FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-09-2001, 12:43 AM   #31
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

You fools obviously haven't read Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. It only took him 434 pages to explain away your silly 'contradictions'. You can solve the so-called difficulties if you follow his "Recommended Procedures in Dealing With Bible Difficulties", the first of which is to "Be fully persuaded in your own mind that an adequate explanation exists, even though you have not yet found it." His second says "Once we have come into agreement with Jesus that the Scripture is completely trustworthy and authoritative, then it is out of the question for us to shift over to the opposite assumption, that the Bible is only the errant record of fallible men as they wrote about God." It is clear that some of you have not used this well-respected Bible scholar's recommendations.

Jesus spoke in parables so that the message would not be clear. In the same way, God has allowed there to be confusion in the Bible so that belief will be a greater act of faith. Remember that Jesus chastised Thomas for requiring proof and encouraged those who believe like children and can believe without seeing. Paul warns that Christianity will seem foolish to the wise. As more and more 'wise' people think Christianity is foolish, the more we see Paul's prophecy fulfilled, and the greater assurance we can have in the truth of Christianity. Your so-called naturalistic explanations for the existence of the Bible only proves its validity as the Word of God. When I think about an all-powerful God who loves me and gives me eternal life, I feel great joy, and this joy can only come from God, so I know He exists and I know the Bible is true. I can only feel sorry for you poor fools who can't understand this.
 
Old 01-09-2001, 08:00 PM   #32
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Daniel De Froget:
Well done Meta, Luke 14:26 can be nothing else than an hyperbole showing that one must love Jesus even more than is immediate family.

Support your assertion with textual evidence.


Please read:

Metacrock: "...It's stupid to think that he [Jesus] literally meant 'hate.' Why would he want anyone to hate their parents.?"

Answer:
1. "He [Jesus] went away from there and came to his own country; and his disciples followed him... and many who heard him were astonished, saying...'What mighty works are wrought by his hands! Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?' And they took offense at him. And Jesus said to them, 'A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.' Mk. 6:1ff

Clearly, Jesus did not get along with his unbelieving "kin" and the people of his own hometown. He could do little to persuade the very people who knew him best. They had seen his act many times and found him "offensive."

2. "Now the Jews' feast of Tabernacles was at hand. So his brothers said to him, 'Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples may see the works you are doing. For no man works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. For even his brothers did not believe him." Jn. 7:2ff

Clearly, Jesus did not get along with his brothers. They considered his act unbelievable. (Later in this passage Jesus lies to them and says he will not leave for Judea; however, shortly after they leave, he goes to Judea, secretly.)

3. "My mother and brothers--who are they?" Mk. 3:33

Clearly, Jesus did not get along with his mother and brothers.

4. "If any come to me and do not hate their own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--they cannot be my disciple." Lk. 14:26

5. "A person's enemies are members of the same household." Mt. 10:36

It is obvious in the narratives of "Mark," "Matthew," and "Luke," that the people of Galilee preferred their family and friends to Jesus. He was wrong to teach anyone to think more highly of him than family members. He was also wrong to teach his followers to hate their own family.


DDF:That reminds me

"The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers" 2Cor 4:4


Why quote the "tentmaker" from Tarsus?
Paul was mistaken about a number of things. For example, he believed that Jesus would return during Paul's lifetime and that he and others would rise into the air and meet Jesus in the sky. (See 1 Th. 4:17.) It didn't happen.

Paul mistakenly believed in at least three heavens. (See 2 Cor. 12:2.) There is no evidence of anything but the atomosphere and empty space between earth and the next material object.

Paul of Tarsus mistakenly believed that males were superior to females. (See 1 Cor. 11:7-9.) Today, only bigots believe this.

Paul believed in Satan. (See 2 Cor. 4:4.) Today, we know that only superstitious people believe in Satan.

 
Old 01-11-2001, 02:29 AM   #33
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Angry

This will include the following:
1) A perspective on hating parents
2) Jesus' relation with His family
3) Above verses taken out of context
4) The issue of hermeneutics as a science

1) I'm surprised no one has actually brought up the issue of what discipleship was in Jesus' day compared with what most term discipleship. Discipleship in those days did not simply mean belief in the teachings thereof. It was what modern groupies do to bands they love, they follow them around the country. There also were varying levels of commitment in this. Some coming out just when the person was near by, others going great distances. A call to discipleship was a little more than rational mental accent, or even obedience to the one's teachings. It was a sizable commitment to mentorship above all. I'm sure not a few followed out of dissatisfaction with life, work, home, and family. Those who choose to follow a call from a passer-by to leave everything they know and perhaps hold dear, are making powerful statements about who they believe they are following. With that in context I feel free to make the assertion that Jesus is laying down a prerequisite for those that follow. That is total separation from all other ties but to God's. Those who do not come to this conclusion are in ignorance about the above mentioned literature common to Judaism and rabbinical circles of Jesus' time. This shows also their unwillingness to research the surrounding material that gives context to the word "hate". For there is more than dictionaries involved in this issue, culture and cultural usage of language that is rarely similar to our own. Those who are not prepared to jump their 21st century American use of language and philosophies should not even attempt to argue a cross-cultural and cross-lingual issue.

The issue really is that some make the boldly ignorant assertion that the Bible is not rational in its arguments or its existence. While there are issues of pure belief, rarely does even the Bible use this argument (I wish more Christians knew this).
Those who contest even this prove their ignorance of the book as a whole.

2) While Jesus' immediate family had problems with His claims and activities to begin with, there is a dramatic turn around. Marry is there in Acts 2 at the day of Pentecost. Jesus earthly brother James (referred to in Acts, and also the author of the Epistle of James which is thought by some to be the earliest NT book)becomes a leader of the early church, etc.

(Side note) If the gospels were written by present day American media, I would suspect them more than if the gospels were only preserved though the oral traditions of the ancient world.

3) Further proof of text-proofing (a.k.a. out of context)

Penatis: Paul was mistaken about a number of things. For example, he believed that Jesus would return during Paul's lifetime and that he and others would rise into the air and meet Jesus in the sky. (See 1 Th. 4:17.) It didn't happen.

Answer: Paul's discourse is about those who have already died before the second coming compared to those who are still alive at Jesus return. Paul was alive when He wrote this wasn't he. Wouldn't it be natural for him to count himself among his readers who were alive and concerned about those who died before the resurrection. If your going to make an assertion that the second coming is ridiculous, please make fun of how long we have waited, and not some word game. I would gladly bear that criticism with pride.

Penatis: Paul mistakenly believed in at least three heavens. (See 2 Cor. 12:2.) There is no evidence of anything but the atmosphere and empty space between earth and the next material object.

Answer: When you can tell me the piece of literature were Paul gets the idea from I'll argue that one out. Don't ignore the culture and its literature, because you disagree with one of its finest works. Please research your opposition thoroughly first, it makes for a better defense and offense. Until then your playing with a half deck.

Penatis: Paul of Tarsus mistakenly believed that males were superior to females. (See 1 Cor. 11:7-9.) Today, only bigots believe this.

Answer: Before I do let's set the record straight, inferiority is vastly different than differing gender-role. Paul was an extreme Jew of extreme Jews. Jews considered women as equal to men in their relation to God from passages such as the poetic structure of Gen 1:27, and the Paul catapults a women's value, work, and respect far above what even his Jewish contemporaries probably would have allowed them, and definitely farther than surrounding nations. While an accusation that the Paul puts wives as obedient and submissive to husbands is accurate, inferiority is not. Though many Christians disagree with my next point, I believe that Paul forbid women no position in society save the pastorate (1 Tim 2:12, If anyone would like to comment start a new post least this one get more off topic). To other passages such as believing women being "saved through childbearing" I say this. Does this sound like its coming out of no where (his own opinions) or could there be a background that he's standing on? Again find the background, you be pointed to very rational, very historical answers to your own challenges.

Penatis: Paul believed in Satan. (See 2 Cor. 4:4.) Today, we know that only superstitious people believe in Satan.

Answer: If this isn't a bigoted answer I don't know what is. As if modern thought stands as the authority. Every civilization thought their ideas were the best, most up to date. What makes us so different. Our science? Science has made many claims that they have been reworked based on newer evidence. Many claims about the Bible by Christians have been reworked on a re-examination of what scripture has actually said. But the standards of the Bible that have been found through credible scholarship have never been changed or reworked.

4) Hermeneutics is "the art and science of biblical interpretation. It is a science because it is guided by rules within a system. It is an art, because the application of the rules is by skill and not by mechanical imitation" (Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation)

The term hermeneutics focuses most on the theoretical principles behind interpretation rather than the practice of interpretation (-Andrew Sargent). The practice of it would be exegesis.

I operate on a historical, grammatical, literary hermeneutic of the Bible, as opposed to the allegorizing of early Greek thinking church fathers or the modern day idea that meaning exists in the reader (reader response, "what it says to me personally"). The Hermeneutical Spiral by Grant Osborn is an excellent starting point and is sufficient and comprehensive enough to deal with issues on principles of interpretation.
"Ignorance is second only to wickedness, but I do not know which does the greater harm" (adapted from Anna Sewell's Black Beauty).

No more of this ignorant trash propaganda Penatis, or at least make it credible.

I do think it is slightly comical that Biblical scholars hypothesize, observe, test, and theorize based on a text in the same way scientists do with nature. I must point out though that contradictions of thought also happen both between scientists' work, and also amid observable data (to my knowledge light is one, the old particle or wave idea), yet scientists plow forward knowing (faith??) that all contradictions must work out and all physics will be unified (hope??). Or are they all just really open for the possibility if evidence should arise (skepticism)?

The obvious answer is that they have seen and are directly affected by what is tangible and God is not tangible. I go on a limb of subjectivity and say that those who believe in God have had enough of the "intangible" proof reliable and directly affect them in the same way as, at times even more real than, that which is tangible. Hence a theist will take what is in his mind, more credible than present reality, and believe it even against tangible testable reality. This is true faith, Hebrews 11, and this is not what most theists have.
 
Old 01-18-2001, 09:35 PM   #34
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Liz:
&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial"&gt;quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;HR&gt;Originally posted by Metacrock:
Meta =&gt; It's not a postiive injunction to really hate your parents. It's a contrasitive statement relative to a choice between parents or following him. &lt;HR&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;

(Liz) Uh, if he wanted to say "love less," he would have SAID "love less". (Although he may just as easily have said nothing at all resembling the statement - translations from Aramaic to ancient Greek to English can screw up any statement. But if you want to insist the thing's accurate....) It's not as if Greek doesn't have a way to compare two things.

Face it - he said "hate". Not "love less", not any form of comparative. Now get over it.

Liz
</font>

Yea he said hate but it 's not a question of translt one of hermeneutics. To say that since it says "hate" it has to litterally mean hate and can't mean anything else is silly. LEt's see how that works with statements we know don't mean exaclty what they say:

Shakespire said "much adue about nothing" so he must have really meant nothing, but it was a wedding not nothing so he could not have said that. He contradicts his own play. Hamlet says "to be or not to be" but he really means "should I kill myself" why didn't he say that? He must really have meant that he might cease to exist through no action of his own.

Or how about "Freinds Romans Coutnrymen lend me your ears." If he mean just listen he would have said so so me must have really expected them to cut off their ears.

 
Old 01-19-2001, 06:33 PM   #35
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Konnrad:
"I'm amazed how many people this facile argument has sucked in over the years. If Lewis is the best Christian thought has to offer, it's plainly obvious they have very little to offer indeed."


Many Christians advise me to read Lewis. About as many tell me not to, since he's rubbish.

Most just tell me I'm going to hell.

Tom
</font>
As one who has no interest in "converting" you from whatever you do or don't believe, but speaking strictly from a theological/philosophical perspective: Lewis is a respectable read.

Just because I disagree with him, doesn't mean he was worthless. In fact, I really have no problem with the man at all. He believed in his faith, but he was particularly reasonable about it, by and large. Could not be characterized as a fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination.

Mere Christianity is one of the better books in support of mainstream Christian faith. Like I said, just because one doesn't agree with the man doesn't mean he can be respected as an interesting thinker and a credit to his faith. Basically, simply put -- he's one of the good guys.

Andrew
 
Old 02-02-2001, 03:12 PM   #36
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I am a physics teacher in Chicago and have nothing but applause. Many secularists would have the world believe that most scientists are too rational to believe the truth about our Lord in the bible. Please read my posts and tell me if I am on the right track--I am a baby Christian trying to shed some salt and light in this forum. God Bless you. Your brother in Christ.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by PhysicsGuy:
You fools obviously haven't read Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. It only took him 434 pages to explain away your silly 'contradictions'. You can solve the so-called difficulties if you follow his "Recommended Procedures in Dealing With Bible Difficulties", the first of which is to "Be fully persuaded in your own mind that an adequate explanation exists, even though you have not yet found it." His second says "Once we have come into agreement with Jesus that the Scripture is completely trustworthy and authoritative, then it is out of the question for us to shift over to the opposite assumption, that the Bible is only the errant record of fallible men as they wrote about God." It is clear that some of you have not used this well-respected Bible scholar's recommendations.

Jesus spoke in parables so that the message would not be clear. In the same way, God has allowed there to be confusion in the Bible so that belief will be a greater act of faith. Remember that Jesus chastised Thomas for requiring proof and encouraged those who believe like children and can believe without seeing. Paul warns that Christianity will seem foolish to the wise. As more and more 'wise' people think Christianity is foolish, the more we see Paul's prophecy fulfilled, and the greater assurance we can have in the truth of Christianity. Your so-called naturalistic explanations for the existence of the Bible only proves its validity as the Word of God. When I think about an all-powerful God who loves me and gives me eternal life, I feel great joy, and this joy can only come from God, so I know He exists and I know the Bible is true. I can only feel sorry for you poor fools who can't understand this.
</font>
 
Old 02-02-2001, 09:40 PM   #37
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

PhysicsGuy's assertion that the Bible is not supposed to be clear is a true marvel of apologetics.

And it seems to me incredibly dumb to issue a revelation that is easy to misunderstand. It would be a LOT better to implant the revelation in everybody's mind, so that nobody will *ever* misunderstand it. I'm a creator of sorts, and I don't *ever* do *any* such thing with any of the software that I create.
 
Old 02-03-2001, 03:42 AM   #38
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by sciteach:
I am a physics teacher in Chicago and have nothing but applause. Many secularists would have the world believe that most scientists are too rational to believe the truth about our Lord in the bible. Please read my posts and tell me if I am on the right track--I am a baby Christian trying to shed some salt and light in this forum. God Bless you. Your brother in Christ.


</font>
PhysicsGuy was being sarcastic, guys.

 
Old 02-03-2001, 10:56 AM   #39
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">PhysicsGuy was being sarcastic, guys.</font>
Yup.

sciteach, scientists do reject religion. The surveys have been conducted. According to an article in Nature, approximately 7% of accomplished scientists believe in a personal god. I imagine the number of biblical literalists is considerably lower.

-Nick
 
Old 02-03-2001, 02:59 PM   #40
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

"PhysicsGuy was being sarcastic, guys."

True, though I've heard all those things said in my years as a Christian yet nobody would say it that clearly, for obvious reasons.
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:36 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.