1. 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!

Featured Why is the Bible even considered in the first place as being foundational for Christianity?

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by Twilight Hue, Jul 1, 2017.

  1. MJFlores

    MJFlores Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2017
    Messages:
    2,656
    Ratings:
    +415
    Religion:
    Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church of Christ)
    Well, to some people it is nothing but an ordinary book or it is even foolishness to them. It is understandable because it is written:

    1 Corinthians 2:14
    The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

    And is God happy with that? I think so.

    1 Corinthians 1:21
    For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

    Save from what? For something that will definitely come in the future.

    View attachment 18224

    2 Peter 2:5-7

    if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless
     
  2. james bond

    james bond Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,357
    Ratings:
    +479
    Religion:
    Christian
    >>It's clear he did not even know what the Bible was.<<

    Sigh. Wrong again. Atheists are usually wrong.

    "The King James Version of the Bible is also called the Authorized Version, because the translation was authorized by King James I of England. The preface of the KJV dedicates the work “To the most High and Mighty Prince James, by the grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c.” Prior to ruling England, James was King James VI of Scotland. It was not until 1603, upon the death of Queen Elizabeth I, that the kingdoms of Scotland and England were united and James became King James I of England, the first of the Stuart line.

    Mary Queen of Scots gave birth to her son James in 1566 in Scotland. In June 1567 the Protestant lords rebelled against their queen. They arrested and imprisoned Mary in Loch Leven Castle, where she was forced to abdicate the throne of Scotland. James was thus only a year old when he became James VI, King of Scotland, in 1567. In spite of his mother’s Catholic faith, James was brought up in the Protestant religion. He was educated by men who had empathy for the Presbyterian Church."

    ...

    "The Scottish Reformation was completed before the English Reformation. The Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians wanted a new Bible that would get as far away as possible from the structure of the Bishops’ Bible of the Anglican Church, and the idea of a new translation of the Bible was first proposed at a religious conference in Aberdour, Fife. King James was in favor of a new translation. He didn’t care for Tyndale’s translation of Matthew 16:18, which said Christ would build His “congregation” on Peter (James much preferred “church” from ekklesia). The only other alternative at the time was the 1560s Geneva Bible, but King James objected to a “treasonable annotation” on Matthew 2:20 that suggested that kings are tyrants.

    In 1604 King James convened the Hampton Court Conference and authorized the start of a new translation of the Bible into English. The objective was to have one standard version of the Bible to be used across all English-speaking parishes. The task of translation was undertaken by 47 scholars, taken from a cross-section of Jacobean England. Many of them were highly skilled in ancient languages. The King James Authorized Version of the Bible was finished in 1611, just 85 years after the first translation of the New Testament into English appeared (Tyndale, 1526)."

    Who was the King James that the King James Version of the Bible is named after?

    What's important is the DSS back up the King James version.

    "Textual criticism

    The importance of the scrolls soon became apparent, as they were recognized to be the oldest extant manuscripts of Jewish texts; the Great Isaiah scroll, which contains the entire book of Isaiah, is at least 1,000 years older than any previously known transcript.

    This age was especially significant when it was revealed that they were almost identical to the later manuscripts. Once confirmed, through Carbon-14 dating in addition to paleographic and scribal dating, this fact silenced a lot of criticism aimed at discrediting the Biblical texts as adapted or adjusted to fit into Christianity's theology. Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, all known copies of Biblical texts were written long after the time of Christ. Apart from a few scribal errors, however, the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls are identical to later corresponding manuscripts.

    In addition to copies of the Jewish scriptures, the numerous scrolls found in the area of the original seven also include commentaries on the text, as well as regulations and rules for things such as daily living and war. Though most of the scrolls are written in Hebrew, a few are in Aramaic or Greek. From studying the text and excavating the nearby ruins of Qumran, scholars have determined that the scrolls most likely belonged to a group of Essenes, a strict Jewish sect who enforced a strict lifestyle and were believed to be Messianic in thinking. This group was described by the Jewish historian Josephus in the first century AD.

    For decades, the content of the scrolls was disclosed little by little to the general public, as a team of scholars tackled the tedious work of reconstructing, studying, and translating the scrolls. A new team was eventually formed, as most of the original team members were retiring. Some criticism was expressed at the slow rate at which the scrolls were published, and many tried to gain access to them; it wasn't until 1991, and after the disclosure of unauthorized copies of a number of the scrolls, that a resolution was passed permitting all "qualified scholars" access to transcripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, or any ancient manuscript."

    Dead Sea scrolls - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
     
  3. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,532
    Ratings:
    +2,815
    T
    Its treated as foundational because its a literary cult. Sort of like all forms of literacy as taught at the universities which btw started with the church. So your examination has some validity nut only slightly since it relies on perceptions of literacy itself. Sort of lime pointing out some flaws in someone else without awareness you might have them too!!! So ues indeed the religious are idiots at times nut he thats just being "normal!!" Thats in the bible too!!!.
     
  4. JustWondering

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,887
    Ratings:
    +793
    Religion:
    No thanks.
    The bible actually endorses abortion when adultery is suspected, you lose.
     
  5. omega2xx

    omega2xx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,767
    Ratings:
    +298
    Religion:
    Christian--Presbyterian
     
  6. omega2xx

    omega2xx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,767
    Ratings:
    +298
    Religion:
    Christian--Presbyterian
    I did answer it. If you don't understand it, don't blame me.

    Thanks for exposing your ignorance of Bible translations.

    Sorry you don't understand the difference.
     
  7. Twilight Hue

    Twilight Hue The gentle embrace of twilight has become my guide

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    31,063
    Ratings:
    +12,391
    Religion:
    Philosophical Buddhism
    You are aware of the controversy concerning the Textus Receptus upon which the King James Bible is based?

    Your CreationWiki article source conspicuously avoids any mention of the Textus Receptus altogether in fact.
     
    #47 Twilight Hue, Jul 2, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2017
  8. omega2xx

    omega2xx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,767
    Ratings:
    +298
    Religion:
    Christian--Presbyterian
    You need to reread it more slowly. Children are not property that can be bought or sold. No harm could result in a fine; destruction of any kind could result in the same destruction that occurred in the fetus. If the fetus dies sit is death for death.

    That they arranged the event to abort the pregnancy comes fro la la land.
     
  9. omega2xx

    omega2xx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,767
    Ratings:
    +298
    Religion:
    Christian--Presbyterian
    Not until you post the Bible references that support what you say. You will not be able to, so you lose.:D
     
  10. JustWondering

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,887
    Ratings:
    +793
    Religion:
    No thanks.
    The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
    And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

    Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. -- Genesis 38:24

    There are also bible verses that basically say that you don't count as a person until you are at least one month old, which would mean that the bible authors did not see fetuses as people. Again, you lose. Have a nice day.
     
  11. Twilight Hue

    Twilight Hue The gentle embrace of twilight has become my guide

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    31,063
    Ratings:
    +12,391
    Religion:
    Philosophical Buddhism
    Considering the notably strong dependency and reliance on an unsupported written text,. It's not far fetched at all to see Christianity as being nothing other than a literary cult.

    It's simply amazing how people just accept a completely unsupported text at face value, without ever considering its source and origin proper before committing themselves, effectively making the Bible a superficial work without a basis of origin to go by of which it's content can be traced back to its source.
     
  12. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,852
    Ratings:
    +6,405
    Religion:
    None
    You need to read the Bible more carefully. From the same chapter of the same book, Exodus 21: "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are." And that's his own daughter. It's worse for children captured as spoils of war.

    Furthermore, we're not talking about children. We're talking about fetuses.

    That is incorrect. You've misunderstood the scripture. Here are 13 Bibles that should help clarify the matter:

    Exodus 21:22 (RHE) If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman’s husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award.

    Exodus 21:22 (BBE) If men, while fighting, do damage to a woman with child, causing the loss of the child, but no other evil comes to her, the man will have to make payment up to the amount fixed by her husband, in agreement with the decision of the judges.

    Exodus 21:22 (CEBA) When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that she has a miscarriage but no other injury occurs, then the guilty party will be fined what the woman's husband demands, as negotiated with the judges.

    Exodus 21:22 (CJB) "If people are fighting with each other and happen to hurt a pregnant woman so badly that her unborn child dies, then, even if no other harm follows, he must be fined. He must pay the amount set by the woman's husband and confirmed by judges.

    Exodus 21:22 (GNT) "If some men are fighting and hurt a pregnant woman so that she loses her child, but she is not injured in any other way, the one who hurt her is to be fined whatever amount the woman's husband demands, subject to the approval of the judges.

    Exodus 21:22 (NRS) When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman's husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine.

    Exodus 21:22 (GNTA)
    "If some men are fighting and hurt a pregnant woman so that she loses her child, but she is not injured in any other way, the one who hurt her is to be fined whatever amount the woman's husband demands, subject to the approval of the judges.

    Exodus 21:22 (JUB) If men strive and hurt a woman with child so that she aborts but without death, he shall be surely punished according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him, and he shall pay by the judges.

    Exodus 21:22 (MSG) "When there's a fight and in the fight a pregnant woman is hit so that she miscarries but is not otherwise hurt, the one responsible has to pay whatever the husband demands in compensation.

    Exodus 21:22 (NRSA) When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman's husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine.

    Exodus 21:22 (CEB) When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that she has a miscarriage but no other injury occurs, then the guilty party will be fined what the woman's husband demands, as negotiated with the judges.

    Exodus 21:22 (RSVA) "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

    Exodus 21:22 (WYC) If men chide, and a man smiteth a woman with child, and soothly he maketh the child dead-born, but the woman liveth over that smiting, he shall be subject to the harm (he shall be subject to a fine), as much as the woman's husband asketh (for), and as the judges deem (appropriate).​

    Sorry, but all of the fuss coming from the church about abortion (and same sex marriage) has no scriptural basis, making your earlier comment, "Conservative Christianity does not accept or use oral traditions for it theology" incorrect.

    Christian theology is always evolving, but the scriptures are fixed. That's oral tradition being generated.
     
  13. omega2xx

    omega2xx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,767
    Ratings:
    +298
    Religion:
    Christian--Presbyterian


    Are you serious? That is not about abortion, let alone approving of it.

     
  14. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,852
    Ratings:
    +6,405
    Religion:
    None
    Actually, in the Bible, a fetus isn't even considered alive. Life begins with the first breath:
    • "The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life." - Job 33:4
    • "Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord." - Ezekiel 37
    • "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." - Genesis 2:7
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. omega2xx

    omega2xx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,767
    Ratings:
    +298
    Religion:
    Christian--Presbyterian
    That selling was not permanent. The daughter would only be sold if the father had become poor and could not support his family. She could be redeemed and in the year of Jubiliee, she would be set free, if she wanted to be.

    A fetus is a child.

    That is hilarious. You post all of those verse but never included v23, which says if the child is dead, the death penalty could be imposed.:p

    Ex 22:23 is not an oral tradition. It is you conveniently avoiding the verse that show you are wrong.
     
  16. columbus

    columbus yawn <ignore> yawn

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    25,164
    Ratings:
    +16,316
    Religion:
    None
    I had considered the abortion issue a derail. I didn't plan on going into the issue. But the more I think about it the more I think it goes to the heart of the OP. So I will go into it a bit more. Although I still think the issue should be it's own thread. But I don't care enough to start one, as the pro-abortion people get tiresome with their bad science and the anti-abortion get tiresome with their fake scriptures.

    I don't think murder is a useful term in the discussion, because it's too subjective. As was pointed out:
    murder is in the eye of the beholder.

    Abortion is, of course, homicide. A human being choosing death for another human being. But some are totally prolife. My mother would have died years before I was born if surgical abortion weren't available in the early 50s. I also know a woman who got a late term abortion to get even with the baby's father over something else. I, personally, consider that a murder. Except that it was legal, even though she had to fly to another state because it wasn't legal in the state they lived in.

    Two ends of a huge spectrum, with a gigantic gray area in between. I don't claim to know which feticides qualify as murder and which are justifiable homicide. Nor do I think that you can.
    And the Bible is no help.
    People interpret the Bible to mean what they want It to mean. Even when a simple and clear reading of a competent translation doesn't say what they want it to mean. Which is what you are doing here, and anti-abortion people often do. You are superimposing your opinion on the Bible, when the authors didn't say what you want to believe.
    Religious people do that quite commonly. They strongly believe something, and reinterpret Scriptures to support the belief even when it isn't actually there.
    Like abortion.

    People reinterpreting Scriptures to support what they want to believe, rather than what It obviously says, is why I don't see that the Bible is really the foundation of Christian theology. Christianity is a variation of Judaism, designed by Saul of Tarsus mainly, to appeal to a Greco-Roman pagan audience. Jewish Scriptures flatly deny the possibility of a "Son of God", or a New Covenant, or a Triune pantheon of persons of God, or Original Sin, Heaven and Hell, or a host of the other fundamental teachings of Christianity. Those teachings just aren't there. Believe whatever you want, but the Original Testament doesn't support Christian theology at all.

    The Bible is not the foundation of Christianity. It doesn't support much of any of the basic Christian teachings.
    Tom

    PS ~If you want to talk more about an atheist prolifers position I will be happy to do so. But it probably needs a new thread~
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Twilight Hue

    Twilight Hue The gentle embrace of twilight has become my guide

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    31,063
    Ratings:
    +12,391
    Religion:
    Philosophical Buddhism
    I don't want my thread spin off into an off topic tangent on abortion either.

    It does demonstrate in real time here on this thread the superficial nature by which the Bible is based on multiple sources and interpretation, of which in itself is as confusing in its source and origin, as the various debates that arise from its own texts. Confirming it's superficiality.
     
  18. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,852
    Ratings:
    +6,405
    Religion:
    None
    Irrelevant. Selling a child is selling a child, clearly a biblical principle if the terms of how to do it are spelled out.

    I notice that you chose to evade the comment about capturing the children of defeated enemies. Good choice again - unless somebody notices and comment on it.

    If you're going to be a bad faith disputant, expect to have it made explicit.

    Read it again. That scripture is about the pregnant woman.

    You evaded yet another rebuttal, the one cataloguing 13 translations that contradict you. No comment at all from you on that.

    That was probably the best tactic. There was always the hope that nobody would notice or comment, and the issue would just go away forgotten.

    I don't think that there is much mystery why you chose to do so, but feel free to clarify if you can.

    The oral tradition is that abortion is proscribed in Christianity. It has no biblical support.
     
  19. DavidFirth

    DavidFirth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2017
    Messages:
    6,811
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Christian
    Assumption fallacies are killing you. Do you believe everything that tingles your ears?
     
  20. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    5,656
    Ratings:
    +3,716
    Religion:
    ?
    I have heard this so often, as if it is supposed to mean anything. OF COURSE it was an easy bet to make that people would scoff at The Bible and Chrisitanity. They are such easy targets... it would be scarier if there weren't people who scoffed at it, to be honest. As soon as it is the case that there is no one who does any scoffing any longer, it is my belief that humanity will have lost all credibility, and probably all of our utility to ourselves and the universe at large with it.

    I honestly picture the writers of The Bible sitting around at one point saying: "You know... a lot of people just aren't going to buy all of this BS, anything you guys can think of to help with that?" And one of them pipes up with an absolutely brilliant idea: "I know, you put in a line saying God/we/whoever already knew they were going to reject it, and therefore their objections will PROVE the validity of the text!" Then there are high fives all around as they all grin like trolls.
     
    #60 A Vestigial Mote, Jul 2, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2017
    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
Loading...