed people was described as unclean, which I think meant not holy. There was a belief that whatever one's mis-fortune, it was God-caused because of sin. Job refuted that, as did Jesus.
As for Jesus being a vampire or zombie... well, those are both well known to rise from the dead, and have every bit as much objective support as the story of Jesus.
So... if the bible has no errors (which is just plain silly, given that bats are not birds...) how do you account for the differences between various versions? How did you decide that your preferred version is the Real Actual And Correct one?
So if you accept that fowls was all flying things, are you then willing to think the Bible has no errors? ;-)
For my part, I have faith in the Bible, but not in zombies nor vampires. Christians share that. Unless they are not true Christians, or have weak faith. Regardless, you have to know that is offensive to Christians, to compare Jesus to zombies and vampires, which are always associated with evil beings, whether you think they are real, or just myths. Christians believe Jesus is God, so he could not be evil. Is that what you intended?
I don't accept those Bible versions that differ from the King James Version as being correct. Therefore if they disagree with the King James, their errors are the responsibility of the people who created those versions. I understand those who like the other versions will disagree. Again, that is on them. As to the reasons, that should require another thread as it would take a lot of space, and a lot of time. If you are sufficiently interested, perhaps you can either wait, or look for such books as 'The Understandable History of The Bible' by Gipp, 'Purified Seven Times, The Miracle of The English Bible' by Bill Bradley, or 'Answers to Your Bible Version Questions' by David W. Daniels. There are others if your really want to know, and after you read those three, wish to read more.
Do you believe (in direct contradiction to the text you claim is infallible) that women are not the equal of men? Do you think women should be allowed to wear jewelry? Braid their hair? When you have appendicitis, do you go to the hospital, or to a church? Do you have any tattoos? Do you believe that communion bread is actually the flesh of Jesus rather than merely a symbol? Or are you (as the vast majority are) practicing cafeteria-Christianity, where you just pick the parts you agree with, and ignore the rest?
Sorry, this is getting a little tedious:
1. Yes and no.
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. No
6. No
7. No
None of the various bibles have been trashed. What's been "trashed" is the silly notion that there is objective proof of the stories in those books.
Again, too broad a statement. What stories? Some parts of the Bible do have to be accepted on faith. I do. Others, such as historical fact, are just that.
The Christian bible is actually very clear in insisting that women NOT equal to men. That's one of the reasons I could never be a Christian.
Applicable quotes can be found in Ephesians, 1 Peter, 1 Timothy and plenty of other places.
Being in the medical profession, I don't know how you can accept that women and men are not different. They are different physically, emotionally, and in their thinking processes. That doesn't mean they are inferior. They have different roles. Neither does the Bible say women aren't worth loving and protecting. To the contrary, there are stories of women in the Bible that were of great intelligence, and still humble. Some took an active role in teaching about God and Jesus.
I must applaud you in your post that you and your wife seem to have disagreements that are seemingly of no conflict. That is wonderful! Perhaps you could share how you do that with the rest of us. I and my wife don't always agree, and on subjects that have nothing to do with the Bible. Neither of us is willing to quickly and quietly concede to the other to avoid conflict with each disagreement. Neither of us instantly sees the incorrectness of our position and gives in. I don't try to assert my maleness as a reason my wife should concede. I do listen to my wife when she has something to say, especially if it is in disagreement with me. I would be a bigger fool than I am if I didn't. She is intelligent and has life experience, just as I do.
But it is unusual that every disagreement, among any two people, can be quickly resolved and without any hard feelings. I believe that is why God tells men to be the head of the family, but at the same time tells us to love and protect women, and gives us examples of good and smart women.
As always, with religious matters, no one else is required to believe as I do. Everyone gets to make their own choices in how to live their life.
