Bibliolatry

[Deeje]

So you agree there's no concept of 'original sin', and no concept of 'death entering the world' in the Garden story? Because neither notion is supported by the text.

Do you have a big picture at all? Do you understand what God purposed in the beginning.....what went wrong and why.......and how God implemented a plan to get us back to square one, as if all this nonsense since Eden was just a bad dream....? And yet accomplishing so much by allowing it all to play out naturally?

Tell me what you imagine "original sin" to be....?

Tell me where death was to be a natural part of human life, when it was only mentioned in connection with disobedience? There was no mention of death at all in Eden except as a punishment for disobeying just one command. The "tree of life" guaranteed that death would never come to humankind as long as they continued to be obedient and allowed God to determine right from wrong.

For example, the word 'sin' appears nowhere, and in any event the ability to sin is ruled out by Adam and Eve's imposed ignorance of good and evil. Further, in the story God gives his reasons for expelling them from the Garden (which I quoted) and there are no other reasons given in the story.

Before the nation of Israel was even formed, or the Law written, Abraham's grandson Joseph knew about sin.
Genesis 39:9 when tempted to commit adultery with his Master's wife, Joseph replied...
"In this house, there is no one greater than I, and he has not withheld anything from me except you, insofar as you are his wife. Now how can I commit this great evil, and sin against God?" (Jewish Tanach)

Job also knew about sin.

Job 2:9-10
"Then his wife said to him, "Do you still maintain your sincerity? Blaspheme God and die!"
And he said to her, "You talk as one of the disgraceful women talks. Shall we also accept the good from God, and not accept the evil?" Despite all this, Job did not sin with his lips." (Jewish Tanach)

"Sin" is an archery term meaning to "miss the mark". As a consequence of their violating God's property, sin invaded the bodies and minds of the first humans like a terrible genetic disorder which they then passed onto all their children. (Romans 5:12) The perfection of their mind and body was lost as they now "missed the mark" of that original perfection. Sin led them in a different direction and would ultimately cause death to all.

And the reasons given, and the very existence of a 'tree of life' capable of conferring immortality, mean that death was already in the world.

Everlasting life is not the same as immortality. The Angels are not immortal because God can destroy them. An immortal cannot die. What Adam and his wife had was the ability to live forever by eating from the tree of life, but it was conditional. They had to remain obedient. If they disobeyed, the would die, so they were mortal in every way.

If they were immortal, then the death penalty would have been meaningless. Only mortals can die. Which is why Jesus cannot be God. Jesus died.

How can it be when the humans have been denied knowledge of good and evil? If you don't know what 'wrong' is, how can you choose to do wrong? If you do something that's wrong but have no way of knowing it's wrong, how can that be 'sin'?

Again, I do not believe that Adam and his wife did not know about good and evil because everything in existence naturally has an equal opposite. The fruit of that tree represented God's sovereign right to set limits on human behavior. Freedom to make choices were limited to the boundaries set by the Creator.

They were not children and Adam had been in existence for some time before he was given a mate. God educated him and gave him the opportunity to observe all the animals and to give them appropriate names.

The one rule they had was a simple one that caused them no hardship whatsoever. They had no reason to disbelieve God and to take notice of a snake.....did they? But actually it was only the woman who was deceived....the man was not. He made his decision for an entirely different reason. But no matter the reason, the penalty still applied.

And the snake was right. They didn't die the same day, though they'd be told they would (and if death hadn't yet entered the world the threat would have been meaningless anyway).

The snake lied. Jesus called the devil "the father of the lie" being the fist being ever to deliberately tell a lie to anyone, in order to mislead them. (John 8:44)
The apostle Peter also said at 2 Peter 3:8....
"However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day."

If you check all the genealogies in Genesis you will find that not a single individual lived for a thousand years. (God's counting of a day) Adam was 930 when he died, so God was right...satan lied.
The oldest man on record was Methuselah who died at age 969.

[] First, it's only a story. Second, I think it may be a metaphor for growing up, and the worldview that follows eating the fruit is adolescence and sexual identity (the expulsion being adult status, leaving home). But whatever the story means, it's absurd to think of real creatures with no concept of benefit / detriment helpful / unhelpful good / evil.[/quote]

It would be absurd if viewed from your present understanding, but I do not think that you have had that correct from the get go. They were not ignorant and had no excuse to take what did not belong to them.

The fruit of the TKGE was symbolic of God's sovereignty. They failed to respect the property of their rightful ruler and they stole something that they did not have a right to. Their actions have brought nothing but trouble to the human race. They were perfect and knew what it meant to do as they were told. They deliberately disobeyed and suffered the stated penalty. That is justice.

The story doesn't say that. The story says unambiguously that God cut them off from 'the tree of life' because [he] felt threatened and acted to prevent humans becoming [his] equals.

If you read it again you will not see any 'threat' but a rather sarcastic repeating of the words used by satan to mislead the woman...."you will be like God knowing good and bad".....so in order that the now sinful humans would not live forever he kicked them out of the garden and consigned them to cultivate cursed ground to "eat bread in the sweat of their faces". No beautiful ripe fruit for the taking. What they lost was monumental.

Apparently satan did not count on God barring the way to the tree of life....he probably thought he would be able to rule as a god to humankind indefinitely, but death would now snatch them away from him. He would have to work harder now to keep making new recruits as he lost the old ones in death.

The story doesn't say that, or anything like it. If you disagree, quote me the words your rely on.

Read the first 3 chapters of Genesis....
Particularly Ch 1:26-31; Ch 2:7-9; 15-25
Then the whole of ch 3.

As you read make mental pictures of what it is saying, rather than what you assume it is saying.

At the conclusion of the 6th "day" everything that God had purposed was right on schedule. Do you have any idea why God would make a declaration of his satisfaction with his work after each day had ended?
Why is there no declaration after the 7th day?

Why did the devil target the woman? Who was his real target? It was the man who bore responsibility for the fall in Eden, not the woman. (Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:22)

What happened to reveal that they were naked, since they had been naked all along? They covered their reproductive parts with fig leaves but what covering did God give them?...and why?

In his questioning of the pair over what they had done, he gave them opportunity to explain themselves, but all he got was buck passing. The woman blamed the snake and Adam blamed the woman, even implying some fault on God's part for giving her to him.

In ch 3:15 is the first prophesy ever given where God actually outlines the remedy for the whole situation, but the players in that prophesy would remain a mystery until the promised seed came and received his heel wound. The Bible calls it a sacred secret or mystery. As time unfolds so does the mystery.

In sentencing them, he told them that they would return to the dust when they died....no heaven or hell...just death and being absorbed back into the elements of the earth from which they were made.

You have a completely different picture to me.....where did you get your understanding of those events?

What makes you think it's just a story? Why can't it be as real as you and me?

I had a thread on the Garden story ─ >here<.

Must have missed it.....sorry.

 

[Kenny]

No. Thank you for providing that excellent example of interpretation in something that a few consider needs to be read literally.

Hmmm.... all three possibilities were literal applications. We just weren't there to figure out which one is right and, as I said, the Bible isn't a Compendium on creation but rather about Jesus, The Word, coming and man's destiny and the in between process.

Am glad you are a believer!!! whether we differ in process.

 

[blü 2]

Do you have a big picture at all? Do you understand what God purposed in the beginning.....what went wrong and why.......and how God implemented a plan to get us back to square one, as if all this nonsense since Eden was just a bad dream....? And yet accomplishing so much by allowing it all to play out naturally?

Well, first of all, the Garden story is just a story. It's not history. (Nor is it geography, there never having been a place where the Pishon, Gihon, Chidekel [Tigris] and Perat [Euphrates] have a common source.)

Tell me what you imagine "original sin" to be....?

Original sin is a negative quality of sinfulness and guilt which Christianity attributes to everyone, because of the Fall. The Fall is the scenario in which Eve and then Adam each ate the fruit, even though God had told them not to, and this constituted the sin of disobedience. As I've pointed out to you, that scenario is wholly unsupported by the text of Genesis, and the heritability of sin is expressly ruled out by Ezekiel 18.

Tell me where death was to be a natural part of human life, when it was only mentioned in connection with disobedience?

If death was not a natural part of the Garden world, then for a start:
- there'd be no need of a 'tree of life' in the first place
- the warning 'for on the day that you eat of it you shall die' would be meaningless, since Adam and Eve would have no concept of death
- Adam and Eve would be able to eat neither animal nor vegetable matter because that would entail death of the thing eaten,
- God would have no reason to expel Adam and Eve from the Garden (3:22 again)

The "tree of life" guaranteed that death would never come to humankind as long as they continued to be obedient and allowed God to determine right from wrong.

As I said, 3:22 makes it unambiguous that Adam and Eve had not eaten the fruit of the tree of life.

"In this house, there is no one greater than I, and he has not withheld anything from me except you, insofar as you are his wife. Now how can I commit this great evil, and sin against God?" (Jewish Tanach)

It's no part of my argument that 'sin' isn't part of the Tanakh. My point is that you can't sin if you have no idea what sin is, which is the state you're in when you can't tell good from evil.

What Adam and his wife had was the ability to live forever by eating from the tree of life, but it was conditional.

That's not in the story, is not part of the story and is denied in the story (3:22). If you disagree, quote me the part of the story that says what you've said.

They had to remain obedient. If they disobeyed, the would die, so they were mortal in every way.

In the story God says no such thing. Instead [he] says, Don't eat that fruit because if you do you'll die the same day ─ a warning, not a command. And the snake says, with perfect accuracy, 'No, you won't.'

They had no reason to disbelieve God and to take notice of a snake.....did they? But actually it was only the woman who was deceived...

She wasn't deceived. The snake spoke only the truth. And Eve 'saw that the fruit of the tree was to be desired to make one wise' ─ who can argue against her motive?

The snake lied. Jesus called the devil "the father of the lie"

First, the snake is not the devil. Second, the snake did not lie. Third, I thought we agreed there'd be no retrofitting.

The fruit of the TKGE was symbolic of God's sovereignty.

Only in your construct. The story doesn't say that.

They failed to respect the property of their rightful ruler and they stole something that they did not have a right to.

First, they didn't know good from evil so they were incapable of forming a sinful intention so they couldn't sin. Second, what you say is NOT the reason God expelled them from the Garden; God sets out [his] reason in 3:22 and that's the only reason [he] gives.

Apparently satan ...

The snake is not Satan. Satan in the Tanakh is a member of Yahweh's court, not a snake.

Do you have any idea why God would make a declaration of his satisfaction with his work after each day had ended? Why is there no declaration after the 7th day?

Because the day after the seventh day, God had to go back to work.

What happened to reveal that they were naked, since they had been naked all along?

The story presents this as the result of knowing good from evil, meaning that nakedness is evil ─ rather funny when you notice God didn't think it was evil.

he gave them opportunity to explain themselves, but all he got was buck passing. The woman blamed the snake and Adam blamed the woman, even implying some fault on God's part for giving her to him.

First, Adam blamed the woman and second the women explained what the snake had said (which was perfectly accurate), so neither Eve nor the snake bore any fault. As for Yahweh, [he] either lied about dying the same day, or was mistaken. The story leaves room for no other possibility.

You have a completely different picture to me.....where did you get your understanding of those events?

First, when I was small, my mother, who was in other respects a kind woman, sent me to Pisco Sunday school, and I was not able to effect my escape till I was seven or eight.(Mind you, she wasn't wholly without form: I still remember the day she took me to kindergarten and then just left me there.)

Second, as I've said all along, I read what the bible says. In particular, if someone says. 'The bible says X', I'm inclined to check to see if it does.

What makes you think it's just a story? Why can't it be as real as you and me?

I have no reason to believe in magic ─ the alteration of reality independently of the rules of physics ─ including creating light with magic words, and humans from dust, and from ribs; and talking snakes, and of course gods. If someone cares to give me a satisfactory demonstration of magic, I'll change my mind. And if someone gives me a satisfactory definition of a real god, one with objective existence, such that I can tell whether any real candidate is a god, or God, or not, and then a satisfactory demonstration of a real god, then I'll likewise change my mind. Have you noticed there isn't even a definition of 'godness', the real quality a real god would have and a superscientist (or for that matter, this keyboard I'm typing on) would not?

 

[usfan]

You said..

People claimed they were writing "god's word" .

To which i replied..

Which of the books in the biblical canon claimed to be 'written by God!?'

My statement stands. There is no circular reasoning, and no claim by the biblical writers that they were 'speaking for God!' Belief in inspiration of scripture came later.. after canonization, for the most part.

There are phrases or sections that 'claim' Divine Dictation, but not the bible as a whole, nor the books contained therein.

The bible is certainly a lightning rod for humanity. Few are neutral. There is either respect and appreciation for the wisdom and message from the bible, or hostile antagonism.

Ignoring the Revelation of God to man would be the height of folly and stupidity, if this collection of books are, indeed, the Word of God.

The Central Question is, 'How does one determine IF... these books are Inspired Truth?'

 

[Wandering Monk]

Can we get back to the question of Bible worship?

 

[usfan]

Can we get back to the question of Bible worship?

The validity, authority, and significance of the scriptures is the first question. For, if this collection of books is, indeed, the 'Word of God', study, devotion, and attention given to them would seem both wise and appropriate. You can demean it with prejudicial language, such as, 'Bible Worship!', but the importance of these books cannot be overstated, IF.. They are the 'Word of God.'

Disbelief in the authority and inspiration of the bible is common. But demeaning or ridiculing others for their beliefs is just old fashioned religious bigotry.

IF.. these books are 'The Word of God,'
THEN.. attention and devotion to them is appropriate.

IF.. they are not, but a deception of man,
THEN.. ignore them.. or expose them as a delusion.

How does one make that determination? Arbitrarily pick a belief? Follow indoctrination?

 

[Audie]

You said..

To which i replied..

My statement stands. There is no circular reasoning, and no claim by the biblical writers that they were 'speaking for God!' Belief in inspiration of scripture came later.. after canonization, for the most part.


The bible is certainly a lightning rod for humanity. Few are neutral. There is either respect and appreciation for the wisdom and message from the bible, or hostile antagonism.

Ignoring the Revelation of God to man would be the height of folly and stupidity, if this collection of books are, indeed, the Word of God.

The Central Question is, 'How does one determine IF... these books are Inspired Truth?'

"writing gods word" and, "written by god"
are very distinctly different. Are you unable,
or unwilling to see that?

As for determining if the bible is "true"
we need look no further than the 6 day poof,
Adam and Eve, and the flood.

Thinking that those things really happened,
and "god" inspired people to write about
them may not be the "height" of folly, but,
its not real bright.

If you dont think that, but still believe
this "god inspired Truth" stuff, you are
making up your own religion and calling
that "Truth"

 

[Audie]

The validity, authority, and significance of the scriptures is the first question. For, if this collection of books is, indeed, the 'Word of God', study, devotion, and attention given to them would seem both wise and appropriate. You can demean it with prejudicial language, such as, 'Bible Worship!', but the importance of these books cannot be overstated, IF.. They are the 'Word of God.'

Disbelief in the authority and inspiration of the bible is common. But demeaning or ridiculing others for their beliefs is just old fashioned religious bigotry.

IF.. these books are 'The Word of God,'
THEN.. attention and devotion to them is appropriate.

IF.. they are not, but a deception of man,
THEN.. ignore them.. or expose them as a delusion.

How does one make that determination? Arbitrarily pick a belief? Follow indoctrination?

Oh so if a person is taken in by astrology and
attempts to convince others that it is valid, well,
it would be bigotry to ridicule it.

But you say to "expose it as a delusion".

It is as easy to show that the "bible" is
full of bs as it is to show astrology is.

There are times when ridicule is for
no purpose other than cruelty, and times
it is a most important social tool.
Dont be mixing it all together as if it is all
"old fashioned bigotry". It is not.

How does one make that determination? Arbitrarily pick a belief? Follow indoctrination?

What odd choices. Why not follow the bible's advice?
Test all things, keep the good, discard the bad.

What in the bible have you tested?

 

[blü 2]

There is either respect and appreciation for the wisdom and message from the bible, or hostile antagonism

Or simple curiosity, in my case not without a cultural element.

The Central Question is, 'How does one determine IF... these books are Inspired Truth?'

What definition, hence what test, are you proposing for 'truth'?

For me, a statement is true to the extent that it conforms to / corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality (the 'correspondence' view). Hence it provides an objective test.

(However, I agree that nowhere does the bible claim to be the inspired word of God.)

 

[usfan]

"writing gods word" and, "written by god"
are very distinctly different. Are you unable,
or unwilling to see that?

As for determining if the bible is "true"
we need look no further than the 6 day poof,
Adam and Eve, and the flood.

Thinking that those things really happened,
and "god" inspired people to write about
them may not be the "height" of folly, but,
its not real bright.

If you dont think that, but still believe
this "god inspired Truth" stuff, you are
making up your own religion and calling
that "Truth"

Everybody gotta believe something...

 

[Audie]

Everybody gotta believe something...

If you gotta believe that distinctly different things are
the same, and that palpable bs is the inerrant word of god,
so much the worse for you

 

[Subduction Zone]

The validity, authority, and significance of the scriptures is the first question. For, if this collection of books is, indeed, the 'Word of God', study, devotion, and attention given to them would seem both wise and appropriate. You can demean it with prejudicial language, such as, 'Bible Worship!', but the importance of these books cannot be overstated, IF.. They are the 'Word of God.'

Disbelief in the authority and inspiration of the bible is common. But demeaning or ridiculing others for their beliefs is just old fashioned religious bigotry.

IF.. these books are 'The Word of God,'
THEN.. attention and devotion to them is appropriate.

IF.. they are not, but a deception of man,
THEN.. ignore them.. or expose them as a delusion.

How does one make that determination? Arbitrarily pick a belief? Follow indoctrination?

I would test the Bible. See how it matches up to reality. If there are errors are they due to interpretation? That alone would make the "word of God" claim problematic.

And of course the burden of proof is upon those that claim the Bible is the word of God. The proper way to treat a claim that is not supported by evidence is as if it were not true.

 

[Deeje]

Well, first of all, the Garden story is just a story. It's not history. (Nor is it geography, there never having been a place where the Pishon, Gihon, Chidekel [Tigris] and Perat [Euphrates] have a common source.)
Original sin is a negative quality of sinfulness and guilt which Christianity attributes to everyone, because of the Fall. The Fall is the scenario in which Eve and then Adam each ate the fruit, even though God had told them not to, and this constituted the sin of disobedience. As I've pointed out to you, that scenario is wholly unsupported by the text of Genesis, and the heritability of sin is expressly ruled out by Ezekiel 18.
If death was not a natural part of the Garden world, then for a start:
- there'd be no need of a 'tree of life' in the first place
- the warning 'for on the day that you eat of it you shall die' would be meaningless, since Adam and Eve would have no concept of death
- Adam and Eve would be able to eat neither animal nor vegetable matter because that would entail death of the thing eaten,
- God would have no reason to expel Adam and Eve from the Garden (3:22 again)
As I said, 3:22 makes it unambiguous that Adam and Eve had not eaten the fruit of the tree of life.
It's no part of my argument that 'sin' isn't part of the Tanakh. My point is that you can't sin if you have no idea what sin is, which is the state you're in when you can't tell good from evil.
That's not in the story, is not part of the story and is denied in the story (3:22). If you disagree, quote me the part of the story that says what you've said.
In the story God says no such thing. Instead [he] says, Don't eat that fruit because if you do you'll die the same day ─ a warning, not a command. And the snake says, with perfect accuracy, 'No, you won't.'
She wasn't deceived. The snake spoke only the truth. And Eve 'saw that the fruit of the tree was to be desired to make one wise' ─ who can argue against her motive?
First, the snake is not the devil. Second, the snake did not lie. Third, I thought we agreed there'd be no retrofitting.
Only in your construct. The story doesn't say that.
First, they didn't know good from evil so they were incapable of forming a sinful intention so they couldn't sin. Second, what you say is NOT the reason God expelled them from the Garden; God sets out [his] reason in 3:22 and that's the only reason [he] gives.
The snake is not Satan. Satan in the Tanakh is a member of Yahweh's court, not a snake.
Because the day after the seventh day, God had to go back to work.
The story presents this as the result of knowing good from evil, meaning that nakedness is evil ─ rather funny when you notice God didn't think it was evil.
First, Adam blamed the woman and second the women explained what the snake had said (which was perfectly accurate), so neither Eve nor the snake bore any fault. As for Yahweh, [he] either lied about dying the same day, or was mistaken. The story leaves room for no other possibility.
First, when I was small, my mother, who was in other respects a kind woman, sent me to Pisco Sunday school, and I was not able to effect my escape till I was seven or eight.(Mind you, she wasn't wholly without form: I still remember the day she took me to kindergarten and then just left me there.)

Second, as I've said all along, I read what the bible says. In particular, if someone says. 'The bible says X', I'm inclined to check to see if it does.
I have no reason to believe in magic ─ the alteration of reality independently of the rules of physics ─ including creating light with magic words, and humans from dust, and from ribs; and talking snakes, and of course gods. If someone cares to give me a satisfactory demonstration of magic, I'll change my mind. And if someone gives me a satisfactory definition of a real god, one with objective existence, such that I can tell whether any real candidate is a god, or God, or not, and then a satisfactory demonstration of a real god, then I'll likewise change my mind. Have you noticed there isn't even a definition of 'godness', the real quality a real god would have and a superscientist (or for that matter, this keyboard I'm typing on) would not?

Like talking to a brick wall.......once again everything twisted...no thanks. Your mind is set....nuff said. (John 6:65)

Have it your way....proof of God will come, believe me on that. But you must understand that he does not reveal himself to everyone....nor does he owe anyone proof of his existence beyond creation itself.

I have no doubts....and you have nothing but.....I can't do anything about that.

 

[blü 2]

Like talking to a brick wall.......once again everything twisted...no thanks. Your mind is set....nuff said. (John 6:65)

What you do next is entirely up to you, of course. But since you don't specify the alleged 'twists', you're not even trying to refute what I said. Why, were I not a reasonable person, I might take that to mean you think my case is irrefutable.

...proof of God will come

Then at least tell me what a real God is, the test that will tell me whether any real candidate is God or not. And what 'godness' is, so I can tell whether I should alter my attitude to my keyboard or not. The case that both 'God' and 'godness' both exist only in imagination, looks very strong in the absence of such definitions.

Think about it. And bear in mind that no test will distinguish the 'immaterial', the 'supernatural', the 'spiritual' and so on, from the imaginary.

 

[usfan]

If you gotta believe that distinctly different things are
the same, and that palpable bs is the inerrant word of god,
so much the worse for you

I'm new here, and don't know all the nuances of snark and wit, to disparage a debating opponent. But I'm not new to snark and wit, and am equally capable at dishing it out AND taking it. But i prefer to have more of a relationship, first, as personal quips are.. and should be.. well.. personal.

My contribution in this thread is to dispel the pnony narrative of all these stupid 'Christians!' who worship the bible. That is a a caricature, as most Christians revere the bible, and many view it as 'inspired' by God, or call it 'God's Word', but they do not worship the book. They worship the believed Author of the book.

This is an historical precedent, for over 2000 years. It is not some 'new thing!', that fundamentalists or crackpot extremists have recently thought up.

The reverence and respect given to the canon of scripture is due to their historical accuracy, the textual validity, and the historical credibility of the manuscripts, and their significance and AUTHORITY as a guide for sound doctrine.

Christians have viewed these books as The Guide for sound Christian faith. They are essential for orthodoxy and protection from error and deception. False prophets and deceivers have tried for millennia to distort and bury the Message of Salvation, but the Bible has been preserved to correct and refute those distortions.

So, far from being a superfluous or insignificant legend of myths, the believers in Jesus see the scriptures as essential foundational blocks, upon which the True Faith is built. Whims and notions of man come and go, but the scriptures have been preserved, inviolate, as an anchor for faith, amid the storms and waves of lies in this world.

I would test the Bible. See how it matches up to reality. If there are errors are they due to interpretation? That alone would make the "word of God" claim problematic.

And of course the burden of proof is upon those that claim the Bible is the word of God. The proper way to treat a claim that is not supported by evidence is as if it were not true.

No book has been tested, scrutinized, examined, criticized, and attacked, more than the bible. The fires of hell have raged against it for millennia, and it stands, unapologetically presenting the message of redemption, to those who will hear.

Of course people can disbelieve, if they wish, and personal skepticism is natural. Why should anyone accept the claims of the biblical message? They are historically and textually valid, have withstood scrutiny and criticism that no other book has endured, but it is perfectly natural (and wise), to doubt great claims of eternal significance, from just a book, or its supporters.

Truth should be the goal, not validation of belief, or propping up Indoctrination.

How does one discover the 'Truth' of our existence? Take a wild guess? Trust our indoctrination? Believe state sponsored propaganda?

Lies and deception abound, in the human experience. How do you know the the Truth about your existence? Is it possible to know such a thing?

"Centuries of experience have tested the BIBLE. It has passed through critical fires no other volume has suffered, and its spiritual truth has endured the flames and come out without so much as the smell of burning" ~W.E. Sangster

 

[usfan]

What definition, hence what test, are you proposing for 'truth'?

Ah, yes. The Question for the Ages. Even Pontius Pilate asked, 'What is Truth?', rhetorically.

It raises many questions:

1. Is there, possibly, an overriding, objective 'Truth', about our existence?
2. Can it be possible to 'know' this objective Truth, or is that something beyond the understanding of man?
3. If there is an objective 'Truth' about our existence, then it follows that there are also many lies and deceptions, in the human experience.

So the BIG Question is, 'How does one discover Truth, in this world of deception?'

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm new here, and don't know all the nuances of snark and wit, to disparage a debating opponent. But I'm not new to snark and wit, and am equally capable at dishing it out AND taking it. But i prefer to have more of a relationship, first, as personal quips are.. and should be.. well.. personal.

My contribution in this thread is to dispel the pnony narrative of all these stupid 'Christians!' who worship the bible. That is a a caricature, as most Christians revere the bible, and many view it as 'inspired' by God, or call it 'God's Word', but they do not worship the book. They worship the believed Author of the book.

This is an historical precedent, for over 2000 years. It is not some 'new thing!', that fundamentalists or crackpot extremists have recently thought up.

The reverence and respect given to the canon of scripture is due to their historical accuracy, the textual validity, and the historical credibility of the manuscripts, and their significance and AUTHORITY as a guide for sound doctrine.

Christians have viewed these books as The Guide for sound Christian faith. They are essential for orthodoxy and protection from error and deception. False prophets and deceivers have tried for millennia to distort and bury the Message of Salvation, but the Bible has been preserved to correct and refute those distortions.

So, far from being a superfluous or insignificant legend of myths, the believers in Jesus see the scriptures as essential foundational blocks, upon which the True Faith is built. Whims and notions of man come and go, but the scriptures have been preserved, inviolate, as an anchor for faith, amid the storms and waves of lies in this world.


No book has been tested, scrutinized, examined, criticized, and attacked, more than the bible. The fires of hell have raged against it for millennia, and it stands, unapologetically presenting the message of redemption, to those who will hear.

Of course people can disbelieve, if they wish, and personal skepticism is natural. Why should anyone accept the claims of the biblical message? They are historically and textually valid, have withstood scrutiny and criticism that no other book has endured, but it is perfectly natural (and wise), to doubt great claims of eternal significance, from just a book, or its supporters.

Truth should be the goal, not validation of belief, or propping up Indoctrination.

How does one discover the 'Truth' of our existence? Take a wild guess? Trust our indoctrination? Believe state sponsored propaganda?

Lies and deception abound, in the human experience. How do you know the the Truth about your existence? Is it possible to know such a thing?

"Centuries of experience have tested the BIBLE. It has passed through critical fires no other volume has suffered, and its spiritual truth has endured the flames and come out without so much as the smell of burning" ~W.E. Sangster

That is simply not true. You are ignoring the failures of the Bible. Its weak successes do not excuse that. Also you do not realize that when you claim it to be the word of God you put a huge burden of proof upon yourself. Perhaps we need to go over what is and what is not a proper test.

So let's forget your false experts with terminal confirmation bias, tell me a valid test for the Bible.

 

[Audie]

I'm new here, and don't know all the nuances of snark and wit, to disparage a debating opponent. But I'm not new to snark and wit, and am equally capable at dishing it out AND taking it. But i prefer to have more of a relationship, first, as personal quips are.. and should be.. well.. personal.

My contribution in this thread is to dispel the pnony narrative of all these stupid 'Christians!' who worship the bible. That is a a caricature, as most Christians revere the bible, and many view it as 'inspired' by God, or call it 'God's Word', but they do not worship the book. They worship the believed Author of the book.

This is an historical precedent, for over 2000 years. It is not some 'new thing!', that fundamentalists or crackpot extremists have recently thought up.

The reverence and respect given to the canon of scripture is due to their historical accuracy, the textual validity, and the historical credibility of the manuscripts, and their significance and AUTHORITY as a guide for sound doctrine.

Christians have viewed these books as The Guide for sound Christian faith. They are essential for orthodoxy and protection from error and deception. False prophets and deceivers have tried for millennia to distort and bury the Message of Salvation, but the Bible has been preserved to correct and refute those distortions.

So, far from being a superfluous or insignificant legend of myths, the believers in Jesus see the scriptures as essential foundational blocks, upon which the True Faith is built. Whims and notions of man come and go, but the scriptures have been preserved, inviolate, as an anchor for faith, amid the storms and waves of lies in this world.


No book has been tested, scrutinized, examined, criticized, and attacked, more than the bible. The fires of hell have raged against it for millennia, and it stands, unapologetically presenting the message of redemption, to those who will hear.

Of course people can disbelieve, if they wish, and personal skepticism is natural. Why should anyone accept the claims of the biblical message? They are historically and textually valid, have withstood scrutiny and criticism that no other book has endured, but it is perfectly natural (and wise), to doubt great claims of eternal significance, from just a book, or its supporters.

Truth should be the goal, not validation of belief, or propping up Indoctrination.

How does one discover the 'Truth' of our existence? Take a wild guess? Trust our indoctrination? Believe state sponsored propaganda?

Lies and deception abound, in the human experience. How do you know the the Truth about your existence? Is it possible to know such a thing?

"Centuries of experience have tested the BIBLE. It has passed through critical fires no other volume has suffered, and its spiritual truth has endured the flames and come out without so much as the smell of burning" ~W.E. Sangster

I'm new here, and don't know all the nuances of snark and wit, to disparage a debating opponent. But I'm not new to snark and wit, and am equally capable at dishing it out AND taking it. But i prefer to have more of a relationship, first, as personal quips are.. and should be.. well.. personal.

My contribution in this thread is to dispel the pnony narrative of all these stupid 'Christians!' who worship the bible. That is a a caricature, as most Christians revere the bible, and many view it as 'inspired' by God, or call it 'God's Word', but they do not worship the book. They worship the believed Author of the book.

This is an historical precedent, for over 2000 years. It is not some 'new thing!', that fundamentalists or crackpot extremists have recently thought up.

The reverence and respect given to the canon of scripture is due to their historical accuracy, the textual validity, and the historical credibility of the manuscripts, and their significance and AUTHORITY as a guide for sound doctrine.

Christians have viewed these books as The Guide for sound Christian faith. They are essential for orthodoxy and protection from error and deception. False prophets and deceivers have tried for millennia to distort and bury the Message of Salvation, but the Bible has been preserved to correct and refute those distortions.

So, far from being a superfluous or insignificant legend of myths, the believers in Jesus see the scriptures as essential foundational blocks, upon which the True Faith is built. Whims and notions of man come and go, but the scriptures have been preserved, inviolate, as an anchor for faith, amid the storms and waves of lies in this world.


No book has been tested, scrutinized, examined, criticized, and attacked, more than the bible. The fires of hell have raged against it for millennia, and it stands, unapologetically presenting the message of redemption, to those who will hear.

Of course people can disbelieve, if they wish, and personal skepticism is natural. Why should anyone accept the claims of the biblical message? They are historically and textually valid, have withstood scrutiny and criticism that no other book has endured, but it is perfectly natural (and wise), to doubt great claims of eternal significance, from just a book, or its supporters.

Truth should be the goal, not validation of belief, or propping up Indoctrination.

How does one discover the 'Truth' of our existence? Take a wild guess? Trust our indoctrination? Believe state sponsored propaganda?

Lies and deception abound, in the human experience. How do you know the the Truth about your existence? Is it possible to know such a thing?

"Centuries of experience have tested the BIBLE. It has passed through critical fires no other volume has suffered, and its spiritual truth has endured the flames and come out without so much as the smell of burning" ~W.E. Sangster

Do you really, really think these two are the same?

"writing gods word" and, "written by god"

There was not a trace of snark in what I said

If you gotta believe that distinctly different things are
the same, and that palpable bs is the inerrant word of god,
so much the worse for you

Pretending that I am being sarcastic, and
pointing fingers at me while taking on the
victim role as one who is disparaged? If
I attack someone, I dont do it by pretending
I am not;


AND, dodging the point of what I said.

If you have to think they are the same, and if
you have to believe bs in order to be a Christian,
so much the worse for you.

That is entirely sincere.

AND, btw, if you do think the bible is inerrant
then you are worshiping it. I do not know if
doing that makes a person "stupid" but it sure
is a sign of something.

They worship the believed Author of the book.

Do they. IF they believe all those stories,
they are worshiping some sort of psycho
monster. If there is a god, HE DID NOT
DO THOSE THINGS!

Whatever is being worshiped by these
not-very-thoughtful bible people may
be the bible, it may be themselves
as infallible in their own judgement that
it is all god's word, or they may be
worshiping basketball. It hardly matters.
They sure are not worshiping any real god.

 

[Audie]

Ah, yes. The Question for the Ages. Even Pontius Pilate asked, 'What is Truth?', rhetorically.

It raises many questions:

1. Is there, possibly, an overriding, objective 'Truth', about our existence?
2. Can it be possible to 'know' this objective Truth, or is that something beyond the understanding of man?
3. If there is an objective 'Truth' about our existence, then it follows that there are also many lies and deceptions, in the human experience.

So the BIG Question is, 'How does one discover Truth, in this world of deception?'

"Life's persistent questions do
not have answers.
Pursuing "Truth" gets some people into
a most harmful obsession, but that is the
only place it gets them.

Oh, and this is not a "world of deception'. No more
than it is a "world of cows" or "world of golf".

Now, if you want to know if something is true or not
like something in the bible, there are various ways
to approach that.

Subject the stories to outside sources of info and see
what you get.

Is the six day poof true? No. Is the flood true? No.
Were there once unicorns? No. Were all living things
created in a few days? No. Exodus? No.

 

[blü 2]

Ah, yes. The Question for the Ages. Even Pontius Pilate asked, 'What is Truth?', rhetorically.

It raises many questions:

1. Is there, possibly, an overriding, objective 'Truth', about our existence?
2. Can it be possible to 'know' this objective Truth, or is that something beyond the understanding of man?
3. If there is an objective 'Truth' about our existence, then it follows that there are also many lies and deceptions, in the human experience.

So the BIG Question is, 'How does one discover Truth, in this world of deception?'

Depends how you define it, I guess. My own standard is the 'correspondence' view ─ a statement is true to the extent that it conforms with / corresponds to / accurately reflects objective reality. That results in a test for truth about as objective as we can make it.

What's your take?