The Bible, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight

[hardheadjarhead]

no.. if there are omissions then shame on the poeple who omitted parts of it. God is not the one who omitted. you say for allowing it? is it His fault that people commit all kinds of crimes? He has forbidden those crimes, but people still make them. Now, think if God is to stop each crime right when it happens or before it happens then what is the purpose of this life?!

If the Bible is inerrant then there ought not be omissions that would be construed as errors and lead to such divisiveness. If it is a perfect and Holy text inspired by God and penned by his chosen apostles, kings and prophets, then there would be no omissions and no questionable passages. Everything would jibe and be perfectly clear, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

If the authors made mistakes, then the Bible is in error. If God permitted them to make mistakes, thereby turning millions who note the errors away from him, then He is responsible for their damnation. Further, if God is omniscient, he would have anticipated all these difficulties and dealt with it.

Here's another question: Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples following his resurrection?

Question number two: How long does God's anger last?


Regards,


Steve

 

[mantis]

If the Bible is inerrant then there ought not be omissions that would be construed as errors and lead to such divisiveness. If it is a perfect and Holy text inspired by God and penned by his chosen apostles, kings and prophets, then there would be no omissions and no questionable passages. Everything would jibe and be perfectly clear, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

If the authors made mistakes, then the Bible is in error. If God permitted them to make mistakes, thereby turning millions who note the errors away from him, then He is responsible for their damnation. Further, if God is omniscient, he would have anticipated all these difficulties and dealt with it.

Here's another question: Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples following his resurrection?

Question number two: How long does God's anger last?


Regards,


Steve

i'll tell you what i personally believe what the bible is:
I believe it was at some point the words of God sent to Jesus to reveal and explain to people. for political reasons, and due to the public ignorance, priests took advantage of people and changed some passages, and hid some other to suit their greed, and to develop more power over the common people, until this current Bible developed and became a mixtrue of true and untrue words and passages where the untrue parts are far more than the true ones. I do not imagine the Bible to be Peter saying commentaries about Jesus, but I imagine the "real bible" to be words from God to people with laws and facts concerning their life, and what's after their death, and even what's between.
as far as where did Jesus appear, I do not know about that.
and your last question is: how long does God's anger persist? until people are punished exactly for what they have done, fairly with no addition or subtraction.
that would be what I think..

 

[mantis]

If the Bible is inerrant then there ought not be omissions that would be ...

Oh, i forgot to comment on that one!
I do not believe that the bible is inerrant. the bible has much mistakes and contradictions as any book you can pick up at your local bookstore, if not more. I believe the Bible contradicts from the major creed issues to the finest little details
I hope im not offending anybody. This is not my intention to do so, and if I do i apologize for that, and please feel free to point that out to me!

 

[arnisador]

Anyone got an opinion on the Q hypothesis? I'm no expert, but the argument for Q plus Markan priority that I red was pretty convincing to me.

 

[Raewyn]

Ive just spent an hour reading through all these post's. Im just trying to figure out why one passage or verse or whatever from the bible can be interpreted in so many different ways??? Why can people read a verse from the bible and get so many different meanings from it??? Is it because we interperet it to suit our selves and what we believe in or is it because I dont have faith and am a non believer and I dont understand it?

I can now understand why religion is the cause of so many wars!

I dont mean this post to be offensive, Im just trying to understand things!

 

[BlackCatBonz]

Question number two: How long does God's anger last?

how long does God's anger persist? until people are punished exactly for what they have done, fairly with no addition or subtraction

i have to laugh when i read this.......it takes me wayyyyyyy back to the old testament and the book of job.
im not going to bother quoting the pertinent parts......i would rather people read it if they never have, or those that have, read it and refresh your memory of how the omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent god treats his most loyal servants.
im particularly fond of chapters 38-41, which i call "god's rant", in which he states how magnificent and all powerful he is, and how dare job question him for anything he does.

...the lord giveth and the lord taketh away, blessed be the lord - job 1:21

 

[BlackCatBonz]

Ive just spent an hour reading through all these post's. Im just trying to figure out why one passage or verse or whatever from the bible can be interpreted in so many different ways??? Why can people read a verse from the bible and get so many different meanings from it??? Is it because we interperet it to suit our selves and what we believe in or is it because I dont have faith and am a non believer and I dont understand it?

I can now understand why religion is the cause of so many wars!

I dont mean this post to be offensive, Im just trying to understand things!

DING DING DING!!!!

 

[CanuckMA]

<snip> I remember one lecture when he was discussing a small town he had been excavating in modern day Jordan. The town had been decimated and no one knew why. My teacher realized that this town was depopulated right around the time pork became a "bad" thing to eat. Turns out that pork was a dangerous meat to keep around - went bad easily, and this city was dependent upon it. By studying the refuse of the village and other archeological evednce, he was able to determine that bad pork had caused several deaths and that the village just packed up and moved out because the religious (educated) leaders told them to. <snip>

There's your correlation. Not necessarily that pork went bad easily, but that pigs tend to scavenge for food and since the sanitary facilities in those days weren't ...

Hence, the reason for the kosher rule of not eating pork. It was unhealthy and (to quote you) "the religious (educated) leaders told them [not] to." The same, by the way, goes for shellfish, which are also scavengers -- and catfish, although it is a finned fish. The community leaders knew that it wasn't healthy but I don't know that they could prove why, other than "because I said so and I know these things." Whoever didn't believe them got dead, so who wasn't going to take what they said as gospel (sorry -- couldn't resist that one.)

Back then, folks relied upon religion and stories of what came before as fact. Knowing now what we know about the spread of disease through unsanitary conditions, it's easy for us to draw conclusions based upon scientifically-proven fact.

Your prof sounds like an interesting guy and that class must've been a good one.

And that's a falacy. The rules of Kashrut as they related to foods are immensly more complex than that. But with regards to meat and fish, it's not just pork, but all animals that don't BOTH chew their cud and have split hooves. Pork is often singled out because it is a common farm animal, but it also excludes animals like rabbit and horse. Fish needs to have both fins and scales. While it excludes shellfish and catfish, it also excludes perfectly safe fish like shark. The health reasons are recent attempts to justify those Torah rules.

 

[mrhnau]

Ive just spent an hour reading through all these post's. Im just trying to figure out why one passage or verse or whatever from the bible can be interpreted in so many different ways??? Why can people read a verse from the bible and get so many different meanings from it??? Is it because we interperet it to suit our selves and what we believe in or is it because I dont have faith and am a non believer and I dont understand it?

I can now understand why religion is the cause of so many wars!

I dont mean this post to be offensive, Im just trying to understand things!

No offense taken, there is a reason there are so many splits in the church!

why is a verse interpreted in so many ways? There are a couple of reasons for that.

1) Understanding of the language and culture can cause problems. Things translated into English can cause difficulties, and the Western mind seems to emphasise things differently.

2) Out of context. You can't take isolated verses and try to build a strong case for doctrine. Try reading around the verse in question! What were they trying to say as a whole?

3) Someone has a purpose and tries to instill it. Someone has a problem with speaking in tongues, they will try to find verses that they think are against it and preach/teach those. Someone thinks speaking in tongues is great, they find verses to support that too. Sometimes its important, but more often than not, its not worth the heart ache. For instance, free will vs predetermination. Does it make a real difference in "application" of christianity? not really! But churches have split over the fine points of this doctrine. Kind of silly.

4) you make the point of perhaps not understanding some things because you are not a believer. For some things, thats going to be the case, I think... there is a difference between head knowledge and heart knowledge. Just my opinion though

I think two people who are clearly christians can disagree over things even when trying their best. Divisions in the church have been happening since Christ left. It does not look like it will change any time soon. I often wonder what Christ would think about the church these days... if he were to visit most of the churches these days, would he feel comfortable or think its done "right"?

Hope it was a little bit helpful...

MrH

 

[7starmantis]

7Star suggests that there are omissions, and not contradictions. Where then, is the evidence of the omission? There is none to be had in this case, and the omission is purely speculative. If there were an omission-and we have no reason to believe there is-then shame on God for allowing it. So too with Biblical errors, which are explained away by "translation problems."

:idunno: I'm confused. Evidence of the omission? Um...the post you made about Judas' death. You posted what you belived to be a contradiction in two stories about his death, I simply stated that what you had shown was an ommision from one story to the next, not a contradiction. One author didn't have or write the full details...just like the example I gave about Katrina...you did actually read my whole post didn't you?

So now your proof of biblical error is your own "shame on God" opinion? Um...I'm really not sure how to address this....your now saying its wrong for God to have allowed the author of these books to write their stories in the way that their experience and background/personalities would allow? Would you expect a thesis written by a graduate student in Law to contain the same facts and completeness that the same thesis written by a high school dropout who learned the trade of, say fishing would contain? Its simply the same story told by different people who may have seen less or more than the other person. I must say, if these are your core basis for biblical contradiction, it seems your "grasping at straws".

If the Bible is inerrant then there ought not be omissions that would be construed as errors and lead to such divisiveness. If it is a perfect and Holy text inspired by God and penned by his chosen apostles, kings and prophets, then there would be no omissions and no questionable passages. Everything would jibe and be perfectly clear, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Now your addressing the meaning of inerrant from your own opinions about what "ought" to be allowed. Maybe you shouldn't construe an ommision as an error. Now your saying for somethin to be correct it must be "perfectly clear"? Thats pretty subjective isn't it? I mean, clear to whom? Is physics clear to everyone? Is physics true?

If the authors made mistakes, then the Bible is in error. If God permitted them to make mistakes, thereby turning millions who note the errors away from him, then He is responsible for their damnation. Further, if God is omniscient, he would have anticipated all these difficulties and dealt with it.

Well, for one your assuming and labeling authors experiences and writings as errors. Secondly, your assuming an "error" (by your definition) would turn millions away from him. Thirdly, your assuming God (if omniscient) would deal with something the way you think it should be dealt with.

Here's another question: Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples following his resurrection?

Question number two: How long does God's anger last?

Personally, I would much rather you just lay out your contradictions, then wait for answers from different people...it almost seems your trying to "trap" someone with something. Just my opinion though.

7sm

 

[hardheadjarhead]

7Star wrote:

I dont think the questions of why a robe's owner would allow his robe to be used in such an event is really a major basis of biblical theology.


The topic is the Bible. We can use speculation freely to determine our confidence in the historical veracity of Biblical accounts. As it is, I find it questionable that Roman guards would take a valuable (by Biblical accounts) robe and drape it on a man drenched in blood (as determined by speculation based on our historical knowledge of Roman traditions of flogging), thereby ruining the cloak.

And it leaves us with the question, 7Star, if the Bible is inerrant and non-contradictory, WHY does it say in one account that the robe was purple and in the other red?

Speculation: One author liked the image of the color purple because it is the Imperial Roman color of royalty. Purple robes in Biblical times, as I've said, were very expensive. To signify Jesus's descent from David, the author chose purple over other accounts of the robe being red.

Speculation: By the time the author heard oral accounts of the story, it had been changed.

Speculation: By the time the author read a now long lost account of the death of Jesus, the robe's color had been changed to purple.


We can take any one of these speculative hypotheses and run with them as far as we like. Proving them is likely impossible. However each of them stands a far better chance in the court of reason than saying something along the lines of "Well, the Bible is NEVER in error nor does it contain any contradictions, ergo there is an omission that would solve this non-dilemma."

Only the credulous mind can accept the latter explanation. The rational mind can not.


Regards,


Steve

 

[mantis]

Ive just spent an hour reading through all these post's. Im just trying to figure out why one passage or verse or whatever from the bible can be interpreted in so many different ways??? Why can people read a verse from the bible and get so many different meanings from it??? Is it because we interperet it to suit our selves and what we believe in or is it because I dont have faith and am a non believer and I dont understand it?

I can now understand why religion is the cause of so many wars!

I dont mean this post to be offensive, Im just trying to understand things!

well i think people have the tendency to get rid of the "burden" exposed by religious rules and regulations and since there is no solid ruling suggested by teh bible people do choose what they want, and they hear things the way they want. it's like going to home depot, you select what you like, and you leave what you dont! and afterall you still claim to be a man of faith, and still claim religiousness

 

[7starmantis]

7Star wrote:

I dont think the questions of why a robe's owner would allow his robe to be used in such an event is really a major basis of biblical theology.


The topic is the Bible. We can use speculation freely to determine our confidence in the historical veracity of Biblical accounts. As it is, I find it questionable that Roman guards would take a valuable (by Biblical accounts) robe and drape it on a man drenched in blood (as determined by speculation based on our historical knowledge of Roman traditions of flogging), thereby ruining the cloak.

You have got to be kidding me. Because the topic is the bible we are free to abandon reasonable truth and logical arguments and run rampant with speculations? It seems your mind is made up before starting. You have created an enclosed area for discussion of things you do not believe to be accurate, where truth and reason are no longer needed.

And it leaves us with the question, 7Star, if the Bible is inerrant and non-contradictory, WHY does it say in one account that the robe was purple and in the other red?

Would you have the passages that contradict each other in this instance?

We can take any one of these speculative hypotheses and run with them as far as we like. Proving them is likely impossible. However each of them stands a far better chance in the court of reason than saying something along the lines of "Well, the Bible is NEVER in error nor does it contain any contradictions, ergo there is an omission that would solve this non-dilemma."

Ok, without basis of truth and reason, your correct...any speculation is viable. To say that because the topic is the bible your willing to accept speculation for truth is, in my opinion, a flaw in your willingness to seek truth.

OK, for the last time, please stop misquoting me to fulfill your wisguided opinions about the bible, christians, or me. I'm simply offering truth and reason to a topic you are not willing to allow truth and reason to be considered. I did not say there was an ommision that explained anything....re-read my posts. What I did say was that your supposed contradiction in the story of Judas' death was nothing more than one story having ommitted certain details that another provided. I didn't say there was some magical ommision floating in neverneverland that explained anything. You not willing to listen to anything that seperates my arguments from your box you have tried to put it in. You have what you think I'm saying, and refuse to listen to anything else.

7sm

 

[mantis]

You have got to be kidding me. Because the topic is the bible we are free to abandon reasonable truth and logical arguments and run rampant with speculations? It seems your mind is made up before starting. You have created an enclosed area for discussion of things you do not believe to be accurate, where truth and reason are no longer needed.

Would you have the passages that contradict each other in this instance?

Ok, without basis of truth and reason, your correct...any speculation is viable. To say that because the topic is the bible your willing to accept speculation for truth is, in my opinion, a flaw in your willingness to seek truth.

OK, for the last time, please stop misquoting me to fulfill your wisguided opinions about the bible, christians, or me. I'm simply offering truth and reason to a topic you are not willing to allow truth and reason to be considered. I did not say there was an ommision that explained anything....re-read my posts. What I did say was that your supposed contradiction in the story of Judas' death was nothing more than one story having ommitted certain details that another provided. I didn't say there was some magical ommision floating in neverneverland that explained anything. You not willing to listen to anything that seperates my arguments from your box you have tried to put it in. You have what you think I'm saying, and refuse to listen to anything else.

7sm

just a friendly suggestion..
it seems both of you guys are going in circles and not really giving ear to what the other is saying..
although it seems to me that you guys agree more than disagree but you want to argue anyway!
i think both of you are being logical in suggesting ideas, but being highly unreasonable in listening to the other's logic.
why dont you guys start over using clear straight and concise phrases
(or fight jk)
OR.. you can just nevermind my suggestion

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I'm confused. Evidence of the omission?

One could cite extra-biblical texts that support evidence of an omission. In this case, none exist.

The two stories are SO different that your supposition of an omission simply doesn't carry water. It is far easier to believe that the two stories are two totally different accounts circulating through Christian communities in the late 1st and early 2nd century.

Maybe you shouldn't construe an ommision as an error. Now your saying for somethin to be correct it must be "perfectly clear"?

When the future of billions of souls hang in the balance, one would think so.

Well, for one your assuming and labeling authors experiences and writings as errors. Secondly, your assuming an "error" (by your definition) would turn millions away from him. Thirdly, your assuming God (if omniscient) would deal with something the way you think it should be dealt with.

I'm assuming they're errors, yes. A hare does not chew its cud, and a bat is not a bird (both Duteuronomy 14...see also Leviticus). The value of pi isn't 3 (1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2). For this latter value I task the Bible with the accuracy my high school geometry teacher demanded...and I won't accept "rounding off."

I'm not assuming anything in regards to millions turning away from scripture. Atheism rates in this country have doubled in the last twenty years or so. Roughly 14% of the American population are non-believers. I don't think many of these folks want to believe in unicorns (Numbers 23:22, Numbers 24:8, Psalms 92:10, Psalms 29:6, Job 39:9, Job 39:10), or dragons and giants and talking donkeys (I'm not making that up...the Bible has a talking donkey...but no green trolls with Scots accents that I know of). But I digress...as I'm moving from errors and contradictions to the realm of biblical absurdities.

And as far as assuming God ought to handle it the way we mortals would handle it--yes I do expect him to set an example and be precise, and clear, and fair in his dealings with the beings he supposedly loves. We should not be told to be moral, only to be confronted with examples of immoral behavior on His part. We should not be told to be compassionate, only to be confronted with a deity who is on record as having murdered (or ordered the murder) of thousands of children and the rape of young girls and women. This is moral relativism at its worst.

Personally, I would much rather you just lay out your contradictions, then wait for answers from different people...it almost seems your trying to "trap" someone with something. Just my opinion though.

I'm trying to chunk it out by offering two at a time (with the exceptions above). There are hundreds of these contradictions and errors.

Am I chumming the waters? Sure. But if the Bible is inerrant, and there are no contradictions, then no trap can be laid. You should have no difficulty here, nor should anybody else desiring to refute what I write.

For those here interested in a ready reference for these attributions, check Biblegateway.com or look up the Blue Letter Bible. Both are handy resources if you don't have a Bible at hand.

Note too that different Bibles have different translations. The NIV will not read the same as the NRSV or the King James. At times the differences are significant...and that too makes for contradictions.

Further note: My kid's future in-laws are coming in to town tomorrow. If you don't hear from me for awhile, that'll be why.


Regards,


Steve

 

[kenpo tiger]

And that's a falacy. The rules of Kashrut as they related to foods are immensly more complex than that. But with regards to meat and fish, it's not just pork, but all animals that don't BOTH chew their cud and have split hooves. Pork is often singled out because it is a common farm animal, but it also excludes animals like rabbit and horse. Fish needs to have both fins and scales. While it excludes shellfish and catfish, it also excludes perfectly safe fish like shark. The health reasons are recent attempts to justify those Torah rules.

Perhaps the health reasons are recent attempts to justify the rules, perhaps not. I singled out pork because that was mentioned in the post to which I was replying. Personally, I don't keep kosher and I find it laughable when people say they do but will order in seafood or Chinese and eat it on paper plates in their kosher homes or they go out for dinner and order the same. The same way that the rules seem to be adapted to modern life by attempting to justify not eating pig for health reasons, these people seem to have adapted them to suit their mood. Just pointing it out. I believe what I believe and do not try to impose it upon others.

Which brings me to Mantis. If G-d gave the words of the Bible to Jesus, how do you explain the Old Testament?

 

[Marginal]

You have got to be kidding me. Because the topic is the bible we are free to abandon reasonable truth and logical arguments and run rampant with speculations? It seems your mind is made up before starting. You have created an enclosed area for discussion of things you do not believe to be accurate, where truth and reason are no longer needed.

I think that was established with "The Bible is the only source I want people to discuss. Since the Bible discredits historical context, it cannot be used."

Demented way to play devil's advocate.

 

[Ray]

Nah, you didn't insult me at all. I appreciate being able to refute the attempt to harmonize it. When I say it insults the intelligence, it does so in such a way that a thinking person isn't comfortable with that incredible leap of speculation...and hence rejects it.

You imply that because I am believer in God and His son Jesus Christ that I am not a thinking person?

I made no incredible leap of speculation, nor did I attempt to harmonize the writings. I made the mistake of believing that you really wanted the answer to that question.

I don't believe that you rejected it for the reasons cited, you don't believe it because it doesn't fit in with your bias that there is no God and that anything or anyone who does is wrong.

 

[Ray]

If the authors made mistakes, then the Bible is in error. If God permitted them to make mistakes, thereby turning millions who note the errors away from him, then He is responsible for their damnation.

Each of us is responsible for what we do with the knowledge that we have.

Further, if God is omniscient, he would have anticipated all these difficulties and dealt with it.

Why do you think that? If he wanted us to all know that he existed, he would just appear to us all and prove that he is who he says he is. Maybe he'd like us to walk by faith.

I have anticipated some difficulties that my own children would face as they grew up, I let them face their difficulties as part of the growing and learning process.

Question number two: How long does God's anger last?

"Never ask a question that you don't know the answer to."

 

[Ray]

I think that was established with "The Bible is the only source I want people to discuss. Since the Bible discredits historical context, it cannot be used."

Darned irritating when people don't want to use your particular system of belief. You see that from those who believe deeply in Greek Logic as well as those who believe in religious systems. Of course both kinds of people stammer and say "but it's true."