Bibliolatry

Dan From Smithville · May 18, 2019

KenS said:
Statements without supportive documentation.

Circular thinking.... it is true because you said it is true.

If you are even remotely aware of the argument about the flood, I would be surprised that you are not aware of the documentation available for the case of science. Unless you are lying. This seems like a desperate and futile attempt, but I am used to that when dealing with creationists that deify a story over the message of the story.

Attempting to nullify me, because I have not provided page after page of available information that discredits the flood, is slight of hand.

The argument against the flood is the superior argument, because of the evidence, not because I believe it.

Dan From Smithville · May 18, 2019

KenS said:
So we respectfully remain on different viewpoints of what we see.

You make statement like "How do you reconcile physical evidence that contradicts Genesis? " with no substance. You make statements that basically say "because I said so it is true".

I would be more specific but you give an appearance of "I believe what I believe", which is fine... but I certainly don't want to take too much time sharing with someone who isn't really going to change (as you could also say of me)

That is actually a question and not a statement. I accept that you choose not to answer it and I suspect why you choose that, but that does not alter it out of being a question.

I really do not care if you change your belief. All I am interested in is showing that your belief is belief and has no factual basis. Facts that you have been in short supply of and presented little of.

Saying some guy that calls the Bible inerrant, but is known for the perceived strength of his faith, is not evidence that the Bible has not been deified or that he is not doing it too.

Dan From Smithville · May 18, 2019

KenS said:
So we respectfully remain on different viewpoints of what we see.

You make statement like "How do you reconcile physical evidence that contradicts Genesis? " with no substance. You make statements that basically say "because I said so it is true".

I would be more specific but you give an appearance of "I believe what I believe", which is fine... but I certainly don't want to take too much time sharing with someone who isn't really going to change (as you could also say of me)

We share the same belief system, just not some of the details. I think there is a fundamental difference in how we approach that belief. Part of that is how we view doubt. For you, apparently, any doubt means the whole system falls apart and that doubting part of the Bible is rejecting God. For me, I doubt parts of the Bible, but see no reason that means I should reject God or that others should do that too. Definitive evidence exists demonstrating that Genesis is not an accurate, historical description of events that happened. Were I of weaker faith, this should have been more than enough to cause me to leave my belief. Apparently, acceptance of it would shake you loose if I have been reading your right.

dianaiad · May 18, 2019

tosca1 said:
We need the context. Basing it with just what that tele-evangelist had said (quoted by you), and assuming that was exactly what he meant (it was Jesus really Himself) - then, he gave a reckless remark. I'd agree with you.....I'd listen.

I can't give you the context of his statements before that specific one, but that stood out. Since then I have spoken with many evangelical biblical inerrentists, and the context with them has been pretty clear; Jesus Himself wouldn't change their minds.

It's very close to what some atheists say when I ask them if a personal appearance by God Himself would prove to them that He exists. They say 'no.'

Not even God can convince those who will not be convinced.

Jeremiah Ames · May 18, 2019

tosca1 said:
Bibliolatry means "worship of the Bible."
It is usually used as an attack on those who believe in the inerrancy, infallibility, and supremacy of the Scripture, and on those who hold to "Sola Scriptura" (which means "Scriptures alone"), and/or a literal interpretation of the Bible.

It is bibliolatry to elevate the Bible as being equal with God that studying the Bible becomes more important than developing a personal relationship with God.

It is important though, to understand what is written in the Bible, describing the Bible itself.

2 Tim 3
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

If the Bible is God-breathed, and if God does not lie......then, every word in the Bible must be true. That means, believing in the infallibility, innerancy and authority of the Bible, is not bibliolatry.

It is simply believing in what God says about the Bible.

In reading 2 Timothy 16, my question is: who determines what is “all scripture”. ?

tosca1 · May 18, 2019

dianaiad said:
We DO have problems with the NT; the Johanine comma, for instance, which is a group of three (two? I forget) verses which were added later from some margin notes written by a scribe. Purely human errors.

What changes with the Johanine comma controversy? Surely that did not cast any doubt nor did it change anything about Jesus/God/Holy Spirit.

There are countless verses that teaches, talks about or imply about the concept of the Trinity. I say "countless" because every now and then, I still come across verses that I have not noticed before.

Here is an interesting long read.

Usually the complaint is raised by people who have little understanding of the real issues. In cases like this, an appeal to common knowledge is more often than not an appeal to common ignorance. Like many questions about Christianity, this objection is voiced by people who haven't been given reliable information.

Just the Facts, Ma'am

The question of authenticity is not really a religious concern at all; it's an academic one.

The objection at first glance is compelling. When we try to conceptualize how to reconstruct an original after 2000 years of copying, translating, and copying some more, the task appears impossible. The skepticism, though, is based on two misconceptions about the transmission of ancient documents like the New Testament.

More.....

Click to expand...

Stand to Reason's Statement of Faith | Stand to Reason

tosca1 · May 18, 2019

Gerry said:
In reading 2 Timothy 16, my question is: who determines what is “all scripture”. ?

If a Christian believes the Bible is God-breathed.....then, he believes it's God!

Kenny · May 18, 2019

Dan From Smithville said:
I believe what I can support. I see you as "I believe what I believe". The Bible has not been established as a flawless historical account. Errors and inconsistencies have been identified. Any redress to those errors and inconsistencies largely rests in claims that they have been dealt with and not in sufficient redress. I have not claimed the Bible is false or that I ignore it or it should be ignored. I have turned my worship to God and not to a book written by men. If I have doubts, then your answer seems to be to ignore those doubts and lie to myself by deifying the Bible anyway. At best, cute little emojis intended to imply a superior position seem to be the most significant argument that literalists can make.

Again... statements and no substantiation as well as false representations.

Kenny · May 18, 2019

Dan From Smithville said:
That is actually a question and not a statement. I accept that you choose not to answer it and I suspect why you choose that, but that does not alter it out of being a question.

I really do not care if you change your belief. All I am interested in is showing that your belief is belief and has no factual basis. Facts that you have been in short supply of and presented little of.

Saying some guy that calls the Bible inerrant, but is known for the perceived strength of his faith, is not evidence that the Bible has not been deified or that he is not doing it too.

Give me a good question (specific) and I will be happy to answer.

Kenny · May 18, 2019

Dan From Smithville said:
We share the same belief system, just not some of the details. I think there is a fundamental difference in how we approach that belief. Part of that is how we view doubt.
For you, apparently, any doubt means the whole system falls apart and that doubting part of the Bible is rejecting God.

Unsubstantiated opinion and false representation... it's becoming a habit.

Deeje · May 18, 2019

blü 2 said:
I'd say that's contradicted directly by the Garden story ─

Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" ─ 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.

If death hadn't already entered the world, there'd be no need for a Tree of Life (antidote) in the garden in the first place, and equally, if Adam and Eve were otherwise going to live forever anyway, God would have no motive for chucking 'em out ─ this is the only reason God chucked 'em out.

Or are you referring to something else in Genesis?

I am referring to the fact that "the tree of life" was the means at their disposal to indefinitely prolong the life they already had. There was no restriction placed on that tree at all. It was their "fountain of youth" so to speak. As long as they took the fruit from this tree they would keep living, no aging, no sickness, no death.

Most people fail to understand that everlasting life is not immortality. Access to the tree of life was something that could be withdrawn from those who contravened God's laws by abusing their free will. If he had granted free willed beings immortality, (meaning that they could not die) then that would have been a recipe for disaster. This is why Christendom adopted the idea of hell and purgatory....immortal souls couldn't die so they had to invent places for them to go. The truth is no such places ever existed.

Death is the cessation of life. Only God can restore life and fulfill his original purpose with lessons learned (the value of obedience) and precedents set for all time to come, (no rebel will ever remain in existence to spoil things for everyone else.)

Dan From Smithville · May 18, 2019

KenS said:
Again... statements and no substantiation as well as false representations.

So now I am a liar?

Dan From Smithville · May 18, 2019

KenS said:
Again... statements and no substantiation as well as false representations.

My response was spot on. No wonder you did not like it.

Dan From Smithville · May 18, 2019

KenS said:
Give me a good question (specific) and I will be happy to answer.

I gave you good questions. They are the ones that you should be able to answer given your position. This is just a typical attempt at evasion.

You could respond with something like, I reject science, because it goes against my belief. At least there is honesty in that position. Does that fit with your view?

Kenny · May 18, 2019

Dan From Smithville said:
I gave you good questions. They are the ones that you should be able to answer given your position. This is just a typical attempt at evasion.

You could respond with something like, I reject science, because it goes against my belief. At least there is honesty in that position. Does that fit with your view?

Dan From Smithville · May 18, 2019

KenS said:
Unsubstantiated opinion and false representation... it's becoming a habit.

So one of us does not believe in God. But I thought we were both claiming to be Christian. I believe in God. Are you saying that you do not? Bring me up to speed chief.

So you are saying that there is no fundamental difference between us? Is this the unsupported opinion you are claiming for me? It is the opinion I presented.

It would be a misrepresentation and unintentional, but it is based on what I have seen. I admit that I could be wrong in light of some of the other things you have posted, but you are not very clear and are challenging me on things that I thought were true for both of us.

So, evidence that contradicts Genesis should be ignored or we should pretend it is not real? What is the message you are sending to me here? Are you saying that this evidence leads you to recognize that the stories of Genesis are allegories and do not challenge your faith? What are you saying?

Dan From Smithville · May 18, 2019

KenS said:

There are those emojis again. Do you have any words that are your own are you just going to hide behind graphics?

I asked the questions that are of interest to me and that you should be able to answer given your position. It is I that should be going "good grief" not you. You are the one avoiding them.

blü 2 · May 18, 2019

Deeje said:
I am referring to the fact that "the tree of life" was the means at their disposal to indefinitely prolong the life they already had. There was no restriction placed on that tree at all. It was their "fountain of youth" so to speak. As long as they took the fruit from this tree they would keep living, no aging, no sickness, no death.

But of course in the story it wasn't at their disposal. And to make sure it would never be at their disposal, God chucked 'em out of the Garden. In other words, they were always going to die.

Deeje said:
Most people fail to understand that everlasting life is not immortality.

You jest, surely? If my life lasts forever, I'm immortalis, 'undying'.

Deeje said:
Access to the tree of life was something that could be withdrawn from those who contravened God's laws by abusing their free will.

The story says nothing of the kind. You're trying to retrofit it. And God had deliberately denied Adam and Eve knowledge of good and evil, making it impossible for them to choose to do evil ie impossible 'to abuse their free will'. Not till after they'd eaten the fruit could they do that. Anyway, God clearly stated his reasons for expelling them, and those reasons don't mention or imply disobedience, or sin, or original sin, or the Fall of Man, or death entering the world, or the need for a savior. All those are attempted retrofits too.

Deeje said:
If he had granted free willed beings immortality, (meaning that they could not die) then that would have been a recipe for disaster.

The story however says nothing of the kind.

Deeje said:
Death is the cessation of life. Only God can restore life and fulfill his original purpose with lessons learned (the value of obedience)

Yes, death is the irreversible cessation of life. No one comes back from that, by definition. As for 'the value of obedience', but for the Snake, we'd all be ignorant of the difference between good and evil, and we'd all be doing both with no concept of what we were doing. So the Snake and Eve are like Prometheus, bringer of good things to mankind, the difference being that Prometheus was punished by the gods for doing so, and Adam and Eve were expelled for a different and clearly stated reason, which I quoted.

Dan From Smithville · May 18, 2019

KenS said:

Is the Bible as its own authority a circular argument. Is that argument sufficient to reject evidence that contradicts parts of the Bible? There have been over 1,000 errors and inconsistencies identified in the Bible, have all of them been reconciled in favor of the Bible? Even if not, why would a book intended to spread the Word of God and dictated by God, have even the hint of impropriety?

Should I just keep writing questions until you get to those that you think you know the answer to?

Dan From Smithville · May 18, 2019

KenS said:

What should an intelligent, educated Christian do, when confronted with scientific evidence that contradicts the claims of creation in Genesis? Should they reject religion and walk away? Should they reject science and cling to religion? Should they consider that it is allegory describing the relationship of man and God and not necessarily set in stone or intended to be the actual description of how life was created?

What other emojis do you think will help out here?

Bibliolatry

What we've got here is failure to communicate.

What we've got here is failure to communicate.

What we've got here is failure to communicate.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Face to face with my Father

Face to face with my Father

Face to face with my Father

Avid Bible Student

What we've got here is failure to communicate.

What we've got here is failure to communicate.

What we've got here is failure to communicate.

Face to face with my Father

What we've got here is failure to communicate.

What we've got here is failure to communicate.

Veteran Member

What we've got here is failure to communicate.

What we've got here is failure to communicate.