Is the Bible Literally True? No, of Course Not!
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Absolutely! Every single eye witness says so!
All these Christians try to sneak their belief into something that isn't even an issue of belief!
Everybody knows that Luke copied a lot from Matthew and just embellished. Every single eye witness says so.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
So those who mock Christians for their beliefs ... they know the truth!
So bashing Christians for their faith makes you tho vewy thupa-dupa thmawt, in the top vewy, vewy, vewy thmall pathentage, wight?
After all, you were there when the gospels were written and you know the names of the authors, right?
Into the Night
Verified User
Blatant lie, Sock. That won't work.
Into the Night
Verified User
False authority fallacy. You don't get to speak for everyone, Sock. You can't destroy the Bible by changing it, Sock.
Into the Night
Verified User
Nailed what? You cannot destroy the Bible by changing it, Sock.
Into the Night
Verified User
You are describing yourself, Sock. You cannot project YOUR problems on anybody else.
Into the Night
Verified User
I know....but sometimes I can't help myself. Okay, a lot of the time.
Talking to yourself accomplishes nothing, Sock.
The disciples were from small villages in Galilee. Fishermen and the such. They were illiterate, neither being able to read or write. The gospels were written, quite well, in Greek, decades after the crucifixion.
Sorry to burst your ignorant bubble, but somebody had to tell you there is no Santa Claus.
ZenMode
Well-known member
The bolded portion above makes it seem as though you are the one doing the mocking.
Anyone who reads the Bible can find the contradictions, inconsistencies and things that just don't make sense.
To determine that a given book couldn't have been written by a certain person, during a specific period of time in history, requires expertise that I don't have....but that doesn't mean I can't read/listen to books from people who do.
ZenMode
Well-known member
If you're a person that relies on the Bible being inerrant to believe in God, then you will probably not want to hear this kind of stuff, but you also have the option of accepting that the Bible CAN be imperfect because it was written by men who never met Jesus, decades after Jesus' death, and still continue believing in God.
The argument for not believing in God is the same as not believing in any of the 3,000 gods that man has come up with over time - there's just no evidence for any individual god's existence, Christian or otherwise.
Yeppers.
Now, I’m willing to accept that there may be some sort of creator of the universe. That is possible.
But what I DO KNOW is that the Christian god, the all-powerful, all-loving, interactive, personal god ain’t it. NOTHING in the history of this world points to that. Pure myth.
A god given human attributes by humans. Nothing new or unique about that.
I take a middle road on the authorship of the gospels.
Matthew and John are written way to late in the first century, and written in literate Greek to be reliably attributed to the Apostle John and the disciple Matthew. I think this authorship can be attributed to later church tradition. At best, we can probably say the authors of these two gospels were anonymous.
Mark and Luke were not disciples of Jesus. They were companions of Peter and Paul respectively. They were not from Galilee, and they seem to have been Hellenized, Greek-speaking Jews. Hellenized, Greek-speaking Jews were reasonably common in the Levant in the first century. Paul is known to be a Hellenized Greek-speaking Jew, and it's not unreasonable to believe his companion Luke was too. More importantly, there is no advantage to attributing these two gospels to low-ranking, relatively obscure Christians like Mark and Luke. It doesn't particularly add to the authority and credibility of their writing. That makes the authorship seem more authentic. Also, first century extra-canonical Christian writings seem to corroborate that Peter's companion Mark is the author of Gospel of Mark.
ZenMode
Well-known member
I'll keep playing because I do enjoy watching you tap dance.
I asked who comes up with theories. Here is your response:
Theories of science may come from anywhere. They may be inspired by noting a pattern of observations, by re-arranging or combining other theories of science, in one's dreams, or even by watching an episode of Sponge Bob.
Which word(s) answer the question of who? Is "anywhere" a who?
Ok, now you post RQAA, then I'll ask the question again and you'll continue tap dancing.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Absolutely. It's not impossible that there is a higher power somewhere out there.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
What about Nazareth? What about travelers from farther away? What else is included in the "such"?
As opposed to the illiterates who can read and write.
So your official position is that religioni/philosophy/morality/ethics don't resonate with literate people? Are you saying that literate entrepreneurs and learned scholars couldn't possibly have been enthralled with one of Jesus' sermons and opted to support/finance his work, thus making Jesus a threat to Pharisees and Saducees? Is your position that literate people just could not have become involved?
Does the Bible specify any of the Apostles as being illiterate?
Let's get back to the Apostles/disciples. You were about to explain how you know they were all illiterate.
Derp
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Theorists.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
While you made the appearance of copying/pasting various passages from The Bible, you proceeded to completely deny those words by subsequently asserting that they said something entirely different than what they actually said, thus changing the Bible.
I already went through the timeline of recorded events with you and showed you how they all fall on the very same day (the 14th of Nisan).
I already referred you to the book of Exodus, in which the relevant Passover law (with regard to the Mark and John passages you quoted) was recorded. Yet, you don't wish to actually learn about it or learn about how the gospel writers referred to the 14th of Nisan as those different names (Preparation Day... Preparation Day of the Passover... etc).
No. By "learn", I mean to spend some time with The Word for yourself so that you get to know him better. How did you get to know your best friend so well? Obviously, you've spent a lot of time interacting with that friend over the years. Same is true with getting to know The Word. You need to interact with him in order to gain knowledge about him.
None of this is about me or "my understanding" of The Word. This is solely about The Word HIMSELF and what HE says. Even the late Chuck Missler, during many of his teachings about The Bible, would usually at some point bring up Acts 17:11 and remind his audience to NOT just “take Chuck Missler’s word for it” but to search the scriptures daily for themselves in order to see whether or not such things were so. IOW, get to know The Word for oneself by spending some time with him and interacting with him.
What I'm doing here is essentially what Chuck Missler did during his bible study sessions while he was here on this Earth with us. I, like him, am providing you with some insights about The Word per my own personal interactions with him, but for you to truly get to know The Word for yourself, you likewise need to personally interact with him. I could describe my coworker to you all day long and you still wouldn't REALLY know him beyond how I have described him to be. In order for you to truly know him, you'd have to actually meet him and interact with him for yourself. It's no different with The Word.
Does it really matter, though? Isn't The Word still The Word regardless of which particular humans were "God-breathed" to record the words of The Word?
Last edited: