• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do you believe all that is written in scripture

S-word

Well-Known Member
Just because something is recorded in the Bible, should we believe it to be the infallible gospel truth?

Acts 7, Stephen, a Greek speaking Jew who had been dragged before the Jewish authorities by Saul, in defence of his faith before being stoned to death, stated in acts 7: 4, that it was after Terah had died that his son Abraham obeyed God’s command and went to live in the land of Canaan. But the record in Genesis makes it plain that after Terah had turned 70 not 75 or 80, he became the father of Abraham, Nahor and Haran, and that Abraham was 75 when he travelled to Canaan and that his father died 60 years later at the age of 205.

Stephen also states in Acts 7: 15-17, that Abraham bought the grave plot for Sarah in the land of Shechem from Hamor, whereas Genesis shows that Abraham bought the grave site from Ephron the Hittite at Machpeleh east of Mamre, which is way to the south of Shechem. It is also said by Stephen in the same verses, that Jacob and his sons were buried at Shechem, when in fact, it was only the remains of Joseph which was buried there, see Joshua 24: 32.

Jacob and his other sons were buried at Mamre and concerning the buriel of Jacob, it is written in Genesis 50: 13, “They carried the body of Jacob to Canaan and buried it in the cave at Machpelah east of Mamre in the field which Abraham had bought from Ephron the Hittite.” How many people have we heard or who have written the erroneous statement of Stephen, that it was after his father had died that Abraham Journeyed into the land of Canaan? Just because something is stated in scripture, some people take it to be the gospel truth without checking it out .

Stephen was neither a teacher nor a preacher, but was a newly converted Greek speaking Jew, and because the widows of this group were being neglected in the daily distribution of funds, he with six others were chosen to handle the finances, and although he was filled with the Holy Spirit, he did not speak the truth because he did not know the truth, for knowing the truth has nothing to do with the blessings of the Holy Spirit.

The world is filled with wonderful people who are a blessing to the communities in which they live, and who are ignorant to the truth of God’s word, (Blessed are they who do not see, and yet believe) these people are not filled with knowledge, but they are filled with the love and the power of the holy Spirit.
 
Last edited:

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Stephen also states in Acts 7: 15-17, that Abraham bought the grave plot for Sarah in the land of Shechem from Hamor, whereas Genesis shows that Abraham bought the grave site from Ephron the Hittite at Machpeleh east of Mamre, which is way to the south of Shechem. It is also said by Stephen in the same verses, that Jacob and his sons were buried at Shechem, when in fact, it was only the remains of Joseph which was buried there, see Joshua 24: 32.
Anyone else see how inane this is? :)
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Details aside, S-Word brings up a legitimate topic. There are many scriptures. Why believe the Christian or Jewish scriptures rather than the Muslim? And then there is the popular Christian tradition of adding and deleting scriptures to the official canon. Ie: Why does the Catholic Bible have more books than the King James? Should we believe or disbelieve the deleted books?
 

anders

Well-Known Member
For any Scripture claims from any religion, if they for example say that a well is 10 units in diameter and 30 units in circumference, I make at least a mental calculation to see how much it deviates from reality.

If a king is mentioned, my first hypothesis is that it's a legendary name until I find proof. In most cases, I don't.

Scripture from any religion isn't history theses or science instructions. Mentionings of provable real events, persons or places are normally no more convincing that they have any links to the real world than similar quotes in a Harry Potter book.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Some Christians think that only they have gotten some kind of Scripture. That's why I wrote
{quote=me}For any Scripture

(now emphasized).
I meant the OP. They didn't specify, but I thought the OP implied that you kinda have to give some weight to the Bible in the first place. So, I asked for clarification before voicing my opinion. :)
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Just because something is recorded in the Bible, should we believe it to be the infallible gospel truth?

Acts 7, Stephen, a Greek speaking Jew who had been dragged before the Jewish authorities by Saul, in defence of his faith before being stoned to death, stated in acts 7: 4, that it was after Terah had died that his son Abraham obeyed God’s command and went to live in the land of Canaan. But the record in Genesis makes it plain that after Terah had turned 70 not 75 or 80, he became the father of Abraham, Nahor and Haran, and that Abraham was 75 when he travelled to Canaan and that his father died 60 years later at the age of 205.

Stephen also states in Acts 7: 15-17, that Abraham bought the grave plot for Sarah in the land of Shechem from Hamor, whereas Genesis shows that Abraham bought the grave site from Ephron the Hittite at Machpeleh east of Mamre, which is way to the south of Shechem. It is also said by Stephen in the same verses, that Jacob and his sons were buried at Shechem, when in fact, it was only the remains of Joseph which was buried there, see Joshua 24: 32.

Jacob and his other sons were buried at Mamre and concerning the buriel of Jacob, it is written in Genesis 50: 13, “They carried the body of Jacob to Canaan and buried it in the cave at Machpelah east of Mamre in the field which Abraham had bought from Ephron the Hittite.” How many people have we heard or who have written the erroneous statement of Stephen, that it was after his father had died that Abraham Journeyed into the land of Canaan? Just because something is stated in scripture, some people take it to be the gospel truth without checking it out .

Stephen was neither a teacher nor a preacher, but was a newly converted Greek speaking Jew, and because the widows of this group were being neglected in the daily distribution of funds, he with six others were chosen to handle the finances, and although he was filled with the Holy Spirit, he did not speak the truth because he did not know the truth, for knowing the truth has nothing to do with the blessings of the Holy Spirit.

The world is filled with wonderful people who are a blessing to the communities in which they live, and who are ignorant to the truth of God’s word, (Blessed are they who do not see, and yet believe) these people are not filled with knowledge, but they are filled with the love and the power of the holy Spirit.

The word "gospel" is derived from a Greek phrase that translates to "good news". It doesn't necessarily mean something holy.

Second of all, those contradictions were the fault of Luke, the author of Acts and the gospel bearing his name. Both books are meant to be read in sequential order. Any errors are his own.

Now to the question. All the books in the Bible, including the ones meant to be read in a sequential order, weren't ever written to be read together with each other. They are individual books and/or documents. There are hundreds that didn't make it into the canon that I believe are just as legitimate as scripture.

So no, we shouldn't believe something to be god-sent just because it's in a book that many claim to be holy.
 

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
I know this is totally off topic but aren't there religious texts for other faiths? I know there is the Qur'an for the Muslims and there is a book that Hindus use (I know the name but I am not about to take a chance and misspell it). So why only pick on or praise the Bible?
Okay, go back to your topic.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I know this is totally off topic but aren't there religious texts for other faiths? I know there is the Qur'an for the Muslims and there is a book that Hindus use (I know the name but I am not about to take a chance and misspell it). So why only pick on or praise the Bible?
Most of the time, my guess would be familiarity.
 

S-word

Well-Known Member
The word "gospel" is derived from a Greek phrase that translates to "good news". It doesn't necessarily mean something holy.

Second of all, those contradictions were the fault of Luke, the author of Acts and the gospel bearing his name. Both books are meant to be read in sequential order. Any errors are his own.

Now to the question. All the books in the Bible, including the ones meant to be read in a sequential order, weren't ever written to be read together with each other. They are individual books and/or documents. There are hundreds that didn't make it into the canon that I believe are just as legitimate as scripture.

So no, we shouldn't believe something to be god-sent just because it's in a book that many claim to be holy.

It is good that you believe that the scriptures that have been rejected by the builders of the house of dominion (The universal church) may yet turn out to be the most impotant of all; for without those books, one can not understand who Hushim the supposedly son of Dan is. for Dan died childless, and it was for this reason that his Father Jacob devided Joseph into two tribes and is the reason why, among the 144,000 chosen rulers who are of the first resurrection, 12,000 chosen from the tribes of 12 of the 13 descendants of Jacob, the tribe of Dan is not mentioned.
 

Wandered Off

Sporadic Driveby Member
People make "scripture" and give it whatever power they wish. A writing becomes a scripture because of the way it is revered rather than its content or its source.

I "believe" aspects of the scriptures I've read. To me, it would be naive to view them as literal truth, because there are too many contradictions that make this impossible. The only way I can make sense of those parts that I can is non-literally.

Besides, the notion of second-hand revelation seems absurd. Scripture is what you make of it.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
S-Word, I ask again, did you mean to limit this thread to Christians? I'm trying to be respectful here.
 

S-word

Well-Known Member
S-Word, I ask again, did you mean to limit this thread to Christians? I'm trying to be respectful here.

No, not particually. And why try, if being respectful dosent come naturally to you, then don't be, after all, one has to be true to who they are.
 
Last edited:

S-word

Well-Known Member
I'm still trying to decipher what the question really is,no pun intended.

The question is intended to draw, people of all persuasions into a debate about the scriptures that have been rejected by the builders of the RCC, which scriptures will be seen to be the most important of all.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
OK, then.
Just because something is recorded in the Bible, should we believe it to be the infallible gospel truth?
Absolutely not. The Bible is the word of man regarding God. No more, no less. It's not infallible. It's often not even literal.

That doesn't mean we should disregard it, but we certainly shouldn't idolize it.
 

S-word

Well-Known Member
OK, then.

Absolutely not. The Bible is the word of man regarding God. No more, no less. It's not infallible. It's often not even literal.

That doesn't mean we should disregard it, but we certainly shouldn't idolize it.


Who's idolizing the word of God?

But it is obvious that you do not believe that there are people who are able to connect with, and speak for their indwelling and evolving ancestoral spirit who is the Son of Man and heir to the throne of Godhead who is developing within the Body of Mankind the Most High in the creation, the godhead and Lord of all creatures.

But I would rather that man idolize the words of God as spoken through the mouths of his servants who are one with and true, to 'Who They Are,' who is the end result, 'up until their point in time,' of that which was in the beginning, who has never died, nor can ever die, than idolizes the image of a human being.
 
Top