The Bible - Why Trust It

nPeace · Jan 2, 2020

SkepticThinker said:
Sorry if that offended you.

I was laughing at the idea that if somebody doesn't disprove your argument, then it's true.
I find it funny any time someone tries to make such an assertion.
Feel free to report me.

You didn't offend me.
I just wanted you to be aware of the rule... as well as others.
You can always use a gif or emoji

It's no problem to me. I could choose to respond... or not.

randix · Jan 2, 2020

For a little balance--

Historical errors and inaccuracies in the Bible

--

SkepticThinker · Jan 2, 2020

nPeace said:
You didn't offend me.
I just wanted you to be aware of the rule... as well as others.
You can always use a gif or emoji

It's no problem to me. I could choose to respond... or not.

Well, I'm happy I didn't offend you. Next time I'll laugh emoji at your post instead.

Have a nice day.

Audie · Jan 2, 2020

randix said:
For a little balance--

Historical errors and inaccuracies in the Bible

What Are the Bible's Biggest Scientific and Historical Errors?

Historical Errors in the Gospels.

More Historical Inaccuracies In The Bible

--

Good link. But you speak of human errors when
the book is the Word of God.

"Man says, God says."

Scientific Errors in the Bible

Scientific errors — statements that conflict with facts about reality we have learned through scientific investigation — can be found throughout the Bible because the biblical texts were written at times when human knowledge about our world was quite limited. We can't blame ancient writers for knowing less than we do now, but we can blame people alive now for preferring the errors of ancient writers over the reliable knowledge developed today.

randix · Jan 2, 2020

Unveiled Artist said:
Scripture is an historical book.

Only in the sense that it was written, copied (sometimes erroneously), compiled and edited by various (sometimes questionably-attributed) authors at certain times in certain places. Any text claimed to present history can be questionable, doubtful, incomplete (not the whole truth), biased or incorrect.

randix · Jan 2, 2020

Audie said:
when the book is the Word of God.

Those (both the claim about the book and the book's claimed source) of course remain unproven and subject to question and debate.

Unveiled Artist · Jan 2, 2020

randix said:
Only in the sense that it was written, copied (sometimes erroneously), compiled and edited by various (sometimes questionably-attributed) authors at certain times in certain places. Any text claimed to present history can be questionable, doubtful, incomplete (not the whole truth), biased or incorrect.

Pretty much like any other history book based on different facets of life from facts, mythology, analogies, and so forth. The book isn't perfect and it still holds value to the people who believe in it. It's a religious book. A lot of religious books have some basis of fact and history in it.

randix · Jan 2, 2020

Unveiled Artist said:
A lot of religious books have some basis of fact and history in it.

As do many fairy tales, myths and fables.

Audie · Jan 2, 2020

Unveiled Artist said:
Pretty much like any other history book based on different facets of life from facts, mythology, analogies, and so forth. The book isn't perfect and it still holds value to the people who believe in it. It's a religious book. A lot of religious books have some basis of fact and history in it.

Both negative and positive values

randix · Jan 2, 2020

Unveiled Artist said:
Pretty much like any other history book

Very few history books are claimed to be inerrant truth originating from a supernatural source.

nPeace · Jan 2, 2020

Nimos said:
What prophecies uttered by the prophets are you talking about, can you give an example?

I can give many examples. See this page.
There is the prophecy at Daniel 9:25, 26.
[GALLERY=media, 9173]Prophecy Of Daniel by nPeace posted Jan 2, 2020 at 8:53 AM[/GALLERY]
Please let me know if you can view the image, or not.

Nimos said:
I do that, just as everyone else does. Since I don't believe in objective morality. That doesn't mean that I don't have my reasons for not liking the ones I quoted. You are obviously allowed to disagree with them. But ill explain why I find them to be bad.

Not everyone else. Many millions don't ... including myself. I believe in a supreme creator, who has the right to set the standards of right and wrong.
Unlike Adam and Eve, who chose to decide for themselves what is good and bad... In other words, become their own god... I am not my own god.
It is clear to me that man cannot direct his own steps (Jeremiah 10:23), and the injury man has done to himself, and others (Ecclesiastes 8:9), over the centuries, is enough evidence for me, that I am on the right track, by listening to God. I have proven it

Nimos said:
Luke 6:27
27 "But I say to you who are listening: Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you.

To me it makes little sense to love ones enemies and clearly it is not what we see demonstrated around the world either. When a terrorist decide to shoot random people, I consider such person my enemy. And there is absolutely no logical reason for why I would show him any love or do good to such person. Parents whose daughter is raped and killed by some maniac, would be insane to show good towards such person and is also why we punish people for doing such things. If we should follow the morality of Jesus, we ought not to punish these type of people, but rather we should be kind to them and show them love.
To me that is absolutely non sense.

Again, I see that you are putting your opinion on par with a standard... in this case, logic.
To many people whom have experienced firsthand the benefits that come from loving their enemies. They see how it is not only logical to do so, but sensible, reasonable, and right.
I can give you thousands (I don't have the time to give you them now, but if you want them, let me know) of real life examples, where persons have, by being kind to their enemies, and showing them genuine love, have effected a positive change in that person. It made their enemy a better person, and in turn created a domino effect, where their friends and family became better individuals in society.

This is what is meant by the words at Romans 12
(Romans 12:17-21) 17 Return evil for evil to no one. Take into consideration what is fine from the viewpoint of all men. 18 If possible, as far as it depends on you, be peaceable with all men. 19 Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: “‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ says Jehovah.” 20 But “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by doing this you will heap fiery coals on his head.” 21 Do not let yourself be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering the evil with the good.
(Proverbs 25:21, 22 ; Exodus 23:4 ;1 Peter 3:9))

It is a known fact, that kindness calms fury. Hatred breeds hatred, and leads to more fury, and retaliation... and war.
(Proverbs 25:15) . . .By patience a commander is won over, And a gentle tongue can break a bone.

For the person who believes in God, it does more. Not only do they have inner peace, they have inner joy, knowing that their relationship with God, is good. (Hebrews 12:14)

Edit
@Nimos, the reason why we don't see love of one enemy demonstrated, is not because it is right, but because the world is ungodly, and immoral, according to the Bible.
However, among godly people, it is a constant feature.

Nimos said:
Matthew 5:28
28 But I say to you, anyone who stares at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Knowing how God think adultery ought to be punished.
Leviticus 20:10
10 "If anyone commits adultery with another man's wife, including when someone commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress are to die.

Luke 16:18
18 Any man who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9 You know that wicked people will not inherit the kingdom of God, don't you? Stop deceiving yourselves! Sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,
10 thieves, greedy people, drunks, slanderers, and robbers will not inherit the kingdom of God.

So what Jesus is basically saying as I see it, since he supported the law, is that any person that have ever been divorced and marries again ought to be killed. It get even worse, for those that believe in God, and hope to enter the kingdom of God, as those that commit adultery will not. Yet according to Jesus, you don't even have to physically act on it anymore, the mere thoughts in you mind is enough for God to judge you as such. And I doubt there are a lot of people that haven't looked at one of the opposite sex with lust, at some point or another in their life, now if this person they looked at were marriage a lot of adultery have been done.

Can only wonder how many will not get into heaven due to these two people alone

.

Did you just quote Leviticus?
Sorry, that's not taken from the Gospels. God does not require that. Remember?

Nimos said:
Matthew 15:3-4
3 But he answered them, "Why do you also disregard the commandment of God because of your tradition?
4 Because God said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and 'Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.'

This one should be fairly obvious, as this basically allow the parents to kill their children as they pleases, depending on what they consider to be a "curse". And the assumption being that the parents always act in the best interest of their children and therefore can never do anything wrong. Which is clearly not the case when one look around in the world.

So you are correct, that this is my own morality, but to me it seems more sensible, reasonable and logic than what Jesus and God suggest.

This was part of the Mosaic Law. Read the following verses.

Nimos said:
He quote them to give some background explanation on the varies views through history just as he state.

Its about being honest and represent people the best as possible, it have nothing to do with him being Bart Ehrman, it could just as well have been Hitler, Jesus, your detective or God for that matter.

If I started to claim that the detective said all kinds of things in the video that he is not, that would be dishonest as well. And would make our chat useless, as we are no longer talking about what they actually say, but merely what we "want" them to say. Obviously we might misunderstand some of it, which is fine, but there is a huge difference between "choosing" to misunderstand and just misunderstanding something.

Okay.

nPeace · Jan 2, 2020

Nimos said:
No, what im saying is, that when this guy you quoted say:

Nimos said:
[For a miracle] one thing that needs to be added is a source of energy unknown to us in our biological and physiological sciences. In our Scriptures this source of energy is identified as the power of God.”

He say that in regards of miracles, one need a source of energy and that this is the power of God. Which is all fine, if one just want to make a statement or claim. But it is without any use, unless one can demonstrate Why this energy is needed? That miracles do actually exist? Provide some way of measuring or proving that such energy exist? And finally that this energy is in fact the power of the biblical God?

This would follow the same approach as any other scientific theory.

Even if it is not of natural origins, one still need to provide a method for testing it, so we can reach a conclusion based on facts rather than faith.

No different than me claiming that ghosts are real, because of another dimension with an immense amount of energy, that allow these ghosts to travel between dimensions. If I don't care to first proof that ghosts actually exists or this dimension does, my claim would be utterly useless.

Not to be sidetracked. I used that quote, to make a point. We are not talking here about scientific papers.

Nimos said:
Exactly as above, first they have to define what they mean by magic. As I have no clue. Are we talking like a fantasy style magic like wizards? or something more like Jedis from Star wars? And im not making fun here.

How do we see this magic being expressed, I really have no clue. Which is why a definition is needed. After this they would have to demonstrate that this is in fact magic and no other more reasonable explanation can be given.

What have archaeologist found in Egypt, related to magic, and god? Anything? How do they deal with these?

Nimos said:
I didn't address it, in more details, because we do not know for certain why they wrote it the way the did. So pointing out that the criterion is not bulletproof seem to be valid to me. It doesn't mean that you are not correct, simply that your argument is not as solid as you would have liked it to be.

Continue...

Please explain some more. I am not sure I understand.

Nimos said:
Of course not, but to me these passages is just one of the clues that suggest that these people were not eyewitnesses, and demonstrate that at least these passages is more likely to have been made up rather than being true.

One would have to believe that either Pilate told John exactly what him and Jesus talked about, or that one of the Roman soldiers did or that Jesus somehow told John on the way to his crucifixion. Which seems highly unlikely to me.

Comparing John to the other gospels, where Jesus hardly spoke, also give us some clue that this is more likely to have been made up. Because why wouldn't the other gospel writers find it important?

To me looking at how John is written, it just seems more likely that he thought it would be more impactful to add all this dialog, maybe because he didn't think that the other Gospels made Jesus as personal as he wanted him to appear, or because he thought that crucifiction were a lot more important. I really don't know. But I don't think that one can deny the difference in how John is written in regards to details of the dialogs to that of the other Gospels.

Sorry that my time is so limited today, but I am really rushing through this. I will address this later.

Nimos said:
I would assume a mixture of scholars and random people.

Why assume, when you know assumptions are often wrong. You are wrong.

Nimos said:
But what you said was that this man knew that his daughter would die, but went anyway. And was to show that these two stories were exactly the same. Which I still disagree with.

Can you show me where I said that? I don't recall saying that.

Nimos said:
I didn't say that there is nothing such as right and wrong, merely that we decide what it is. So in that sense, I do not believe that there is any such thing as objectively right and wrong.

You did not elaborate, so since I can't read minds, I can only go with what you said.

Nimos said:
If we go with the definition:
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

In your example, the only free will that this person does, is to decide to rob a bank, so he does. That others interfere with it, is not violating his free will. As the free will was to rob the bank, not to also get away with it.

But that is not the same when we talk about prophecies. So lets look at the definition of a prophecy:

a prediction of what will happen in the future.

So if someone decide to kill Jesus as a child, but we assume that it is prophesied that he will end up being crucified, then such person will not be able to kill him. Because then the prophecy will not come true. Therefore God or something will have to intervene with this persons intention. So imagine Jesus as a child and this person standing next to him with a club ready to club him to death. This person would need to be interrupted somehow, either by a heart attack or something much earlier in his life that would make sure that this person would not end up wanting to club Jesus, which would interfere with his free will.

Does the person who sets out to kill Jesus exercise free will?
Does his failing to kill Jesus disqualify that free will?
Use what you said above,
In your example, the only free will that this person does, is to decide to rob a bank, so he does. That others interfere with it, is not violating his free will. As the free will was to rob the bank, not to also get away with it.
....and with one correction (free will was not to rob the bank, but to go to the bank with the intention to commit robbery) apply it this way... The free will was to set out to kill Jesus, not anything else.
Free will is not dependent on failure or success.

Nimos said:
Yes and it was about whether the apostles would say or follow Jesus if they did not believe that he were who he claimed, and therefore he could not have lied. I think it was in relation to the point of the bible perfectly explaining reality, but might remember wrong.

Anyway I brought up the example of the terrorists, as I still don't see how one would explain what they are doing, if they did not believe they were right either. If they knew it was all a lie, then how does one explain that they blow themselves up or even get involved in it in the first place?

I'll get back to you on this. I don't have time to think about how you are thinking about these things.
Later.

nPeace · Jan 2, 2020

firedragon said:
No.

What facts?

What evidence?

When you dont know who is the author, no one knows the author.

Peace.

Try this post, until I return.
Then I will share how we know the author is John.

firedragon said:
Okay. Thanks for clarifying. But when you say "Inspired by God" do you mean the whole Bible (I assume the 66 books) are all inspired by God just like you believe is the NT? As in its not Gods word, its inspired by God but written by fallible men.

is that the belief?

See if this helps.
Later.

randix · Jan 2, 2020

nPeace said:
We are not talking here about scientific papers.

So true, when speaking of the Bible.

Unveiled Artist · Jan 2, 2020

randix said:
Very few history books are claimed to be inerrant truth originating from a supernatural source.

It's a mixture of some history, mythology, and a whole bunch of stuff.

Here are some history stuff. Different subjects are still in debate 15 Historical Proofs of the Bible - Amazing Bible Timeline with World History

Regardless what the Bible claims to be, it and most likely some other mythology like books have some basis in history in it.

I don't know of any religious book, though, that it's info is completely made up. We may have biased about it, some even hate the Bible, doesn't change it anymore than believers loving the Bible, and have their own confirmed biases as well.

You think the Bible (everything) is 100% fiction?

Regardless your opinion about the content.

Unveiled Artist · Jan 2, 2020

Audie said:
Both negative and positive values

That doesn't devalue it, though. Religious books tend to have a balance regardless it's believers interpretations of it.

Unveiled Artist · Jan 2, 2020

randix said:
Very few history books are claimed to be inerrant truth originating from a supernatural source.

Like I said, though. Some history, mythology, folklore, etc. It's uniqueness of its claimed source doesn't invadate these things exist in the content of the book. It's not a unique religious book. A lot of religious books have some basis in history.

nPeace · Jan 2, 2020

Nimos said:
Of course not, but to me these passages is just one of the clues that suggest that these people were not eyewitnesses, and demonstrate that at least these passages is more likely to have been made up rather than being true.

One would have to believe that either Pilate told John exactly what him and Jesus talked about, or that one of the Roman soldiers did or that Jesus somehow told John on the way to his crucifixion. Which seems highly unlikely to me.

Comparing John to the other gospels, where Jesus hardly spoke, also give us some clue that this is more likely to have been made up. Because why wouldn't the other gospel writers find it important?

To me looking at how John is written, it just seems more likely that he thought it would be more impactful to add all this dialog, maybe because he didn't think that the other Gospels made Jesus as personal as he wanted him to appear, or because he thought that crucifiction were a lot more important. I really don't know. But I don't think that one can deny the difference in how John is written in regards to details of the dialogs to that of the other Gospels.

Yes and it was about whether the apostles would say or follow Jesus if they did not believe that he were who he claimed, and therefore he could not have lied. I think it was in relation to the point of the bible perfectly explaining reality, but might remember wrong.

Anyway I brought up the example of the terrorists, as I still don't see how one would explain what they are doing, if they did not believe they were right either. If they knew it was all a lie, then how does one explain that they blow themselves up or even get involved in it in the first place?

I think you are just making up all kinds and any kind of excuse and objections you can find. So why should I take them seriously.
For you to dismiss primary and secondary sources of historical accounts, on the basis of speculation, due to an absence of details we don't have, seems to me, quite unreasonable.
Primary and secondary sources. Primary sources provide a first-hand account of an event or time period and are considered to be authoritative...
I think it's appropriate to repeat this post for you also.

We simply do not have enough information to explain with any certainty how John got he information, he personally did not witness. However, to dismiss all the other information, of an eyewitness, on that basis, suggests to me, that you have already made up your mind to ignore anything that can reasonably be considered reliable.
So, no explanation would be enough to remove that skepticism.
Recall what the detective said... He had to let go of his closed-mindedness - his volition.

John could have gotten his information, a number of ways.
The scriptures show that Romans did convert to Christianity.
Today, we see this. When someone converts, they share information we wouldn't have obtained otherwise.
You would observe this, when you watch documentaries.
So one way, could have been through a soldier.... but why speculate on information we don't have? It proves neither side.

You are accusing the writers of lying, when you have no basis for doing so, other than your feelings.
The proper way to go about this, is not using opinion, based on emotions, but rather we should look at the facts, and using the different criterion in the historical methodology, we see they had no reason to lie. Their candor is evident throughout the texts.

That's my final word on these speculations.
If you have objections about the historical method, I don't mind discussing those. You can let me know.

McBell · Jan 2, 2020

nPeace said:
I think you are just making up all kinds and any kind of excuse and objections you can find. So why should I take them seriously.
For you to dismiss primary and secondary sources of historical accounts, on the basis of speculation, due to an absence of details we don't have, seems to me, quite unreasonable.
Primary and secondary sources. Primary sources provide a first-hand account of an event or time period and are considered to be authoritative...
I think it's appropriate to repeat this post for you also.

We simply do not have enough information to explain with any certainty how John got he information, he personally did not witness. However, to dismiss all the other information, of an eyewitness, on that basis, suggests to me, that you have already made up your mind to ignore anything that can reasonably be considered reliable.
So, no explanation would be enough to remove that skepticism.
Recall what the detective said... He had to let go of his closed-mindedness - his volition.

John could have gotten his information, a number of ways.
The scriptures show that Romans did convert to Christianity.
Today, we see this. When someone converts, they share information we wouldn't have obtained otherwise.
You would observe this, when you watch documentaries.
So one way, could have been through a soldier.... but why speculate on information we don't have? It proves neither side.

You are accusing the writers of lying, when you have no basis for doing so, other than your feelings.
The proper way to go about this, is not using opinion, based on emotions, but rather we should look at the facts, and using the different criterion in the historical methodology, we see they had no reason to lie. Their candor is evident throughout the texts.

That's my final word on these speculations.
If you have objections about the historical method, I don't mind discussing those. You can let me know.

Now I know you are not going to understand this, but...

Jumping up and down screaming "they are primary sources" does not make them primary sources.

nPeace · Jan 3, 2020

@firedragon
How we know John is the writer
John 21:24 This disciple - "the one Jesus loved" - is the one who testifies to these events and has recorded them here. And we know that his account of these things is accurate.

Early writers such as Irenaeus (140-203), Clement of Alexandria (150-215), Tertullian (155-222) and Origen (185-253) all designated the writer as the apostle John. No one else was suggested by the early church. All say that John wrote this Gospel, and all other evidence agrees.
The style of the Gospel of John, and the letters of John, are similar. The writer confirms that he is an early follower of Christ and eyewitness - 1 John 1:1-4

The Bible - Why Trust It

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Resident Sourpuss

Veteran Member