Bibliolatry

[Kenny]

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?

OK... let's start over....

Exactly what are you referring to in Genesis.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

Does the Bible contain a prohibition on creating false idols? Can anything become a false idol?

I am trying to make these as simple as I can. Does that help?

Can a person have the outward appearance of strong faith, but fall into worship of a false idol without realizing it?

Does the demand that the Bible be viewed as absolute and infallible fall under the onus of a false idol?

Does that indicate a weak faith or a strong faith?

Is the Bible dictation or the work of men, inspired by God?

Can the Bible be its own authority? Can anything or anyone do the same? How is that not a circular argument?

If I draw a conclusion about the views of someone I am talking to and then state that conclusion, is it a lie? Is it correct, just because I wrote it out? Is it false, because you do not agree? Are these the kinds of questions that you feel comfortable answering?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK... let's start over....

Exactly what are you referring to in Genesis.

I am not sure if it is worth starting over, but I will give it a try?

Do you mean the events that are contradicted by evidence, logic and the application of science. Those are the events I have been referring too. The order of creation, the creation of man, the creation of other living things and a global flood. The evidence does not show that we are the result of two beings created 6,000 years ago. The evidence demonstrates that we evolved from pre-existing living things. This is true of all living things back to a point where there is no evidence of life. The Earth is estimated to be 4.3 billion years old, based on validated methods of dating. The order of creation does not make sense in light of what we know about cosmology and biology. There is no evidence of what should be one of the most obvious global cataclysms that ever occurred. All attempts to provide evidence have failed and the evidence used has been sufficiently demonstrated not be evidence of a global flood.

How do you reconcile this and maintain the view that the Bible is absolute and infallible?

 

[dianaiad]

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.



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

the fact is, those verses were included in the scriptures in error. Many, if not most, modern English versions of the bible do not include them. It MEANS that there was/is an error.

It doesn't matter whether you believe that they simply repeat a doctrine you already believe in. They were not part of the original text, but were included later...and the error was discovered MUCH later.

If that was an error, and it was, then the bible is not inerrant. Period.

It doesn't mean that one must throw the bible in the trash can. It is scripture. There is no middle ground here, because this is a 'true' dichotomy. Either the bible is without error or it isn't. It isn't inerrant if there is any error at all in it.

and the sad thing is, those who, like me, understand that the Bible was written by men, prophets who wrote down the revelations they recieved as well as the history and culture of their times, might have gotten something 'wrong,' are going to be able to hold to the Bible as scripture long after those who believe in inerrancy MUST, when an error is proven to them, throw the book out as useless.

I have seen that happen more than once.

 

[Deeje]

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.
You jest, surely? If my life lasts forever, I'm immortalis, 'undying'.
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.
The story however says nothing of the kind.
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.

Every response here demonstrates the fact that you have very little knowledge of the things you speak about.
The old saying is true..."a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

That "little knowledge" is twisted beyond belief. But if its what you want to believe then be my guest.
There is no point in addressing them because you will just twist them again anyway. If you don't want to acknowledge God's existence and remain ignorant of his purpose and how he carries it out, then "nuff said".

 

[tosca1]

the fact is, those verses were included in the scriptures in error. Many, if not most, modern English versions of the bible do not include them. It MEANS that there was/is an error.

Like what verses?

It doesn't matter whether you believe that they simply repeat a doctrine you already believe in. They were not part of the original text, but were included later...and the error was discovered MUCH later.

Be more specific. What discovered the "error"?

If that was an error, and it was, then the bible is not inerrant. Period.

It doesn't mean that one must throw the bible in the trash can. It is scripture. There is no middle ground here, because this is a 'true' dichotomy. Either the bible is without error or it isn't. It isn't inerrant if there is any error at all in it.

Innerancy of the message in the Bible! Not typo errors! Despite typo glitches - the fact is nothing had changed the consistency of the message given in the Bible.

and the sad thing is, those who, like me, understand that the Bible was written by men, prophets who wrote down the revelations they recieved as well as the history and culture of their times, might have gotten something 'wrong,' are going to be able to hold to the Bible as scripture long after those who believe in inerrancy MUST, when an error is proven to them, throw the book out as useless.

I have seen that happen more than once.

Do you believe the Bible came from God (through various authors)?

Being the Book that He's given to mankind (to know and understand Him) - you don't believe God protects the Bible?

Look how long it had endured - when all other ancient books of other religion(s) had gone.

You don't think God will continue to protect it?

 

[Kenny]

I am not sure if it is worth starting over, but I will give it a try?

Do you mean the events that are contradicted by evidence, logic and the application of science. Those are the events I have been referring too. The order of creation, the creation of man, the creation of other living things and a global flood. The evidence does not show that we are the result of two beings created 6,000 years ago. The evidence demonstrates that we evolved from pre-existing living things. This is true of all living things back to a point where there is no evidence of life. The Earth is estimated to be 4.3 billion years old, based on validated methods of dating. The order of creation does not make sense in light of what we know about cosmology and biology. There is no evidence of what should be one of the most obvious global cataclysms that ever occurred. All attempts to provide evidence have failed and the evidence used has been sufficiently demonstrated not be evidence of a global flood.

How do you reconcile this and maintain the view that the Bible is absolute and infallible?

OK... now we are getting somewhere.

Most of it is how one views what is written... as I have said before to other people... same evidence but different interpretations that happen all the time in science. The Bible isn't a compendium on all creation but it is about man and Jesus.

So there are three possible explanations (or maybe combinations thereof). Two follow science. The third believes that God is above science and can violate its natural laws. All three are possible as science continues to correct itself.

The first (I will list scriptures and then explain):

In Gen. 1:1 it says God created the Heavens and the Earth...
In Gen 1:2 It says that the earth was without form and void
Gen. 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,

Ezekiel13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created....
...18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

There are those who believe in a pre-Adamic race when God created the Earth (Gen. vs 1 and that verse 2 represents where Satan was hurled to earth where he then stole, killed and destroyed and the the following verses are the reconstruction of earth which is now millions of years old.

Reason: A pre-Eden where there were sanctuaries of worship on Earth before Satan was filled with pride. He was the worship leader. Thus, when God renewed the earth he commanded Adamic man to "replenish" (Gen 1:28) what was destroyed.

The second:

1 John 1:5
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Einstein's theory of relativity basically says at the speed of light time becomes more irrelevant.

If God created the world and all that is in it "In light" that the days listed in Genesis has nothing to do with 24 hours. In a relative sense, to God a day is a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day.

Thus, it gives place for evolution and yet still gives Him position to create man (with a conscience) as omnipotent and their still be other creatures like man before Adamic man was created.

The third:

Gen 1 - God created the earth (not mentioning how much time it took to created it) and yet God created the earth in man's 24 hour periods but accelerated because He can violate natural laws as He did when He opened blind eyes, deaf ears, caused limbs to grow, walked on water etc.

Again... The Bible isn't about HOW He created all things, just that He created it

 

[blü 2]

Every response here demonstrates the fact that you have very little knowledge of the things you speak about.
The old saying is true..."a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

I distinguish what the text says from what people from a later era say about the text, and I note that the text has to be judged on its own words, not by purported reinterpretations and etrofits centuries later.

That "little knowledge" is twisted beyond belief. But if its what you want to believe then be my guest.

In the Garden story, why did God expel Adam and Eve from the Garden? Quote me the words in the Garden story that you rely on.

There is no point in addressing them because you will just twist them again anyway.

Give me one example of my 'twisting words'. Don't just allege that I did that and then run away.

If you don't want to acknowledge God's existence and remain ignorant of his purpose and how he carries it out, then "nuff said".

When I set out to understand the Garden story, why should I prefer your words to the words of the text? Why should I prefer opinions from centuries later to the text?

 

[Kenny]

Does the Bible contain a prohibition on creating false idols? Can anything become a false idol?

I am trying to make these as simple as I can. Does that help?

Yes

Can a person have the outward appearance of strong faith, but fall into worship of a false idol without realizing it?

Yes

Does the demand that the Bible be viewed as absolute and infallible fall under the onus of a false idol?

Does that indicate a weak faith or a strong faith?

1) Two parts... a) no--but when you do believe in augments faith b) you can make the Bible an idol like when you say "DON'T DROP THE BIBLE ON THE FLOOR... IT'S HOLY and you don't want a curse on your life!". Although His words are Holy, the paper was made by man and the print was made by man--so you can make it an idol. But believing that it is absolute and infallible doesn't make it an idol

Can the Bible be its own authority? Can anything or anyone do the same? How is that not a circular argument?

To me this doesn't make sense. If it IS God's word... then it does have authority just as a the words in a contract have an authority

If I draw a conclusion about the views of someone I am talking to and then state that conclusion, is it a lie? Is it correct, just because I wrote it out? Is it false, because you do not agree? Are these the kinds of questions that you feel comfortable answering?

a) Your conclusion can be false but not a lie. 2) depends on what you wrote. 3) No

 

[Audie]

Which is completely circular reasoning. 'The Bible is God's Word because the Bible says the Bible is God's word.'

People claimed they were writing "god's word" .

 

[Wandering Monk]

People claimed they were writing "god's word" .

What a great place to be. Say that you are speaking for God. This puts your words above criticism. I mean, who wants to criticize God?

 

[usfan]

IF.. the Bible is, or is believed to be, the Revelation of God to man..
AND IF.. history, facts, logic and personal experience supports that perception..

THEN.. attention and devotion to the scriptures would be both wise and reasonable. Studying the texts for insight and wisdom into the human condition would be highly desirable and useful, for both individual and collective benefit.

Ignoring the Revelation of God to man would be the height of folly and stupidity, if this collection of books are, indeed, the Word of God.

The Central Question is, 'How does one determine IF... these books are Inspired Truth?

If they are not, but are a lie, then they are an evil in humanity. But if they are the Revealed Wisdom of God, some consideration of the message might be prudent.

"The existence of the BIBLE, as a book for the people, is the greatest benefit which the human race has ever experienced. Every attempt to belittle it is a crime against humanity" ~Immanuel Kant

 

[Wandering Monk]

IF.. the Bible is, or is believed to be, the Revelation of God to man..
AND IF.. history, facts, logic and personal experience supports that perception..

THEN.. attention and devotion to the scriptures would be both wise and reasonable. Studying the texts for insight and wisdom into the human condition would be highly desirable and useful, for both individual and collective benefit.

Ignoring the Revelation of God to man would be the height of folly and stupidity, if this collection of books are, indeed, the Word of God.

The Central Question is, 'How does one determine IF... these books are Inspired Truth?

If they are not, but are a lie, then they are an evil in humanity. But if they are the Revealed Wisdom of God, some consideration of the message might be prudent.

"The existence of the BIBLE, as a book for the people, is the greatest benefit which the human race has ever experienced. Every attempt to belittle it is a crime against humanity" ~Immanuel Kant

Black and white thinking. 'Truth or lie.' 'Lie' implies deliberate deceit. People can be wrong without lying.

 

[usfan]

People claimed they were writing "god's word" .

Which of the books in the biblical canon claimed to be 'written by God!?'

The canon of scripture was compiled after the writers were dead and gone, and most had no idea that their writings would be compiled into the canon of scripture.

A few of the OT prophets were dictated to by God, but most books were written by 'inspired' humans, declared later.

There is no internal claim of inerrancy or inspiration in the bulk of the biblical canon. The belief in inspiration and Authority of the scriptures is historical (and personal), not demanded by the texts themselves.

Jn5:39
You study the Scriptures, because you think that in them you will find eternal life. And these very Scriptures speak about me!

 

[usfan]

Black and white thinking. 'Truth or lie.' 'Lie' implies deliberate deceit. People can be wrong without lying.

..and this ad hom applied to my post, how?

There is a fine line between delusion and lies. Believing a lie is a delusion. Promoting a known lie is deception.

Either way, delusion or deception is a negative in the quest for Truth.

 

[Audie]

Which of the books in the biblical canon claimed to be 'written by God!?'

The canon of scripture was compiled after the writers were dead and gone, and most had no idea that their writings would be compiled into the canon of scripture.

A few of the OT prophets were dictated to by God, but most books were written by 'inspired' humans, declared later.

There is no internal claim of inerrancy or inspiration in the bulk of the biblical canon. The belief in inspiration and Authority of the scriptures is historical (and personal), not demanded by the texts themselves.

Jn5:39
You study the Scriptures, because you think that in them you will find eternal life. And these very Scriptures speak about me!

Who could doubt that people claim to have
sritten as "gid" dictated?

One can but wonder how they still get away with it.

 

[Audie]

..and this ad hom applied to my post, how?

There is a fine line between delusion and lies. Believing a lie is a delusion. Promoting a known lie is deception.

Either way, delusion or deception is a negative in the quest for Truth.

Do, please, try to understand what an "ad hom" is,
and spare us such bs?

Do you promote "Noah's ark" as fact, btw?

I saw you promoted a fact not in evidence re
"god" dictating. Belief and opinion is not fact.

 

[usfan]

Who could doubt that people claim to have
sritten as "gid" dictated?

One can but wonder how they still get away with it.

Which of the books in the biblical canon claimed to be 'written by God!?'

Circular reasoning is the accusation i am refuting.

 

[Audie]

Which of the books in the biblical canon claimed to be 'written by God!?'

Circular reasoning is the accusation i am refuting.

Four lines down in previous post you said "god" dictated
to "prophets".

 

[usfan]

Four lines down in previous post you said "god" dictated
to "prophets".

Yes. There is internal evidence for that claim. Are you unfamiliar with the 'dictation' to some of the OT prophets?

Ex34:27 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel."

But that applied to specific words, not the entire book of Exodus.

The accusation i am refuting is, "The Bible claims to be God's Word. That is circular reasoning!"

There are phrases or sections that 'claim' Divine Dictation, but not the bible as a whole, nor the books contained therein.

Whether one believes in Divine Inspiration is something else. It is not demanded by the biblical texts.