Religion The Bible is not the WOG (Word of God)

[strongvoicesforward]

Hi Shinya_ai! Welcome to the forums.

(1)I personally think that the Bible is something that doesn't have to be justified. (2)Can you come up with a reason why the earth was made? If you can't, there shouldn't have to be a reason why the Bible is authentic.

1. I "personally" think it does. If you don`t mind fraud, then you will not. There are some things in the Bible that even Christians can`t seem to find a reason to justify.

2. Can you come up with a reason why Bible God was made? Who made him? If you don`t know, and can`t show that he does exist, then there should be no reason to believe that his existance is authentic/real.

Why are you more prone to believe in the eternal existance of something you can`t see, rather than just accepting that matter, something you can see, has been existing for eternity?

Hope to see you around. Looking forward to your participation. Perhaps you can explain better than some of the others who have been trying on these threads.

 

[No-name]

Strongvoicesforward- I think I have given a reason for the hope I have. And with a great deal of patience and careful instruction, I have corrected, rebuked and encouraged. I have done so with as much gentleness and respect as I can muster. I think you need to read my statement literally: I do not know what the satisfactory proof or disproof that the Bible was inspired by God would look like.

Shinya ai- Welcome to our humble discussion. I believe your post contains wisdom beyond your years. Very well put.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Violating a law does not always equate to disobeying God or to not submitting to authority. For instance, the bus boycotts resulted in the arrest of Dr. King. He followed God's law and submitted to the authority of the state.

God granting authority to governments does not equate to him blessing every action. People are sinful and selfish and will conduct themselves in the manner that we humans do.
God apparently allows bad things to happen.

You conveniently ignoring this in Rom 13 ...he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, ...

If MLK was arrested because he was rebelling against the system of the local governments, then he was also rebelling against what God instituted. The full passage clearly says God has established all authority.

MLK only submitted after he rebelled. The Romans verse does not say to rebel and then submit to the authorities and punishment. It says to submit. Period. Where does it say in the Bible to "rebell against what God instituted."? If you find that verse, then it will be in contradiction to what is above.

Doesn`t matter if he "blesses" it. He is responsible for establishing it. Surely being omnipotent he know what the consequences were going to be. Why not showing some love and not establishing these terrible leaders?

People may be sinful and terrible, but why establish a sinful and terrible person in power if in fact you were doing so purposefully as a tool to bring about millions of deaths -- such as those from Hitler or many other historical examples?

 

[No-name]

SVF- I don't believe that I am responsible for your misreading of the Bible. No insult intended, but I'm not certain if you misread it on purpose, or are just confused in your thinking. I again would suggest that you consult a simple concordance or do some basic research into the doctrines you are criticizing.

Again I believe this hinges on your basic mis-understanding of the concept of authority and what constitutes rebellion. Bringing about change and justice is not rebellion, it is restoration of the just order.

Why establish a sinful person in power. The Old Testament establishes that it can be the just consequences of the sins of mankind, operating as the hand of God, or simply the logical consequential turn of events.

 

[Mycernius]

How do you judge a sinful or terrible leader or government? Remember history is written by the victor. If Hitler had won WW2 would we refer to his regime as sinful or terrible? Also doctrine of the times can also sway what we call terrible power. In Soviet Russia Stalin was a great leader. In Russia today he is regarding in a less favourable light, though they are still debating about burying his body. In some cases a just leader can still make mistakes. Even David incurred the wrath of God. Just a religious way of saying he made a mistake.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

The Earth is a wonderful place. I couldn't live without it. It makes my life worth living. But there are quite a few things here I don't like - e.g. wasps. I don't understand why they're here, and sometimes they upset me a lot (like if I'm trying to eat al fresco on a summer's evening), but I try my best to ignore them and concentrate on the bits I love - like the view from Glastonbury Tor, tulips, rainbows and bunny rabbits.

 

[kumo]

I personally think that the Bible is something that doesn't have to be justified. Can you come up with a reason why the earth was made? If you can't, there shouldn't have to be a reason why the Bible is authentic.

Non sequitur.

The Earth is a wonderful place. I couldn't live without it. It makes my life worth living. But there are quite a few things here I don't like - e.g. wasps. I don't understand why they're here, and sometimes they upset me a lot (like if I'm trying to eat al fresco on a summer's evening), but I try my best to ignore them and concentrate on the bits I love - like the view from Glastonbury Tor, tulips, rainbows and bunny rabbits.

But do you claim the Earth to be perfect or to be the work of a perfect being? I'm pretty sure you do understand why wasps are here, and that the answer to both questions is "no". Therefore, I don't see how this could work as a analogy for Sabros' view.

 

[No-name]

Does the earth have to be perfect to be the work of a perfect being? Perhaps perfect is a functional definition that can encompass the imperfections and evil we see.

 

[kumo]

Does the earth have to be perfect to be the work of a perfect being? Perhaps perfect is a functional definition that can encompass the imperfections and evil we see.

- I said perfect or the work of a perfect being.
- Your definition of "perfect" would require a perfect balance between "good and evil"; that is, the proportion would need to be ideal and unchanging. Afaik, this concept is not a part of Christianity (even if it is, I don't buy it).

 

[No-name]

Obviously the wasps may have to disagree.

 

[kumo]

Obviously the wasps may have to disagree.

Yes, the wasps and murders and rapists may have to disagree, unless they didn't exist in the first place.
And I don't think natural disasters would be able to disagree or agree with anything to begin with.

 

[No-name]

Not to get too far off point, but I think the idea of perfection is definitely subjective to our own limited perspectives. I wan't criticizing your wording- but Tsuyoiko said "wonderful" place, not "perfect" place. Nor am I speaking for her, since she is quite capable. Nor am I attempting to advance a definition of perfect or perfection. I just don't think the answer to your question about wasps is necessarily "no."

Murders and rapists I could live without. I don't see a really good reason for their existence. But natural disasters and wasps I think are part of the larger picture. Without the processes that cause natural disasters, much of the geography of the planet could not exist. Wasps perform some function (which an entemologist is more credible to answer) and I am sure Earth would be all the poorer without them.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I do not know what the satisfactory proof or disproof that the Bible was inspired by God would look like.

Then why would it tell you to "test" all things and "hold on to the good" and "and avoid every kind of evil?" if you can`t do it. Is Bible God only trying to frustrate you?

The Bible tells you you can drink poison. Have you tested that yet? You do trust and believe in him when he tells you something, right?

Mark 16:17~18
And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

The regulating of slavory is evil. The person who regulated it should be evil. The person who had the ability to destroy it but rather chooses to tell masters how far they are permitted to beat their slaves is evil. A man who offers his virgin daughters up to gang rape surely is evil. Something that creates evil must have some evil in it in order to spawn evil.

So, why don't you do what your own Bible verse is telling you to do -- avoid all evil -- that would mean a belief in a thing that spawns and does evil things. Are you avoiding Bible God?

... I believe your post contains wisdom beyond your years. Very well put....

Sounds almost like the same thing you said to Nurizeko. Are these your stock phrases for currying favor? -- Besides the funny "rebuke."

 

[strongvoicesforward]

...but I'm not certain if you misread it on purpose, or are just confused in your thinking.

One thing is for sure -- we wonder the same thing about each other.

I again would suggest that you consult a simple concordance or do some basic research into the doctrines you are criticizing.

Are you saying all those translating boards can`t translate the essence of what is being said without forcing readers to go to word dictionaries of ancient languages? That you can choose the correct word for the meaning more than they can? Why hasn`t anyone written a version with the essence laid out simply? Apparently, those translators with thousands of years between them have decided on that word for they felt it fits the purpose and meaning of what was warranted more than any other word. Your disagreement is with them -- not me. They may look forward to the day when you publish your version with the correct essence rendered so that they could use your version as the correct one to relay the exact meaning and thus correct them of their errors.

As for doctrines, I am sure "Free Will" would fall into that category. There is a thread on that where it is quite easy to see that "Free Will" is a misnomer. It is a flawed concept. It does not exist. It has been violated on numerous times by Bible God.

Or, willl you say that "Free Will" doesn`t mean what it implies? Is it the ol' "That`s what it says, but not what it means," defense again?

 

[Sensuikan San]

... Are you saying all those translating boards can`t translate the essence of what is being said without forcing readers to go to word dictionaries of ancient languages? That you can choose the correct word for the meaning more than they can? Why hasn`t anyone written a version with the essence laid out simply? Apparently, those translators with thousands of years between them have decided on that word for they felt it fits the purpose and meaning of what was warranted more than any other word.

Over the years, there seems to have been quite a few to choose from .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_English_Bible_translations

... but what you're alluding to, surely, is not a translation .... but an interpretation.

... and (sadly) ... an interpretation can be ... anything ... can it not?

Just a thought ...

?W????

 

[kumo]

Over the years, there seems to have been quite a few to choose from .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_English_Bible_translations
... but what you're alluding to, surely, is not a translation .... but an interpretation.
... and (sadly) ... an interpretation can be ... anything ... can it not?
Just a thought ...
?W????

Ok, so how would you interpret "and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all"? Its meaning is quite straightforward for anyone, unless you already have a preconceived idea of what you want the meaning to be. Not a very honest approach to say the least.

 

[Sensuikan San]

Ok, so how would you interpret "and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all"? Its meaning is quite straightforward for anyone, unless you already have a preconceived idea of what you want the meaning to be. Not a very honest approach to say the least.

Your example is in English.

If I were to interpret it into English .... what would I do but simply repeat it?

What would concern me is an interpretation of phraseology from one language to another with, perhaps, differing syntaxes coming into play.

I presume that your own language is Portuguese (but I may be wrong). Would I not be correct in asking that, when translating from Portuguese to English - simple literal translation is not sufficient? You feel that you need to interpret (a more complex task) into English - to fully get your meaning to be understood?

I see nothing dishonest or complex in my comment.

?W????

 

[kumo]

Sensuikan San, the majority of bible editions are not translated literally, figurative language is also taken into account. You can be sure that even whe reading an English version you'll get exactly what the author wanted to say. Figurative language has nothing to do with interpretation when translating something.
And my last comment wasn't aimed at you, sorry if it seemed that way.:gomen: (I was using "you" in the plural)

 

[Sensuikan San]

Sensuikan San, the majority of bible editions are not translated literally, figurative language is also taken into account. You can be sure that even whe reading an English version you'll get exactly what the author wanted to say. Figurative language has nothing to do with interpretation when translating something.
And my last comment wasn't aimed at you, sorry if it seemed that way.:gomen:

No Problem!

We are on the same wavelength!

..And what you say is precisely the point I was trying to make!

Interpretation is necessary in the act of translation ... and is manipulated.

I think we both agree.

?W????:beer1:

 

[No-name]

You could take a verse out of context and try to build an entire teaching or doctrine out of it and that would be a rather limited and incorrect interpretation. A concordance would give you some background and what the general consensus says it means. It is not difficult, but you should take into account the history, culture, language and context of the text to determine not only our contemporary interpretation but to examine what the author's intent might be.