The problem with the bible.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Originally Posted by tomspug

For example, I said that I feel like I can always rely on the Bible. Could you give a personal experience or a theoretical example of a situation that would contradict this?

As much as I hate to say it there is some teachings in the bible that seems to be bad advice. For instance "bless those that curse you". As a Christian I've found that if you do that, you're just asking to be a doormat. Bullies will take advantage of you.

Example:
As a child (8 years old), I had a class mate who was a bully who sat next to me in class. He often had no paper to write with and being a good Christian lad, I would give him sheets (remembering the teachings that we should bless our enemies). One day I decided that I really wanted to show him Christian kindness and handed him my writing pad, telling him he could look after it and I would get sheets of paper from him when I needed it. The next day when I asked for a sheet of my paper he turned around and told me "No! That's my writing pad!"

I've had other examples of this and I learnt pretty quickly that just because the bible says it, doesn't always mean we can always rely on it. There are other teachings in the bible that I find dubious too, but that's just one.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Kcnorwood

Or at least my problem with it.

The bible is some 2,000 years old so then is not telling just how long those who found it had it in their possession. It is believed that the bible is the inspired writings of God written by man. So how do you know that those who had the original text in their possessions did not alter it in some way?
After all, are you not putting your trust in man & not the Christian God?
What about the translations in the bible? One word can have multitude meanings depending on how it is used. Besides why would God relay on a book to get his message out?

Good question. As I am not a bible-only christian, this is really no issue for me.

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by tomspug

Look, I'm going to nip this convo in the bud before it tapers off.

My original response was an attempt to dissuade you from pursuing an argument, because it's my personal experience against your logic (which means you could never 'win'), but you persisted anyways.

Look at it this way, if there is a room full of people at your grandmother's death bed, and she claims to "see Jesus" before finally dying, exactly what would be the value in arguing whether or not she really saw Jesus? Obviously, everyone already understands that it's possible that she didn't actually see Jesus. But the person who insists upon dwelling upon the idea that she was wrong is the only one in the room NOT considering the possibility that she did. It's kind of like when the only thing skeptics fail to be skeptical of is skepticism itself.

General rule of thumb: NEVER argue against someone's personal experience. There's just no point (unless you were there too).

So, you think I'm either delusional or unobservant. So what? First, why is it so important to you? Second, why can't you even accept the possibility that I'm correct in my observation of my OWN experience? I didn't need anyone to throw some "Effect" at me or tell me that I could be mistaken. You're not enlightening me this way.

I don't know if you've ever actually believed in God before, but I'll tell you something very important about faith: it REQUIRES that you confront your own skepticism. If you ignore skepticism, it's not faith, it's blind devotion (two different things). Faith is an action, not a lack of action.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that you're not telling me anything I haven't already asked myself. I appreciate your thoughts, but I'm trying to let you know that they're not necessary. I have no intention of proving you "wrong" in your own beliefs, so I would appreciate if you would accept my own statements about the Bible as being my own and argue more about the Bible itself. I think the debate would progress better that way.

For example, I said that I feel like I can always rely on the Bible. Could you give a personal experience or a theoretical example of a situation that would contradict this?

What I fail to understand is why you took my posts so personal in the first place.

[Bennu]

Originally Posted by Kcnorwood

So how do you know that those who had the original text in their possessions did not alter it in some way?

Actually, we're pretty sure they did exactly that, significantly and continually. Now, this is only a problem if:

• We subscribe to a very modern view of the Bible that a small minority of Christians hold.
• We also assume that a different group of people, separated by thousands of years and miles and immersed within an entirely different society and culture from our own, just happened to hold that exact same view.

EDITING-EDIT-OF-EDITATION* Just realised I didn't specify that I'm talking solely about the OT; a slight mind-fart occured and I thought this thread was just about that. I honestly don't know enough about the NT to comment.

Oh, and this is my first post in about three months. Go me!

[Big_TJ]

Originally Posted by Charity

The same reason, historians, explorers, and others wrote journals and history books it was the only source that told us that they had made a discovery. All we have are the claims they made that they really did a certain thing at a certain time, on a certain day and at a certain place...Why should we believe these men and not believe the prophets?..What makes a history book right and the Bible wrong? I'm sure there are flaws in both...Anything handed down for years and translated into different languages will have some errors.

Great question!
The major difference, IMHO, is that if an historian claims that he discover something, he must be able to satisfy at least two conditions before his claim is accepted : Firstly, he must show verifiable evidence of the discovery and secondly, there should not be a conflicting view on the discovery, i.e. there shouldn't be someone else claiming that they discovered it or that it wasn't discovered at all.

The problem I have with someone being the only source of "singing their praise" is that there is no way to verify this.

You mentioned "believing the prophets" but, again, it is THEY who claim that they are prophets (much like Joseph Smith, Charles Russsell, Ellen G White, et al claim that they were profits). So, a simple question is: Why believe the Prophets of the bible and not believe the present day prophets?

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by darkendless

Theres the problem with the bible right there IMO

And this makes sense because?

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

Why not?



We have the science of textual criticism, which has traced every possible change in every extant copy we have of the New Testament. We find 99.5% agreement. Of course, there's a short gap between the first extant copy and the actual first copy (the autograph). However, to posit radical revisions in that period when none appear in the copies we have stretches credulity a tad.[/font]



[size=3][font=Times New Roman]If the action of God was to preserve his written word as penned by men, then there's little distinction between putting faith in God and faith in men.



[size=3][font=Times New Roman]That's why professional translations are done in committees at the hand of scholars who are widely regarded as competent. These same professional translations will put alternative renderings in the footnotes so readers can see where the tricky bits are. And by comparing multiple translations, we can see the range of meanings possible. So I just don't see why people should have a problem with translations.



Who says he has? The existence of the bible doesn't mean that God is "relying" on it overmuch. There's also the church's living witness to Christ's redeeming presence in the world.

Good answer. I'm just too lazy to state all of that.

[3.14]

to make it simple the bible is a to old book to never have had alterations in it, that doesn't mean that it suddenly is a bad book it just means you have to take a grain of salt on what is said,
the art of war for example a great book any of its tactics are still used in current day warfair because they work and even though there have been slight alterations its still mostly very usefull for getting strategy and tactics from it, the bible equevelent is still getting morals and insights from it

[Kcnorwood]

[quote=Dunemeister;1189904]Why not?



We have the science of textual criticism, which has traced every possible change in every extant copy we have of the New Testament. We find 99.5% agreement. Of course, there's a short gap between the first extant copy and the actual first copy (the autograph). However, to posit radical revisions in that period when none appear in the copies we have stretches credulity a tad.[/font]


Says who? Something tells me that the only ones who believe that are Christian scientist.




[size=3][font=Times New Roman]That's why professional translations are done in committees at the hand of scholars who are widely regarded as competent. These same professional translations will put alternative renderings in the footnotes so readers can see where the tricky bits are. And by comparing multiple translations, we can see the range of meanings possible. So I just don't see why people should have a problem with translations.


The Jewish people argue which translation is right is what makes you think that anyone else got it right?