Bibliolatry

[Dan From Smithville]

If you feel the Bible is a book of myths then the idolatry issue is moot for you. I think you should rethink but you're welcome to your faith investments good or bad.

There is no reason that a book that was purely myth could not be idolized, but for a person that sees it as myth, you are probably right, it may be a moot point.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

just as you are.

That is the problem when personal belief is expanded and pushed outward. Every other personal belief is seen as wanting.

 

[Kenny]

How do we know this was dictation. All that is claimed is inspired. James Doohan was not an engineer on a 23rd Century star ship, but he and the role he portrayed is credited with inspiring numerous people to become engineers. I know of a story of a group of those inspired people openly thanking Mr. Doohan for that inspiration at a convention.

Attempts have been made to explain inconsistencies and errors, but does that mean they are explained away? So these inconsistencies and errors do not exist and can be explained away with the wave of a hand and not other effort?

The message is the important part, but even that can be manipulated and used to deify the Bible.

I think when God said "Write this down"... is a good clue

 

[Kenny]

I have an opinion based on the evidence. Weakness of faith need not be total. A vigorous athlete can accomplish many feats while growing a cancer inside his or her body. No one would claim that their athletic skills were weak even as their body was.

That sounds like a back stroke. Dr John G Lake is known for his strong faith not a weak faith. One could postulate that your not believing it was dictated by God is a sign of weak faith.

Who decides who is correct?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That sounds like a back stroke. Dr John G Lake is known for his strong faith not a weak faith. One could postulate that your not believing it was dictated by God is a sign of weak faith.

Who decides who is correct?

I think when God said "Write this down"... is a good clue

Let us say that the Bible is dictated, flawless and an accurate historical account of events that took place as written.

When it is discovered that there is no evidence of a global flood, that life was not created as it is, but arose from simple forms, evolving over time with increasing complexity until it is, as it is now, how do you reconcile that? One is correct by definition of belief and the other is correct based on evidence, but both cannot be simultaneously correct.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That sounds like a back stroke. Dr John G Lake is known for his strong faith not a weak faith. One could postulate that your not believing it was dictated by God is a sign of weak faith.

Who decides who is correct?

I have no idea who Dr. John G. Lake is or what he is known for. If he claims the Bible is infallible, he has taken the first step into deifying it. The appearance of strength is subjective.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That sounds like a back stroke. Dr John G Lake is known for his strong faith not a weak faith. One could postulate that your not believing it was dictated by God is a sign of weak faith.

Who decides who is correct?

A person can state that something is absolute, but how can they demonstrate that? How can you be so sure that the Bible is absolutely the Word of God as He dictated it? That is what is being claimed by people that call it infallible. If you know it is, then how do you explain all of the contradictions found in the physical world that do not align with parts of the Bible? Why would acceptance and acknowledgement of the Bible as the work of man eliminate the Bible as a source of wisdom, descriptions of God and the basis of several theologies?

 

[Kenny]

Let us say that the Bible is dictated, flawless and an accurate historical account of events that took place as written.

When it is discovered that there is no evidence of a global flood, that life was not created as it is, but arose from simple forms, evolving over time with increasing complexity until it is, as it is now, how do you reconcile that? One is correct by definition of belief and the other is correct based on evidence, but both cannot be simultaneously correct.

Was there no flood? Or is it simply two sets of people interpreting differently what can be found?

Certainly both cannot be correct but there are varying opinions on many things.

Peking man is very controversial with many different views on what is seen.

 

[Kenny]

I have no idea who Dr. John G. Lake is or what he is known for. If he claims the Bible is infallible, he has taken the first step into deifying it. The appearance of strength is subjective.

Do you always make statements that have no support?

And, no, he didn't deify the word of God.

And making statements without support is the first step of a flat earth mentality.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Was there no flood? Or is it simply two sets of people interpreting differently what can be found?

Certainly both cannot be correct but there are varying opinions on many things.

Peking man is very controversial with many different views on what is seen.

There is no evidence of a global flood. This was first discovered by clergy that set out to establish and reveal the evidence that showed a flood. They could not find any. The evidence is ignored by those that do not want the Bible to be wrong. So many questions go unanswered or lead to back-breaking answers that open up further questions that remain unanswered. For something that should have left obvious and easily interpreted evidence, there is a resounding lack of that evidence.

What is the controversy you refer to in Peking man?

 

[Kenny]

A person can state that something is absolute, but how can they demonstrate that? How can you be so sure that the Bible is absolutely the Word of God as He dictated it? That is what is being claimed by people that call it infallible. If you know it is, then how do you explain all of the contradictions found in the physical world that do not align with parts of the Bible? Why would acceptance and acknowledgement of the Bible as the work of man eliminate the Bible as a source of wisdom, descriptions of God and the basis of several theologies?

As it has been stated before, contradictions have be postulated and then the counter has been expressed. You simply are on one side of a belief system while the others are on the other side. You may be right and, then again, you may be wrong.

From that point on, you are simply creating a logic based on your belief system but not on facts so the person on the opposite side of the coin would disagree.

I could equally say, "Why would accept Christ if you have no idea if he even existed or did what he said he would do?" You did say you believed in Christ, did you not?

And if you don't believe the words are true, how can you place faith in what it expresses?

Your logic applied equally.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you always make statements that have no support?

And, no, he didn't deify the word of God.

And making statements without support is the first step of a flat earth mentality.

I do not know who John G. Lake is. I cannot prove a negative.

The support of my conclusions about the deification of the Bible are in the prohibition against false idols, the existence of those that deify it, the fact that you only need faith and to believe, without seeing the rest as historical and actual, and the fact that reality contradicts claims of parts of the Bible.

If you claim he is calling the Bible absolute and infallible, he has planted the seeds to deification. I cannot say if they are taking root or where those roots are growing.

Do you see evidence as a lack of support? Why?

 

[tosca1]

I believe that you have just made my point for me. You are correct; the key phrase is "If Jesus Himself..." because it was not 'someone claiming to be Jesus, but Jesus Himself."

You see, jesus wrote nothing...except some scribles in the dirt that one time. We have nothing of Him except for what other people have written, and it has been shown that some of the scriptures in the NT were not written by the folks whose name has been attached to them.

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.

Humans are not perfect. We goof. Humans wrote the bible. If someone will turn away from Jesus Himself and 'hold to the book,' s/he is turning away from God and worshiping the writings of imperfect humans. Those who do this are losing both the value of the book....and God Himself.

So if Jesus Himself came down and told me that there was something wrong, I'd listen....and make the correction.

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.

 

[Kenny]

There is no evidence of a global flood. This was first discovered by clergy that set out to establish and reveal the evidence that showed a flood. They could not find any. The evidence is ignored by those that do not want the Bible to be wrong. So many questions go unanswered or lead to back-breaking answers that open up further questions that remain unanswered. For something that should have left obvious and easily interpreted evidence, there is a resounding lack of that evidence.

What is the controversy you refer to in Peking man?

There is evidence of a global flood. And for good reason every major religion makes mention of it.

http://tumblehomelearning.com/top-ten-top-10-fraudulentfake-fossil-cases-in-history/

Then, of course, the Piltdown man was such a hot item... people looked at it with one opinion and then others had a different opinion. It was a fake.

Piltdown man | anthropological hoax

At this point, there are two different viewpoints on the flood and neither side has a definitive case. It just goes back and forth as you and I are doing

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As it has been stated before, contradictions have be postulated and then the counter has been expressed. You simply are on one side of a belief system while the others are on the other side. You may be right and, then again, you may be wrong.

From that point on, you are simply creating a logic based on your belief system but not on facts so the person on the opposite side of the coin would disagree.

I could equally say, "Why would accept Christ if you have no idea if he even existed or did what he said he would do?" You did say you believed in Christ, did you not?

And if you don't believe the words are true, how can you place faith in what it expresses?

Your logic applied equally.

I am well aware of the counter claims to some of the inconsistencies and errors. I am also aware that some point to those as evidence that the errors and inconsistencies have been washed away.

The right and wrong applies to you as well, and I have offered evidence. Evidence and questions. You have chosen to ignore much of that.

How do you reconcile physical evidence that contradicts Genesis? Is denial of that evidence sufficient to maintain your view. Personally, it seems sufficient, but when you move your views outwards to others, how are you going to reconcile these contradictions to them in order to persuade them to your side?

I have not stated that I believe the Bible is false. Only that it is not inerrant. Your claim is the inevitable response that always arises in discussions like this. Having never made such a statement or anything related, opponents still bring up some form of claim to the contrary.

 

[Kenny]

I do not know who John G. Lake is. I cannot prove a negative.

The support of my conclusions about the deification of the Bible are in the prohibition against false idols, the existence of those that deify it, the fact that you only need faith and to believe, without seeing the rest as historical and actual, and the fact that reality contradicts claims of parts of the Bible.

If you claim he is calling the Bible absolute and infallible, he has planted the seeds to deification. I cannot say if they are taking root or where those roots are growing.

Do you see evidence as a lack of support? Why?

Then before you say that people who believe it is God breathed are weak in faith, you might want to study first. You don't want circular thinking that it is true because you said so and what you say validates your position.

 

[Kenny]

I am well aware of the counter claims to some of the inconsistencies and errors. I am also aware that some point to those as evidence that the errors and inconsistencies have been washed away.

The right and wrong applies to you as well, and I have offered evidence. Evidence and questions. You have chosen to ignore much of that.

How do you reconcile physical evidence that contradicts Genesis? Is denial of that evidence sufficient to maintain your view. Personally, it seems sufficient, but when you move your views outwards to others, how are you going to reconcile these contradictions to them in order to persuade them to your side?

I have not stated that I believe the Bible is false. Only that it is not inerrant. Your claim is the inevitable response that always arises in discussions like this. Having never made such a statement or anything related, opponents still bring up some form of claim to the contrary.

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)

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is evidence of a global flood. And for good reason every major religion makes mention of it.

http://tumblehomelearning.com/top-ten-top-10-fraudulentfake-fossil-cases-in-history/

Most of the major religions are all from the same root. It would be surprising if they did not include the same mythology. This is hardly evidence that the flood happened. Explain why there are religions that do not mention it at all or cultures that have no flood myths.

Then, of course, the Piltdown man was such a hot item... people looked at it with one opinion and then others had a different opinion. It was a fake.

Piltdown man | anthropological hoax

Wow. You had to dig deep to unearth this dead issue. A fake that was created outside of science by an amateur and determined to be a fake by scientists. No religion brought anything to the table that revealed the fake. It was never fully accepted in science and has no bearing on the discussion. If you claim it was fully accepted, then why were the tests showing it as fraudulent conducted in the first place? You are just firing blanks now.

At this point, there are two different viewpoints on the flood and neither side has a definitive case. It just goes back and forth as you and I are doing

The science side has the definitive case, with all the evidence. The flood side is just "it must be true because my god says it is true". Denial of the evidence is the best I see in this discussion.

You believe there was a flood, but it against the evidence and not because of some evidence. To be clear, there is evidence used to support the flood, but it has all been sufficiently addressed.

 

[Kenny]

Most of the major religions are all from the same root. It would be surprising if they did not include the same mythology. This is hardly evidence that the flood happened. Explain why there are religions that do not mention it at all or cultures that have no flood myths.

The science side has the definitive case, with all the evidence. The flood side is just "it must be true because my god says it is true". Denial of the evidence is the best I see in this discussion.

You believe there was a flood, but it against the evidence and not because of some evidence. To be clear, there is evidence used to support the flood, but it has all been sufficiently addressed.

Statements without supportive documentation.

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

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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)

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.