• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Reasons for believing in the Bible as the literal word of God.

Status
Not open for further replies.
We Never Know

We Never Know

No Slack
Subduction Zone said:
If the Bible is the "word of God" even apparent contradictions should not exist. That alone tells us that at best God is incompetent. I see that you had no explanation for the ten year difference between the dates of nativity between Luke and Matthew.
Click to expand...

"If the Bible is the "word of God" even apparent contradictions should not exist"

You are assuming the people who wrote the bible were amanuenses.
Even if a god spoke to them, you are taking it literally that they put it in the bible word for word. Humans are of course far from perfect and make errors.
 
Last edited:
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
We Never Know said:
"If the Bible is the "word of God" even apparent contradictions should not exist"

You are assuming the people who wrote the bible were amanuenses.
Even if a god spoke to them, you are talking it literally that they put it in the bible word for word. Humans are are of course far from perfect and make errors.
Click to expand...
The Biblical God is supposed to be perfect though.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
We Never Know said:
"If the Bible is the "word of God" even apparent contradictions should not exist"

You are assuming the people who wrote the bible were amanuenses.
Even if a god spoke to them, you are taking it literally that they put it in the bible word for word. Humans are of course far from perfect and make errors.
Click to expand...
Then you are stating that it is not the "word of God". Try to reason consistently.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
SDavis said:
No most of them don't. I'm not none of the governments worldwide looking for them. I am not any of the presidents or military personnel, or doctors, or lawyers, professors, looking for them, made statements concerning them.

And we all know that unidentified flying objects mean it's not from Earth, it means if it was anything from Earth it could be identified - oh please.
Click to expand...
Oh my! Totally wrong. If it was an alien they would openly claim that they are. One more time, the meaning is in the words. They are Unidentified Flying Objects. Claiming that they are alien would be an identification.

You could not show that any of them were aliens. I can show you example of example of them being explained. Guess what happens when they are explained. Most people ignore that and forget about them.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
SkepticThinker said:
You seem to be conflating "UFOs" with "aliens."
Click to expand...
1686276650967.png
 
Mock Turtle

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
SDavis said:
If you're referring to me and my intelligence - I know.
And there are more highly educated / intelligent people, I have listed some I believe on this thread, if not I can - from three United States presidents, to military personnel, to airplane pilots, and I haven't even listed the civilians. Are you questioning their intelligence or just mine?
Click to expand...
Forget intelligence. The fact is that there are good reasons for governments to leave this area hazy - for their own purposes. Or do you really believe any government would be completely open and honest over such things? Have a look at the majority scientific opinion as to UAPs rather than what any governments might say, given generally they don't have an axe to grind as to such things and mostly they don't see sufficient evidence as to aliens and all that.
 
TLK Valentine

TLK Valentine

Read the books that others would burn.
We Never Know said:
Yes. See my post #101
Click to expand...

True enough. Missed that one.

So it's understood that even if the authors were inspired by God (and there's no reason to believe that but faith), they had the impossible task of expressing divine ideas in human language. Of course plenty gets lost in the translation...

And by now it should be pretty obvious that the writers of the Bible (at least the Gospels) weren't writing literal history, they were telling a story... a story chock full of historical inaccuracies and contradictions... clearly God wasn't proofreading.
 
1

1213

Well-Known Member
Evangelicalhumanist said:
And since you are responding to me, which of my reasons so far have you found not to be good ones?

I mean, if you are going to call somebody for their faults, it would at least be charitable of you to explain those faults.
Click to expand...
My point was just to say, reasons itself are not useful, anyone can offer reasons. Crucial thing is are they reasonable. I don't think I have seen any good reasons against Bible here from anyone.
 
1

1213

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
Overview
Herod I (Herod the Great, c. 72 – 4 BCE), was a Roman client king whose territory included Judea. Upon his death, his kingdom was divided into three, each section ruled by one of his sons. In 6 CE, Emperor Augustus deposed Herod Archelaus, who had ruled the largest section, and converted his territory into the Roman province of Judea. Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, the legate (governor) of the province of Roman Syria starting in 6 CE,[2] was assigned to carry out a census of the new province of Judea for tax purposes.[3] This was a property tax, and required that the value of real property be registered along with the identity of the owners.[4] The census triggered a revolt of Jewish extremists (called Zealots) under the leadership of Judas of Galilee.[5] (Galilee itself was a separate territory under the rule of Herod Antipas.) Judas seems to have found the census objectionable because it ran counter to a biblical injunction (the traditional Jewish reading of Exodus 30:12) and because it would lead to taxes paid in heathen coins bearing an image of the emperor.[6]

Gospel of Luke[edit]​

Contrary to the Gospel of Matthew, which places Jesus's birth in the time of Herod I,[10] the Gospel of Luke (2:1–5) correlates Christ's birth with the census:


Most biblical scholars have acknowledged that Luke is erroneous.[11] The gospel's author seems to have incorporated the census to move Joseph and Mary from Nazareth, "their own city" (Luke 2:39), to Bethlehem, where the birth was to occur. (Matthew's author had the reverse problem; believing that Joseph, Mary and Jesus lived in a house in Bethlehem prior to their flight into Egypt, they move to Nazareth to avoid the recently appointed Herod Archelaus.)[12][13] Luke's author may also have wanted to contrast the rebellious Zealots with the peaceable Joseph and Mary, who had obeyed the Roman edict, and to find a prophetic fulfilment of Psalm 87:6: "In the census of the peoples, this one will be born there." (In the Greek or Septuagint version, it is "princes" who will be born.)[14]Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia

Scholars point out that there was no single census of the entire Roman Empire under Augustus and the Romans did not directly tax client kingdoms; further, no Roman census required that people travel from their own homes to those of their ancestors. A census of Judea would not have affected Joseph and his family, who lived in Galilee under a different ruler; the revolt of Judas of Galilee suggests that Rome's direct taxation of Judea was new at the time.[16] Catholic priest and biblical scholar Raymond E. Brown postulates that Judas's place of origin may have led the author of Luke to think that Galilee was subject to the census, although the region is clearly distinguished from Judea elsewhere in the gospel.[17][18] Brown also points out that in the Acts of the Apostles, Luke the Evangelist (the traditional author of both books) dates Judas's census-incited revolt as following Theudas's rebellion of four decades later.[17]
Click to expand...
Thank you. The problem with that is, it is possible that Bible has it correctly and the scholars don't have the dates correctly.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
1213 said:
Thank you. The problem with that is, it is possible that Bible has it correctly and the scholars don't have the dates correctly.
Click to expand...
And once again you use the ostrich defense. You are ignoring the evidence that proves you wrong. You are also claiming that the Bible is not historical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top