|
1 registered members (AndrewAMD),
1,014
guests, and 1
spider. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Bible apologetics
[Re: NITRO777]
#117360
03/14/07 18:26
03/14/07 18:26
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,875
broozar
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,875
|
sorry for interrupting it, i always wondered why genesis is the preferred subject for a discrediting of christian belief. noone but extremists believe in a literal interpreting (interpretierung) of this very beginning of the bible. christian belief does not base on the 5 books that mose wrote, it is based on love, forgiving, self-abandonment, charity, such things. the bible, especially the new testament, is a guideline, only for extremists it's an unalterable doctrine. arguing about words, meanings and translation errors won't make you a better man.
|
|
|
Re: Bible apologetics
[Re: NITRO777]
#117361
03/14/07 19:51
03/14/07 19:51
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,538
WA, Australia
JibbSmart
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,538
WA, Australia
|
Quote:
I don't fully understand your explanation "God brought water up above to the clouds where the clouds hold the water"
i'm no scientist, theologian, and i'm not very well versed in OT Bible stories, so i was going to leave this thread to those who are  but i just thought i'd say that i used to go to a Christian school, and one of their textbooks described a supposedly popular Christian theory that God had suspended a layer of water around the Earth's atmosphere, suspended by this "firmament". this layer acted a little like a greenhouse, increasing the Earth's temperature, and evening it out around the world as well. this meant no icecaps, but no global flooding because so much water was above the sky. the world was a lot more humid and vegetation flourished globally.
this also makes the Great Flood story a little more literal where it says something along the lines of "And God opened the doors of heaven" or something like that, when he started the rain. this could be taken to mean he opened the firmament, allowing the waters above it to rain down on the world below it, hence our lack of "firmament" or "sky waters" today.
or at least that's what i read
julz
Formerly known as JulzMighty. I made KarBOOM!
|
|
|
Re: Bible apologetics
[Re: JibbSmart]
#117362
03/14/07 20:21
03/14/07 20:21
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
this could be taken to mean he opened the firmament
You cant 'open' the firmament, and you will notice that the Bible never states that the firmament was opened during the flood.
The firmament itself holds the clouds up because it is the air resistance which keeps the clouds in the sky, turbulence and air currents keep the clouds up though they can be filled literally with hundreds of tons of water.
The theory you learned was most likely the 'water vapor canopy theory' which has been a popular belief among creationists. I would agree with that theory to a point.
|
|
|
Re: Bible apologetics
[Re: broozar]
#117363
03/14/07 23:05
03/14/07 23:05
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
it is based on love, forgiving, self-abandonment, charity, such things. the bible, especially the new testament, is a guideline
There's more to the bible then just being a 'guideline' according to a lot of christians. Hence the threats of ending up in hell and such for disbelieving.
Even if just a guideline, when it's based upon wrong socalled 'facts', errors, pure speculation and fantasy, when it has contradictions and when people interpret it differently than it was actually written down, especially when they assume it's all meant literal, then it's very legit to debate for example the genesis chapters. You can't ignore the problem of translation from Hebrew to other languages, as doing this could change the meaning/form of certain events. As certain arguments have shown, the whole translating thing matters a lot.
The moral guidelines inside the bible is great, but you don't really need a bible nor do you need to be a christian to understand or think off those moral guidelines yourself. Infact, parts of the bible are not so nice when it comes to moral teachings and then I mostly would refer to the old testament.
Quote:
Namely, the bible is a book written by an ancient culture long ago. We're now living in a 'modern' culture, and generally people don't give a fig about 'primitive' cultures, because such progressive societies view themselves as superior to any such ancient society.
It would be a severe mistake to consider any modern society highly superior to older ones on beforehand. You can't look into the minds of those people back then, but even the technically not so advanced cultures can have had an extremely rich and advanced (ex. mostly oral) culture.
Quote:
However, 99% of the time, the problem isn't the text, but the skeptic coming to the text, reading it with a modern mindset as if its a newspaper written yesterday with them in mind.
If only it was this simple, but it's not. By the way, I think often religious people consider themself to be the superior ones, claiming to have knowledge about something they couldn't possibly know, let alone the total lack of evidence in the first place. We're usually not the ones trying to bend translations to fit our interpretations.
Cheers
Last edited by PHeMoX; 03/14/07 23:33.
|
|
|
Re: Bible apologetics
[Re: NITRO777]
#117364
03/14/07 23:14
03/14/07 23:14
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
The canopy theory has possibly been discredited. I haven't seen a thorough examination of the theory by either side, so I won't jump to conclusions, but most mainstream creationists are quick to say that the canopy theory is good to avoid. AiG for instance. Kent Hovind still believes it as far as I know, but he also believes that flouride in the water is (very vaguely) something the government puts into the water with a hidden agenda. Though he doesn't go on to explain this in detail. I was a big fan of his presentations until I heard that, and then I actually found sources from whom the issue was taken seriously. As this point, I'm convinced that Hovind was a plant by evolutionists to discredit creationists.  I'm really rambling here, on to the point. Quote:
When reading the bible, we're finding a set of stories by more than a hundred different authors that were written over a time of more than 1000 years. As can be naturally expected from a collection of this size, the stories contain thousands of historical and logical mistakes and self-contradictions.
This belief is fine and dandy, but what strikes me about so-called skepticism is its ability to make mountains out of molehills.
Quote:
Bible apologetics is a challenging game
I will agree, but for different reasons. Namely, the bible is a book written by an ancient culture long ago. We're now living in a 'modern' culture, and generally people don't give a fig about 'primitive' cultures, because such progressive societies view themselves as superior to any such ancient society. The challenge isn't reinterpreting the bible, but teaching others to interpret it properly. There are grey areas, where any explanation can be difficult or perhaps just plain not good enough with our current knowledge. However, 99% of the time, the problem isn't the text, but the skeptic coming to the text, reading it with a modern mindset as if its a newspaper written yesterday with them in mind.
Quote:
a) re-interpret the text in a way that the mistakes and contradictions between the stories disappear, and
Reinterpretations are intellectually dishonest. I would be embarrassed to admit that I felt forced to do this from time to time, because I didn't realize that I could just admit that I didn't have an answer, except skeptics make a living out of misinterpreting the bible so no big deal.
Quote:
interpret a literal meaning into the text (regardless of how it was really meant)
Well, when I participate in apologetics, I usually go through the trouble of explaining it from both angles. There's nothing wrong with entertaining differing interpretations, because even then the different interpretations don't cause any "problems."
Quote:
This passage was written in 500 BC in the Babylonian exile, and obviously refers to the Babylonian creation myth where the God Marduk did the same thing (creating a vault and separating the waters below from the waters above). The Babylonians assumed that there must be water above the sky because of it's blue color, and because sometimes it falls down. The vault is needed to keep it up.
I was under the impression that the "babylonian" influence idea had been left for dead.
My initial objection is that throughout history, the Hebrews had strong national pride and went through great pains to avoid any influence from outside cultures.
For instance, in the book of Ruth you won't find the name of God anywhere. But if you take the first letter (in Hebrew obviously) of many of the sentences, His name is spelled out. It was a way of encoding their beliefs to avoid pagan influences.
Beyond that, their entire ritual system was meant to stress their unique nature as God's people.
The differences between the Hebrew and Babylonian accounts are quite extensive.
-Right from the beginning (in fact, the phrase, "in the beginning" is that which I speak of), the accounts diverge. The Babylonian creation account(s) start with "on that day" or "when". Unspecified moments in a (somewhat implied) already created time.
-The Babylonian account records generations of gods and goddesses, whereas the Hebrews (with some objections by a handful of skeptics) tells the story of one God.
-Most of the story is devoted to explaining how Marduk became a "cheif god of babylon." By the time all is said and done, only about 1/3 of the story is about the actual act of creation.
And much more.
Quote:
So the sentence is true in its historical context. However, today astronomy claims that there is no vault and there is no water above the sky. Astronomy even claims that the earth is a sphere, so there is not even a "below" and "above". So when taken literally, either astronomy is wrong or almost everything in this sentence is wrong today... or am I wrong here? Apologists, to the rescue!
I'm not going to try and reconcile a modern scientific understanding with the bible. Mostly because I'm not qualified.
It would be helpful to see what the Hebrews actually thought about that firmament and all of that, but I don't think its possible.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 03/14/07 23:14.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Bible apologetics
[Re: PHeMoX]
#117365
03/14/07 23:33
03/14/07 23:33
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
There's more to the bible then just being a 'guideline' according to a lot of christians. Hence the threats of ending up in hell and such for disbelieving.
Quite correct I would say, way beyond 'guidelines' as far as IM concerned. While I dont take every word of the Bible literally, I take the content literally and sometimes the content boils down to the meanings of certain words.
Quote:
The moral guidelines inside the bible is great, but you don't really need a bible nor do you need to be a christian to understand or think off those moral guidelines yourself.
Right. I know many non-Christians who arent just 'good' people, but they are great people, people I respect. Smart great people.
But being good and nice and following moral guidelines is only a very small part of Christianity. The core basis of Christianity is faith in the supernatural. All Christians must believe in their hearts that there was a man named Jesus who was in the flesh 2000 years ago and He was God. We all also must believe that that same man died for our sins and rose from the dead. That belief is no 'guideline' it is a faith.
I would personally rather that someone either believe or doubt, there do not seem to me to be any varying levels in between. I have a lot more respect for someone who simply admits to atheism rather than someone who goes to church and claims the Bible as a guideline, yet doesnt really believe it. At least an open atheist is honest with himself and honest with others, while a churchgoer who doesnt believe is merely a hypocrite in my opinion.
If you believe in the 'literal' ressurection of Christ you are already branded a 'fanatic', so what difference is someone who also believes in a literal creation? or the flood? I see no reason to believe just the parts of the Bible that I choose. Either I accept all of it, or I accept none of it.
Quote:
The moral guidelines inside the bible is great, but you don't really need a bible nor do you need to be a christian to understand or think off those moral guidelines yourself
I dont need the Bible to tell me about 'good moral behavior', I already knew the golden rule before I came to beleif in Jesus. So I agree with this also.
Quote:
Infact, parts of the bible are not so nice when it comes to moral teachings and then I mostly would refer to the old testament.
True. And even in the New Testament there is a warning of impending hell & the apocalypse. So there is an element of Christianity which will always be anti-social. I cannot apologize for that, for if I accept that Jesus is Lord, I also must accept His teachings.
|
|
|
Re: Bible apologetics
[Re: NITRO777]
#117366
03/14/07 23:38
03/14/07 23:38
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,205
Greece
LarryLaffer
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,205
Greece
|
I think I have the perfect link for this thread... http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htmThis guy, or guys, are christians who took the time and browsed through ALL (or so they claim) Bible contradictions, and gave an explanation for each and every one of them. I think if you take the time and look at any 5-10 contradictions from there, you'll form your own opinion about this.. You might think that the guy is right, or that he may be somewhat oversweating it... Personally, I think he's trying a bit too hard in some cases.. like this one... Quote:
a) Judas committed suicide by hanging [Matt 27:5]
b) Judas did not hang himself, but died another way [Acts 1:18]
Matt 27:5 states that Judas "threw the pieces of silver....and he went away and hanged himself."
Acts 1:18 states, "and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out."
It's rather easy to reconcile these:
1. First, Judas tried to kill himself by hanging himself. And this is not always a successful way. Maybe he tried, and failed (as have many others who have tried to commit suicide by hanging). Then after some time, he threw himself off a cliff and fell upon some jagged rocks. Keep in mind that it is not uncommon for people who commit suicide to have tried it before.
2. Judas could have tied a rope to a tree branch that extended over a cliff (after all, you have to get some space between your feet and the ground to hang yourself). In this situation, the rope/branch could have broke before or after death, and Judas plummeted to the ground and landed on some jagged rocks.
Anyhow, I think the whole page proves that trying to nitpick every word from the bible can look as dumb as trying to defend it. If someone really wants to convert or mock a Christian, i'm sure there are better and more mature ways than this. But why would you want to convert a Christian anyway?
I'm kinda on-topic i hope, cause my link is about Bible apologetics..
Cheers,
Aris
|
|
|
Re: Bible apologetics
[Re: NITRO777]
#117367
03/14/07 23:47
03/14/07 23:47
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
If you believe in the 'literal' ressurection of Christ you are already branded a 'fanatic', so what difference is someone who also believes in a literal creation? or the flood? I see no reason to believe just the parts of the Bible that I choose. Either I accept all of it, or I accept none of it.
I don't really like the 'fanatics' stamp either, especially because it quickly get's sort of hostile, but also because these definitions are used for 'atheists' actively trying to get their arguments out too. (look at the recent youtube wave of atheistic movies, or the whole 'christ & creation in schools' debate in several states in the US and the claims about atheists being discriminating).
I definately agree that it would be strange to believe in only parts of it indeed, on the other hand as we know the bible consists of writings of many different authors, so there is some space here.
Quote:
The core basis of Christianity is faith in the supernatural.
I think most non-believers have problems with this, not because it's about the supernatural, but moreso the fact that it's entirely based upon simply accepting something as being true. (-> faith) When you ignore the bible for a moment and simply look at christianity without it, it's that same faith that causes problems for people wanting some evidence before believing anything. (evidence in favor of any 'side' and then decide what they believe upon that).
Quote:
But why would you want to convert a Christian anyway?
I don't want to convert anyone, everyone should believe in whatever they like, I'll respect them anyways. The only thing that sometimes bothers me, is how easily people simply believe eventhough there are good arguments not to. Perhaps 'bother' isn't exactly the right word for it, because it sounds quite negative, as if it actively disturbs me.
Edit: A slightly off topic question perhaps, but something that interests me: Do you consider God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit to be one and the same, equal (in hierarchy) to eachother and/or all 'three' to be Gods? Just out of curiosity,
Cheers
Last edited by PHeMoX; 03/14/07 23:57.
|
|
|
Re: Bible apologetics
[Re: NITRO777]
#117368
03/15/07 01:32
03/15/07 01:32
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 183
Kinji_2007
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 183
|
@Nitro I am sending you my tithes. ;-)
I think the Bible is altered, yet the story of Heaven and Hell is very true. There is a God and Jesus did in fact live and die as recorded in the Bible. There are several other documents that mention Jesus if you need "non-christian" reading material.
The Bible, Absolute or Faulty?
Thats a duh situation. Maybe inspired by God but written by man. Men have faults and thus the Bible has faults. IMO Many things have been altered from the original scrolls. Theres actually proof of that. How do you know that the KJV your reading is EXACTLY like it was written back in the day? You know its not. I look at the Bible as a guide and I keep in mind this scripture..
"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works" (2 Cor 11:13-15 NKJ)
MEN have re-written and translated the Bible for thousands of years. Error is gonna be there. I believe that people are so caught up trying to focus on the mistakes that they forget God or convince themselves that he does not exist.Start looking at the simple things.. peace, love, meekness and so on. If you do not believe in God and you still guide your life according to the Bible then you will be remembered as a better man. Not saying salvation is yours.. just saying that there is nothing wrong with living up to Bible standards as best as possible.
Sorry, strayed from subject.
@JCL
The Bible was written by man. The devil would love nothing more than to rearrange and twist the words in it. Chances are, he already has... thus the contradictions. If he is smart enough to transform into a angel of light.. he can surely play "text_twist" with the Bible if allowed to do so.
My advice.. start in Matthew and use the RED words as a guide. Forget history, forget what Paul wrote if you need to. Jesus can teach you the way.
|
|
|
Re: Bible apologetics
[Re: Kinji_2007]
#117369
03/15/07 03:36
03/15/07 03:36
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Don't have much to add, except that my main gripe is with people who make rather egregious mistakes because they're so wound up about proving the bible is errant, that they can't just admit that not everything they think is an error, actually is an error. But what are you gonna do?
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
|
