Is the Bible Literally True? No, of Course Not!

[Cypress]

Does the Bible specify any of the Apostles as being illiterate?

Yes, Acts states that Peter was uneducated. It's a reasonably good assumption that Peter was fairly typical of other fishermen and peasants in Galilee.

 

[ZenMode]

Theorists.

And, as it relates to science topics, who are generally the theorists? For example, in the late 1700's, were farmers likely theorizing about the subatomic particles that make up all matter?

 

[gfm7175]

Yes,

Incorrect, per usual for you.

Acts states that Peter was uneducated. It's a reasonably good assumption that Peter was fairly typical of other fishermen and peasants in Galilee.

No, that's not what the book of Acts states. I assume that you're referring to Acts 4:13 (correct me if my assumption is wrong). In that passage, it is noted that Peter and John were both perceived to be unlearned/ignorant men (not in terms of general knowledge, but specifically regarding rabbinical teachings). IOW, this passage is stating that both Peter and John were perceived as "commoners", having no formal education in Old Testament theology.

Think of it as being taught by your farmer father about how to be a farmer instead of receiving a formal education from a school about how to be a farmer. IOW, learning how to be a farmer from hands-on experience rather than from a formal education.

Also think of it as a Christian pastor vs myself. A pastor has received formal education from a school of Christian ministry (e.g. Martin Luther College), meanwhile I am just a "commoner". I haven't received any such formal ministerial education. However, that doesn't mean that I am "uneducated" in general, and that also doesn't mean that I haven't received any relevant education from elsewhere (such as from prayerful study of The Bible).

It's the same old "derrrrrr you're sooooooo stupid because you didn't go to college".

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Making shit up isn't going to work, Sock.
St Nicholas was a real person, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Making shit up isn't going to work, Sock. There are no contradictions or inconsistencies. Your attempt to change the Bible isn't going to work.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

You cannot make evidence just disappear, Sock.
Making shit up about the Bible isn't going to work.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

You can't make the Bible just disappear, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Making shit up about the Bible isn't going to work, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

I'll keep playing because I do enjoy watching you tap dance.

LIF. Grow up. You can't laugh your way out of your illiteracy.

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.

RQAA. LIF.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, Acts states that Peter was uneducated. It's a reasonably good assumption that Peter was fairly typical of other fishermen and peasants in Galilee.

Attempted proof by assumption. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

 

[Into the Night]

And, as it relates to science topics, who are generally the theorists? For example, in the late 1700's, were farmers likely theorizing about the subatomic particles that make up all matter?

RQAA.

 

[ZenMode]

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 did not change or deny any words. You are trying to interpret the words differently than what they appear to say. Mark clearly states they prepared and ate the Passover meal. John clearly says Jesus was crucified on the Day of Preparation.

Mark 14:12 says that Jesus disciples asked him where they are supposed to prepare the Passover meal. That's the meal that Jesus ate with them, later that evening (beginning of Passover), when he did the famous "This is my body" speech. After the Passover meal, Jesus goes to the Garden of.... (I'm not even going to try and spell it), Judas betrays him, he spends that night in jail and then is crucified the next morning.

John has a similar story, but one important difference. Jesus is crucified on the Day of Preparation for Passover.

13 When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge’s seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha). 14 It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon.

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).

I understand what you "went over" and I understand the words that I took directly from the Bible. Unchanged.

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?

 

[ZenMode]

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.

Literacy rates in the Roman Empire, at that time, are believed to be about 10% and those who were literate were the wealthy and the people who taught the wealthy. Fisherman and other day-laborers were not literate. They started working as soon as they were old enough to do so. They were not being schooled on how to read and write.

Also, people who understand Greek vs Aramaic writing are able to look at the writings and see that they were originally written in Greek. So, even if Jesus' followers were literate, there is about 0.0001% chance it was in Greek.

 

[ZenMode]

Ok, now you post RQAA, then I'll ask the question again and you'll continue tap dancing.

RQAA. LIF.

 

[gfm7175]

I did not change or deny any words.

Liar.

You are trying to interpret the words differently than what they appear to say.

No, this is YOUR issue. YOU are the one who continues to deny the plain text as it is written.

Mark clearly states they prepared and ate the Passover meal.

... "that evening", aka the beginning of the 14th of Nisan.

John clearly says Jesus was crucified on the Day of Preparation.

... aka later on during that same day (the 14th of Nisan).

I understand what you "went over"

No you don't. You are still repeating your same mistakes.

and I understand the words that I took directly from the Bible. Unchanged.

No you don't. You keep changing them rather than accepting them for what they are.

 

[ZenMode]

Liar.


No, this is YOUR issue. YOU are the one who continues to deny the plain text as it is written.


... "that evening", aka the beginning of the 14th of Nisan.


... aka later on during that same day (the 14th of Nisan).


No you don't. You are still repeating your same mistakes.


No you don't. You keep changing them rather than accepting them for what they are.

For Jews, A day begins in the evening and ends he next afternoon. So, the day of preparation would be in the morning/afternoon with Passover starting that evening - it would all be the same day based on how we do things today.

So, it would be impossible for Jesus to die at noon on the Day of Preparation and have still eaten the Passover meal with the disciples.

 

[ZenMode]

LIF. Grow up. You can't laugh your way out of your illiteracy.

RQAA. LIF.

As promised, I'll ask the question again.

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? Is Sponge Bob theorizing???

 

[Into the Night]

I did not change or deny any words. You are trying to interpret the words differently than what they appear to say. Mark clearly states they prepared and ate the Passover meal. John clearly says Jesus was crucified on the Day of Preparation.

Mark 14:12 says that Jesus disciples asked him where they are supposed to prepare the Passover meal. That's the meal that Jesus ate with them, later that evening (beginning of Passover), when he did the famous "This is my body" speech. After the Passover meal, Jesus goes to the Garden of.... (I'm not even going to try and spell it), Judas betrays him, he spends that night in jail and then is crucified the next morning.

John has a similar story, but one important difference. Jesus is crucified on the Day of Preparation for Passover.

13 When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge’s seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha). 14 It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon.

I understand what you "went over" and I understand the words that I took directly from the Bible. Unchanged.

Changing the Bible won't work, Sock.

 

[Kafka]

Lame. You can't even 'tip your king' in a creative way.

You are describing yourself again, Sock. That's why you think radiometric dating is magick and somehow capable of measuring the age of the Earth.

Thanks, gfm.

 

[Kafka]

You can't blame YOUR problems on anybody else, Sock.

And what would those problems be, IBDaMann?