Enlightened Biblical criticism.

Know it all. · Jan 8, 2011

:yes: It was hard for myself but eventually the scholar criticism of the Bible finally settled in with me that very much of the Bible is not true and parts of it is out-right rubbish, but now I find that by taking out the false parts then it shows us a different and a far better message hidden inside the text.

An easy example is the book of Jonah as it is just a Jewish fable (see Titus 1:14) and it is like a children's story which was never meant to be taken as literally true. As like today we tell the stories of "Jack-n-the-Beanstalk" or "King Arthur & the Round Table" or "Robin Hood" which are told with merit but are not true. The book of Jonah is not a lie as it is just a child's fable story.

Of course Biblical criticism goes far deeper then that, as in discovering the earliest book of the Bible being called the "J source" or "Yahweh source" being separated from the "E" (Elohim) and "P" (Priest) and "D" (Deuteronomy) sources.

I am posting this in the "Science vs Religion" forum because Biblical Criticism is a type of science and the other boards seem less inviting to this subject.

It is extremely hard to find any of the best books or truly informative links on Biblical Criticism as the mainstream has been determined to suppress the revelations but if one wants to seek the truth then this is a must do subject. My own best instruction on Biblical Criticism came when I stumbled on an old 1923 book on that subject which I have long since forgotten the book's title but the message I got very well indeed. The old books were so severely controversial that the authors took great pains to explain every aspect in great detail so any reader would be able to understand the process and to put the process to use while scrutinizing the Bible so I know this topic very well and I do hope to share the best parts here.

:guitar1:

micrurus · Jan 8, 2011

there are soooo many ways to critisise the bible
historical accuracy
translation errors
politics and propaganda in the bible
contradictions
...

but my favorite method by far is to critisise the so called "morals" of the biblical god

so I found you a website that lists all the moral problems in the bible

Evil Bible Home Page

gotta love that title

Know it all. · Jan 8, 2011

micrurus said:
there are soooo many ways to critisise the bible
historical accuracy
translation errors
politics and propaganda in the bible
contradictions
...

:yes: I agree.

micrurus said:
but my favorite method by far is to criticize the so called "morals" of the biblical god

:yes: Again, I agree.

micrurus said:
so I found you a website that lists all the moral problems in the bible

[ URL link not allowed. ]

gotta love that title

That website does criticize the Bible but that is super far away from the discipline of Biblical Criticism.

One big point being the misunderstanding of the so-called sacrifice of Isaac / human sacrifice, because a very modern Bible Scholar named Thomas Cahill explained this in a far better and more accurate light in his 1998 book titled: The Gifts of the Jews: How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels.

In that book Cahill explains that it was God (Yahweh Elohim) that stopped the Hebrews from doing human sacrifices and that was the pertinence and point of the Abraham and Isaac event.

As the story goes in Genesis 22 Abraham saw no problem in sacrificing his son as it was not a big deal to Abraham, and Abraham was recorded as arguing with God on other occasions but to sacrifice Isaac he had no objections. The big event of that story is that God told Abraham to stop and NOT to do it and instead offer up the "ram" verse 13 and as Cahill explains this was the END (the end) of human sacrifices by the Hebrews and not that God wanted Isaac killed.

The New Testament James 2:22
And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

It is also noted that God told Abraham not to sacrifice his son Isaac because later God would make a better sacrifice of His own son Jesus.

So very much of the barbarism in the Bible is simply misunderstood or misinterpreted.

As like today the USA dropped nuclear bombs on 2 Japan cities and scorched fire bombs across Nazi Germany and yet we view these as rightful and do not give the same consideration for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah because the USA might be viewed as righteous while the Biblical God appears not to be.

:super:

corndog · Jan 8, 2011

It seems odd to say and believe the bible is in some places false and to then quote from it.

micrurus · Jan 8, 2011

Know it all. said:
:yes: I agree.

:yes: Again, I agree.

That website does criticize the Bible but that is super far away from the discipline of Biblical Criticism.

One big point being the misunderstanding of the so-called sacrifice of Isaac / human sacrifice, because a very modern Bible Scholar named Thomas Cahill explained this in a far better and more accurate light in his 1998 book titled: The Gifts of the Jews: How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels.

In that book Cahill explains that it was God (Yahweh Elohim) that stopped the Hebrews from doing human sacrifices and that was the pertinence and point of the Abraham and Isaac event.

As the story goes in Genesis 22 Abraham saw no problem in sacrificing his son as it was not a big deal to Abraham, and Abraham was recorded as arguing with God on other occasions but to sacrifice Isaac he had no objections. The big event of that story is that God told Abraham to stop and NOT to do it and instead offer up the "ram" verse 13 and as Cahill explains this was the END (the end) of human sacrifices by the Hebrews and not that God wanted Isaac killed.

The New Testament James 2:22
And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

It is also noted that God told Abraham not to sacrifice his son Isaac because later God would make a better sacrifice of His own son Jesus.

So very much of the barbarism in the Bible is simply misunderstood or misinterpreted.

As like today the USA dropped nuclear bombs on 2 Japan cities and scorched fire bombs across Nazi Germany and yet we view these as rightful and do not give the same consideration for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah because the USA might be viewed as righteous while the Biblical God appears not to be.

:super:

atleast you agree with 2 of the 3 things that I said, thats a good score

well, Abraham is up for debate, and I think that there are some other examples given by the site that are up for debate, but if you go through all the examples of how god condomes slavery, murder and rape... I just cannot even understand how some one would even atempt to justifie them all.

and there is also a page that give ALOT of contradictions in the bible. again, some of them may be up for debate but I would like to see some one trying to defend all of them.

Know it all. · Jan 8, 2011

corndog said:
It seems odd to say and believe the bible is in some places false and to then quote from it.

Hi, and I see this is your first post so I feel privileged and welcome to this forum.

It was difficult for me to see the Bible in error too so I do understand, but the reason for this is because out-of-fear people have turned the Bible into a type of idol so that the Bible must be absolute and nothing can be wrong with it when in-fact the Bible is not infallible.

A direct reference can be see in Jeremiah 8:8 ( by assorted translations paraphrased) "The law of God (the Bible) has false pens (false words) from the scribes (those that wrote the words) and they lie. ( See "Bible Gateway" as I can not yet give links.)

Human beings are perfectly capable of separating truths from false and Biblical Criticism is the discipline which opens that door.

:cheer:

Debunker · Jan 8, 2011

Know it all. said:
:yes: It was hard for myself but eventually the scholar criticism of the Bible finally settled in with me that very much of the Bible is not true and parts of it is out-right rubbish, but now I find that by taking out the false parts then it shows us a different and a far better message hidden inside the text.

An easy example is the book of Jonah as it is just a Jewish fable (see Titus 1:14) and it is like a children's story which was never meant to be taken as literally true. As like today we tell the stories of "Jack-n-the-Beanstalk" or "King Arthur & the Round Table" or "Robin Hood" which are told with merit but are not true. The book of Jonah is not a lie as it is just a child's fable story.

Of course Biblical criticism goes far deeper then that, as in discovering the earliest book of the Bible being called the "J source" or "Yahweh source" being separated from the "E" (Elohim) and "P" (Priest) and "D" (Deuteronomy) sources.

I am posting this in the "Science vs Religion" forum because Biblical Criticism is a type of science and the other boards seem less inviting to this subject.

It is extremely hard to find any of the best books or truly informative links on Biblical Criticism as the mainstream has been determined to suppress the revelations but if one wants to seek the truth then this is a must do subject. My own best instruction on Biblical Criticism came when I stumbled on an old 1923 book on that subject which I have long since forgotten the book's title but the message I got very well indeed. The old books were so severely controversial that the authors took great pains to explain every aspect in great detail so any reader would be able to understand the process and to put the process to use while scrutinizing the Bible so I know this topic very well and I do hope to share the best parts here.

:guitar1:

This thread begins with a terrible premise. Rubbish and not true are unrealistic aspects of a carnal mind opposed to spiritual understanding of literature at large. The correct perspective of interpreting any book of legend, history and poetry is not to say it is non truth, We do not say the legion of the Odyssey and Iliad are rubbish. We see the truth in the character of Achilles as the strongest among us being vulnerable by way of small weaknesses. That is the "truth" revealed here and should not be considered to be rubbish in any sense of the term. With this spirit of understanding should we consider the story of Jona. This is the perspective that Know It All should explain in the interpretation of the Bible.

Christians should not use the Bible to prove anything. The knowledge that God does exist is found in nature according to the Apostle Paul (Romans 1-3). The Scripture verifies what we know to be true via natural theology and personal experience. The Bible simply records man's experience with God. Scripture, says Paul, is given by inspiration by the Holy Spirit. As such, we must not eliminate the greatest author of all time the use of literary tools of parables, exaggeration, hyperbole, fantasy, irony, fatalism, imagery, etc, for all these are necessary tools of writing to express the truth.

I am posting this in the "Science vs Religion" forum because Biblical Criticism is a type of science and the other boards seem less inviting to this subject.

The premise of "Science vs. Religion" is false in its very name in that science and truth (true religion) are not at odds. Science is a tool used to verify what is really true. The assumption that science and religion are at odds is unscientific and filled with error from the get go.

Yes, share your opinion and criticism about the Bible and we Christians will share with you our experiences with the Bible with you to hopefully arrive at an inspirational view of God's word.

Know it all. · Jan 8, 2011

micrurus said:
atleast you agree with 2 of the 3 things that I said, thats a good score

:slap: Thank you.

micrurus said:
well, Abraham is up for debate, and I think that there are some other examples given by the site that are up for debate, but if you go through all the examples of how god condomes slavery, murder and rape... I just cannot even understand how some one would even atempt to justifie them all.

To "justify" is the height of virtue and that is why we seek justice whenever and wherever. Without justice there truly would be no higher power and no God.

I can not go through vague overviews because the Bible has been tampered with as like claiming the Bible condones being swallowed by a big fish since Jonah did it or walking on water, so if you see God (the Bible) condoning rape and slavery and murder then we have to dig down to the specifics and not such broad assertions.

micrurus said:
and there is also a page that give ALOT of contradictions in the bible. again, some of them may be up for debate but I would like to see some one trying to defend all of them.

It would be foolish of me to seek after every claim in that link website but as I have tried to say the discipline of Biblical Criticism does give us all the ability to do that one self.

My own opinion is that your website is against the standard and orthodox teachings of Christianity and in that I am likely to agree with it.

olar: P.S. The smilies which I use most often mean nothing as this bear means nothing.

Debunker · Jan 8, 2011

Know it all. said:
Hi, and I see this is your first post so I feel privileged and welcome to this forum.

It was difficult for me to see the Bible in error too so I do understand, but the reason for this is because out-of-fear people have turned the Bible into a type of idol so that the Bible must be absolute and nothing can be wrong with it when in-fact the Bible is not infallible.

A direct reference can be see in Jeremiah 8:8 ( by assorted translations paraphrased) "The law of God (the Bible) has false pens (false words) from the scribes (those that wrote the words) and they lie. ( See "Bible Gateway" as I can not yet give links.)

Human beings are perfectly capable of separating truths from false and Biblical Criticism is the discipline which opens that door.

:cheer:

Know It All, you point out your perspective of how you think the Bible should be interpreted with your closing summary: "Human beings are perfectly capable of separating truths from false and Biblical Criticism is the discipline which opens that door."

All theist who read this thread should understand that your ideas about the Bible are from a humanistic point of view. This is the point of view of atheist, pure and simple. Human beings are not capable of separating truth from false by Biblical Criticism.History of war and violence proves this, that humanism has always been an extreme failure.

Humanist try to remove God from the Constitution of the USA and all parts of society, and now the Bible, because the Bible, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence (and the many other national shrines of democracy) are the hamburger of self evident rights given to man by God. If humanist can do away with the Bible and even God himself, humanist can replace God's rule with human lordship. If the Bible teaches anything, it does teach that it is better to follow God than mammon.

Know it all. · Jan 8, 2011

Know it all. said:
I am posting this in the "Science vs Religion" forum because Biblical Criticism is a type of science and the other boards seem less inviting to this subject.

It is extremely hard to find any of the best books or truly informative links on Biblical Criticism as the mainstream has been determined to suppress the revelations but if one wants to seek the truth then this is a must do subject. My own best instruction on Biblical Criticism came when I stumbled on an old 1923 book on that subject which I have long since forgotten the book's title but the message I got very well indeed. The old books were so severely controversial that the authors took great pains to explain every aspect in great detail so any reader would be able to understand the process and to put the process to use while scrutinizing the Bible so I know this topic very well and I do hope to share the best parts here.

On to an even bigger revelation is that according to the given info in the Biblical research of the Gospels then Jesus did NOT die on the cross as He only appeared to be dead and the guards took Him down early and Jesus was later resuscitated, as in brought back to life.

The evidence is in many text places, as in the other two persons being crucified were still alive and had their legs broken, John 19:30-34, and it shows in verse 34 the spear in Jesus side draining "water" was draining the fluid from His lung (and or from His heart) which saved His life.

Later Jesus in particularly went and demonstrated to the disciples that He was NOT a spirit but a real and living person with a wounded physical body by eating food and by having Thomas touch the holes in His hands and in His side, and that means Jesus did not die on the cross.

If it was some kind of magical or mystical resurrection as is usually claimed then His body would have been healed but no. As like if some one had their head cut off then to resurrect that person then their head would still be cut off, so unless the resurrection healed the person by reattaching their head then they could not be alive, which it was not done for Jesus Christ as He was still injured with holes in His body and that means a resuscitation was the resurrection.

Then the Bible states that Jesus remained alive another 40 days, per Acts 1:3, and that is a long but reasonable time for a person to die from the massive trauma and injuries of the crucifixion.

Jesus still cheated death and escaped the Roman execution.

Jesus was still injured and Jesus Himself explained to the disciples that he was flesh and blood alive and not a risen dead.

Saying Jesus was resurrected by mystical magic is contradicting what Jesus Himself said that He had not died (not ascended) John 20:17, and that He was going to ascend (die) later.

As to Jesus walking then the text does say that He laid for three (3) days which is a sensible long time to recover before He was able to get up, and with doubting Thomas then Jesus said to touch His wounded hands and the wound in His side but said nothing about His feet, John 20:27, as in His feet might not have been hurt as the Romans might have spared His feet and that too does explain why He did not die from the crucifixion.

So the evidence is recorded in the text that Jesus did not die on the cross and His resurrection was a resuscitation and so it was still a great and wonderful miracle except there was no magic or mystical event.

The science of Biblical Criticism shows Jesus (Yesu) to have been a real life person instead of some mystical magical God-man.

Know it all. · Jan 8, 2011

Debunker said:
All theist who read this thread should understand that your ideas about the Bible are from a humanistic point of view. This is the point of view of atheist, pure and simple.

I have no objection to "humanist" except they might not like me as being both a humanist and a Theist too. Much like me viewing myself as a Christian but Christians tend to reject me and my form of Christianity.

I like Atheist too as they have lots of truths, and there is much to learn from Atheist.

Debunker said:
Human beings are not capable of separating truth from false by Biblical Criticism.History of war and violence proves this, that humanism has always been an extreme failure.

My point is that we humans here on this forum certainly can differentiate the truth from errors if we use our own brains along with our own conscience.

We do not have to follow the failures of others, and we can indeed seek the truth expecting to find it.

Debunker said:
Humanist try to remove God from the Constitution of the USA and all parts of society, and now the Bible, because the Bible, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence (and the many other national shrines of democracy) are the hamburger of self evident rights given to man by God. If humanist can do away with the Bible and even God himself, humanist can replace God's rule with human lordship. If the Bible teaches anything, it does teach that it is better to follow God than mammon.

All this is irrelevant and nonproductive to having a healthy discussion.

:no:

Debunker · Jan 8, 2011

Know it all. said:
On to an even bigger revelation is that according to the given info in the Biblical research of the Gospels then Jesus did NOT die on the cross as He only appeared to be dead and the guards took Him down early and Jesus was later resuscitated, as in brought back to life.

The evidence is in many text places, as in the other two persons being crucified were still alive and had their legs broken, John 19:30-34, and it shows in verse 34 the spear in Jesus side draining "water" was draining the fluid from His lung (and or from His heart) which saved His life.

Later Jesus in particularly went and demonstrated to the disciples that He was NOT a spirit but a real and living person with a wounded physical body by eating food and by having Thomas touch the holes in His hands and in His side, and that means Jesus did not die on the cross.

If it was some kind of magical or mystical resurrection as is usually claimed then His body would have been healed but no. As like if some one had their head cut off then to resurrect that person then their head would still be cut off, so unless the resurrection healed the person by reattaching their head then they could not be alive, which it was not done for Jesus Christ as He was still injured with holes in His body and that means a resuscitation was the resurrection.

Then the Bible states that Jesus remained alive another 40 days, per Acts 1:3, and that is a long but reasonable time for a person to die from the massive trauma and injuries of the crucifixion.

Jesus still cheated death and escaped the Roman execution.

Jesus was still injured and Jesus Himself explained to the disciples that he was flesh and blood alive and not a risen dead.

Saying Jesus was resurrected by mystical magic is contradicting what Jesus Himself said that He had not died (not ascended) John 20:17, and that He was going to ascend (die) later.

As to Jesus walking then the text does say that He laid for three (3) days which is a sensible long time to recover before He was able to get up, and with doubting Thomas then Jesus said to touch His wounded hands and the wound in His side but said nothing about His feet, John 20:27, as in His feet might not have been hurt as the Romans might have spared His feet and that too does explain why He did not die from the crucifixion.

So the evidence is recorded in the text that Jesus did not die on the cross and His resurrection was a resuscitation and so it was still a great and wonderful miracle except there was no magic or mystical event.

The science of Biblical Criticism shows Jesus (Yesu) to have been a real life person instead of some mystical magical God-man.

You are mixing Biblical facts with humanistic philosophy and you know it. All the arguments you present emerged shortly after the resurrection of Jesus Christ and were attempts of the enemies of Christ to discredit Christ's Lordship. Many of the Scriptures you use to explain away the spirituality of Christ have been debated for centuries and disregarded by serious scholars
as rubbish.these discussions have not been done in secrecy and forbidden to be printed as you claim. Your argument would make you a good candidate for the Muslim faith as much of Islam is built on a misinterpretation of Christianity
similar to your interpretation.

Christians should blow off your comments about Christ being a spirit with ease. Christians are smarter today about the theology of spirit and matter.We have seen too many episodes of Star Trek and seen too many members of the Enterprise beam up and down, through rocks and mountains, in oceans and deserts, to be moved by your made up humanistic attacks.

In my opinion you have said nothing of value about Bible criticism. You have only attempted to open a door for humanism. You are laying the foundation to reject any spirituality at all in religion. It will be interesting to see where you go next.

Debunker · Jan 8, 2011

The title of this thread is misleading. It should be Beating A Dead Horse to Death as you bring up old arguments that Christianity rejected early and often. You mis the truth in criticizing the legalistic facts of the Torah and the New Testament. Christ some time doing this Himself but His and His followers have always emphasized the worship of God in terms of spirit.

Jesus said God is a Spirit and that God could be worshiped in Spirit and truth. Humanist, who might call themselves Christian, run away from this ever present concept in the Bible. All the mistakes and errors you refer to in the Scriptures are attempts of the Holy Spirit to enlighten you to God as a Spirit. That is true in the OT and NT alike.

What God wanted the men of the OT to see was dabar. That is the God revealed to Moses. The people could not understand this God so Moses wrote by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the Law of Moses. Christ was the fulfillment of the law. Christ was the fulfillment of the real law which Moses did not write. It is significant that God wrote the Ten Commandment in stone for Moses, signifying that dabar's law never changes.

This concept of dabar is translated in the NT as logos. It makes Christianity a true thinking man's religion. All your criticisms of the Bible completely overlook the Spirit of the Bible and call attention only to what you call errors. I told you before and all the Apostles told you, as do all true believers tell you, you can only know God by natural theology and confirm it by the Bible. You can not replace God with humanistic philosophy regardless of your science.

Know it all. · Jan 8, 2011

Debunker said:
In my opinion you have said nothing of value about Bible criticism. You have only attempted to open a door for humanism. You are laying the foundation to reject any spirituality at all in religion. It will be interesting to see where you go next.

I just ask people like your self to let it go and so be it.

If you reject the Biblical Criticism then that is fine by me, but I want to discuss the subject and that is the point of this thread.

I often find this kind of feedback that know-it-all Christians simply want to drop the subject and bully anyone that tries to discuss it and pretend that there are no other sides to the story when there are.

You keep calling me and this as "humanism" or humanist and so what? as are not a humanist discussion to be respected?

I am happy to say that I really do reject the orthodox claims to spirituality because Jesus was a Man and not a spirit, and the real "God" is a practical and realistic entity and not some magical spirit which can not be studied or exposed.

Biblical Criticism opens the door to so much more.

:sorry1:

outhouse · Jan 8, 2011

Biblical Criticism

is the only biblical teaching that should be alowed in school. As pointed out this is not religion, its stripping away the fiction to find the non fiction which is somewhat difficult since there are allot of gray areas.

know it all, theres three good guys on here that do scholar type work, fallingblood ,evangical angellous, and oberon.

I think this work should be taught to everyone to stip away the myths and dogma that drag humanity down with the unjustified stereotypes against science. the younger the better.

Know it all. · Jan 8, 2011

outhouse said:
is the only biblical teaching that should be alowed in school. As pointed out this is not religion, its stripping away the fiction to find the non fiction which is somewhat difficult since there are allot of gray areas.

know it all, theres three good guys on here that do scholar type work, fallingblood ,evangical angellous, and oberon.

I think this work should be taught to everyone to stip away the myths and dogma that drag humanity down with the unjustified stereotypes against science. the younger the better.

Well I do sincerely thank you for posting here-in and for sharing that info and I truly am happy to see some one does at least know what Biblical Criticism really is because I was beginning to lose faith in this thread.

The subject is taught in Theology schools and I have spoken with Ministers that know the info but somehow they know the info and just skip over it and teach / preach nothing but emotional gibberish to their congregations.

IMO, I do not see any reason to teach religion nor evolution nor any such classes outside of college. Teaching evolution in schools do nothing in building or raising better citizens or better people and it could easily be taught at the College level. So I see no reason for schools to teach Biblical anything below the 12th grade.

When a young child has a particular religion then the schools have no business teaching otherwise. I say we need to teach law in grade schools and by high school any student needs to be able to petition their local Court but instead most citizens can not represent themselves in a simple civil Court proceeding and yet we call ourselves a Country of laws in the USA. Of course I have just jumped off subject ....

:shout

outhouse · Jan 8, 2011

Teaching evolution in schools do nothing in building or raising better citizens or better people

your in serious error here.

evolution is part of biology, without evolution there is no biology and I know your not suggesting we dont teach science to kids to prep them for college.

If we followed your advise our children would get run over by 20 other countries that educate there children much better then we do. maybe you want all foreigners running the biotech industry but i sure dont.

Debunker · Jan 8, 2011

Know it all. said:
:slap: Thank you. To "justify" is the height of virtue and that is why we seek justice whenever and wherever. Without justice there truly would be no higher power and no God.

I can not go through vague overviews because the Bible has been tampered with as like claiming the Bible condones being swallowed by a big fish since Jonah did it or walking on water, so if you see God (the Bible) condoning rape and slavery and murder then we have to dig down to the specifics and not such broad assertions.
It would be foolish of me to seek after every claim in that link website but as I have tried to say the discipline of Biblical Criticism does give us all the ability to do that one self.

My own opinion is that your website is against the standard and orthodox teachings of Christianity and in that I am likely to agree with it.

olar: P.S. The smilies which I use most often mean nothing as this bear means nothing.

I could point out a number of dishonest statements you make but the one to be pointed out here is so semantically slick, I can not help but emphasize it above all other slight of hand efforts you make to abolish God from the Bible.

Here it isI

can not go through vague overviews because the Bible has been tampered with as like claiming the Bible condones being swallowed by a big fish since Jonah did it or walking on water, so if you see God (the Bible) condoning rape and slavery and murder then we have to dig down to the specifics and not such broad assertions.:

See! You equate God with the Bible. If you discredit the Bible, you assume God is discredited. You might say that is not what you were saying but it is in fact what you did say. If you did not mean to say this and the fact that you did say it, proves that you have given very little logical or philosophical consideration to your particular brand of Christianity.

Just what is your world view? We need to know this before we can judge what you say to see if it offers anything of value. Do you accept the dabar or logos world view that the Bible teaches? Are you a materialist? Are you an atheist, humanist, or just what is your world view? You speak of a higher power, what is that in your world view? Tell us something about what you think is really real or are you trying to dupe us into some crazy new philosophy? If you do not trust the Bible, what do you trust? In other words, what is your epistemology? Communist, atheist, humanist do not have an ontological world view, do they?

Now, I will go ahead and apologize for being dogmatic and difficult with you but remember you have set yourself as a critic of the most revered book in the world. You say you are doing your criticism with science. Your world view will tell us what we need to know about your logic and science. Your science may be more superstitious than any world view known to man. We have a right to know.

By the way, the bible does not condone those things that you point out as being evil. It does record an accurate history of evil as well as good. You do twist things, why?

Know it all. · Jan 8, 2011

outhouse said:
your in serious error here.

evolution is part of biology, without evolution there is no biology and I know your not suggesting we dont teach science to kids to prep them for college.

If we followed your advise our children would get run over by 20 other countries that educate there children much better then we do. maybe you want all foreigners running the biotech industry but i sure dont.

So you and I disagree on this one.

Of course when I become the absolute dictator of the entire planet earth THEN we will start doing things my way.

:thud:

outhouse · Jan 8, 2011

Know it all. said:
So you and I disagree on this one.

Of course when I become the absolute dictator of the entire planet earth THEN we will start doing things my way.

:thud:

biblical criticism is almost scientific, you have lost all credibity if you accept science here but not there.

im out

Enlightened Biblical criticism.

Shaman.

/

Shaman.

New Member

/

Shaman.

Active Member

Shaman.

Active Member

Shaman.

Shaman.

Active Member

Active Member

Shaman.

Atheistically

Shaman.

Atheistically

Active Member

Shaman.

Atheistically