The Bible - Why Trust It

[nPeace]

Good evidence, is.

Wow. So now there is bad evidence.

The species homo sapiens factually and demonstrably never consisted of just 2 humans.
That's just a genetic fact. It doesn't matter what your ancient mythology says. If it's wrong, it's wrong. And it is. Demonstrably so.

I think it would be good if more people read the Bible before assuming to know anything about it. Noah and family included more than two people.

As for your rather stupid points:

That's about as civil as some can be.

1a. factually and demonstrably wrong. Not only are there older writings then abrahamic scriptures, there are older religions as well

Beats me what the argument is here.

1b. The bible is "too detailed"? Really? Ever read Lord of the Rings? Or the Star Wars books? Do you realise that these books have less plot holes then the bible?

From one who knows very little about what they are talking about, where the Bible is concerned, I can appreciate they would think that they can compare a book they understand, to one they don't... beside that, one they are extremely biased against.

2. it is not. already in the very beginning, you have two different and contradicting creation stories. The rest of the bible suffers from similar problems. Not even the 4 gospels agree with one another.

This evidently is proof of one who reads the Bible, and puts their own confusing ideas to it... ideas that are wrong, of course.

3. you mean: people believed in religious and then a roman emperor mandated it as the official religion for the entire empire and everyone had to believe it. That "centuries later" these stories are still told isn't any more impressive then muslims today recounting stories from mohammed. It is what is expected from a religion that stays alive. Worse still: we still tell the stories of greek and viking mythology and those religions are even already dead.

 

[nPeace]

Well, that's for sure, based on these two sentences in the same reply:




Either it's literal, or it's symbolic. It can't, by definition, be both.

A reasonable person knows that Jesus used illustrations and symbolism, even though he also used literal sayings, and anyone who reads the Bible with understanding and reason, can see this used throughout all the books in the Bible - every single book.
I like to be reasonable.

 

[sojourner]

A reasonable person knows that Jesus used illustrations and symbolism, even though he also used literal sayings, and anyone who reads the Bible with understanding and reason, can see this used throughout all the books in the Bible - every single book.
I like to be reasonable.

The trick is knowing what’s literal and what’s metaphoric, and the methods used to make that differentiation. Something I don’t think you have a grasp of, since you believe that every single book contains both. Yet, by definition this cannot be the case, because the Psalms are poetry (music), and so is The Song of Solomon. These works are imagery only. Nothing literal about them.

It has to do with identifying the genre of literature. You have failed to do that. Genesis isn’t a history; it’s myth.

 

[sojourner]

This evidently is proof of one who reads the Bible, and puts their own confusing ideas to it... ideas that are wrong, of course.

Nope. Not wrong. The gospels don’t agree on several important points. And there are two different Gospel accounts by two different authors. And the second one is older than the first one.

 

[nPeace]

The trick is knowing what’s literal and what’s metaphoric, and the methods used to make that differentiation. Something I don’t think you have a grasp of, since you believe that every single book contains both. Yet, by definition this cannot be the case, because the Psalms are poetry (music), and so is The Song of Solomon. These works are imagery only. Nothing literal about them.

It has to do with identifying the genre of literature. You have failed to do that. Genesis isn’t a history; it’s myth.

Just the first two Psalms alone is filled with literal and symbolic language. If you don't see that, then we probably are not reading the same scriptures.
Or perhaps you can explain how it is one or the other.
So the song of Solomon is not sung by a real person to another real person?

Nope. Not wrong. The gospels don’t agree on several important points. And there are two different Gospel accounts by two different authors. And the second one is older than the first one.

I would assume you know what to agree with means. It doesn't mean, "say the exact same thing". Does it? Of course not.

 

[sojourner]

Just the first two Psalms alone is filled with literal and symbolic language. If you don't see that, then we probably are not reading the same scriptures.

So the song of Solomon is not sung by a real person to another real person?

It's all poetry! Don't you understand what poetry is? These are songs -- not bland statements of fact. They're not meant to be taken literally, just as we don't take poetry literally.

I would assume you know what to agree with means. It doesn't mean, "say the exact same thing". Does it? Of course not.

But they disagree as to where Jesus was when, as well as what happened during the crucifixion. They also differ in matters of the birth narrative.

You're making excuses. I can't imagine why, unless it's just to convince yourself that your misunderstandings aren't really misunderstandings.

 

[nPeace]

It's all poetry! Don't you understand what poetry is? These are songs -- not bland statements of fact. They're not meant to be taken literally, just as we don't take poetry literally.


But they disagree as to where Jesus was when, as well as what happened during the crucifixion. They also differ in matters of the birth narrative.

You're making excuses. I can't imagine why, unless it's just to convince yourself that your misunderstandings aren't really misunderstandings.

So Psalms does not literally tell us to read and meditate on God's word, to be successful?

I think you are the one making very unreasonable excuses.

 

[sojourner]

So Psalms does not literally tell us to read and meditate on God's word, to be successful?

I think you are the one making very unreasonable excuses.

Citation, plz.

 

[nPeace]

Citation, plz.

Citation for what please?

 

[sojourner]

Citation for what please?

Your Psalm reference.

 

[nPeace]

Your Psalm reference.

If you don't have a Bible, please feel free to use one online.
Amazing! You don't know Psalms 1 and 2, yet you are arguing about what they ate about. Wow.

 

[sojourner]

If you don't have a Bible, please feel free to use one online.
Amazing! You don't know Psalms 1 and 2, yet you are arguing about what they ate about. Wow.

Pompous much? There are 150 Psalms, many of which include paeans.

 

[Desert Snake]

Do you mean, trust the theism, the general idea, or actually incorrect, literally nutty verses?

The bible was translated from possibly other languages, into greek.

A 'wrong', verse, ie a verse that infers jesus isn't making any sense, at all, , might be a bad translation.

In those instances, one has to wonder if the greek writers were paying attention, didn't care, or what. Just in the editing process, one might want to 'compare the words', one is writing, in a context.

 

[sojourner]

So Psalms does not literally tell us to read and meditate on God's word, to be successful?

I think you are the one making very unreasonable excuses.

No, no directives there. It’s descriptive of the life of faith, but it’s not intended to be a set of instructions; it’s intended to be a song.

 

[nPeace]

Pompous much? There are 150 Psalms, many of which include paeans.

So you don't know which is the first and second out of 150?

No hurt feelings, because I am so enjoying this.

 

[nPeace]

No, no directives there. It’s descriptive of the life of faith, but it’s not intended to be a set of instructions; it’s intended to be a song.

Sorry. You take it however you want. I'll read it as I understand it.
The songs are there for a reason.
They contain guidance and principles on what God requires, for right living, in harmony with his will. 1 Peter 2:21, 22; 2 Timothy 3:16, 17

 

[sojourner]

So you don't know which is the first and second out of 150?

No hurt feelings, because I am so enjoying this.

Not unless you state specifics. No one could know which specific ones you meant.

Too bad you didn’t know that there are a lot of Psalms that include passages of the general type you mentioned. Too bad you only know about the first two out of 150.

 

[sojourner]

I'll read it as I understand it.

The problem is, you don’t understand it. Mores the pity.

They contain guidance and principles on what God requires, for right living

Yes. They do. But that’s not why they’re included.

 

[nPeace]

Not unless you state specifics. No one could know which specific ones you meant.

Too bad you didn’t know that there are a lot of Psalms that include passages of the general type you mentioned. Too bad you only know about the first two out of 150.

Just the first two Psalms alone is filled with literal and symbolic language...

 

[sojourner]

Just the first two Psalms alone is filled with literal and symbolic language...

It’s poetry. It’s all symbolic. That’s what poetry is.