Validity of the Bible

Author: Owen_T
Christianity
Religion
Bible

Posts

Total: 66
#31
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Genesis 3
8
Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
9
But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"
10
He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."
11
And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"
12
The man said, "The woman you put here with me--she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."
13
Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
14
So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
15
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring [1] and hers; he will crush [2] your head, and you will strike his heel."
16
To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
17
To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, `You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
18
It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.
19
By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."
20
Adam [3] named his wife Eve, [4] because she would become the mother of all the living.

#32
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

You can see why Albert Einstein said:  "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
#33
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 70
0
1
6
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
1
6
-->
@Stephen
I guess I may have misunderstood the question then. If you ask me how much of the Bible on a literal and surface level, then I think there are many human flaws. However, those flaws do not translate to the corruption of the message. I believe the Bible is true, but it has also been written through humans, and thus it contains human elements and mistakes. But I do not believe that these human mistakes in the Bible invalidate its divine inspiration or authority.

I hope this answers the question once and for all.
#34
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 70
0
1
6
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
1
6
-->
@Mall
Do believe the scripture teach all reject God?
Do I believe that the scriptures teach that everybody rejects God? That's a great question. The scriptures teach us that all people are sinners and fall short of God's glory, but they do not teach that all people consciously or definitively reject God. The Bible presents a nuanced view of human sinfulness and the relationship between humanity and God. Passages such as Romans 3:23 tell us we have all sinned and fall short of God's perfect standards for heaven. In Acts 17:26-27, Paul acknowledges that people have the potential to seek God and find Him because He is near to everyone. The Bible also states God wants everyone to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), and it would be rather cruel if there was no way to obtain this salvation.

While all people are affected by original sin and personal sin, this does not mean that everyone rejects God outright. The Church believes in the possibility of salvation for all and emphasizes that God’s grace is available to everyone. Through free will, individuals can accept or reject God’s grace, but the potential for repentance and conversion remains.
#35
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@CatholicApologetics
I guess I may have misunderstood the question then. If you ask me how much of the Bible on a literal and surface level, then I think there are many human flaws. However, those flaws do not translate to the corruption of the message. I believe the Bible is true, but it has also been written through humans, and thus it contains human elements and mistakes. But I do not believe that these human mistakes in the Bible invalidate its divine inspiration or authority.

I hope this answers the question once and for all.

As I suspected from the beginning. You would be, and are, full of contradiction/s.

#36
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,803
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@CatholicApologetics
Well being that you used the words "definitely" and "consciously", do they teach all people non definitely and non consciously reject God?
#37
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 70
0
1
6
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
1
6
Wylted, I was not originally going to respond to your argument, but I feel like I have to respond to the following:

However. Hell is not fire and brimstone. It is merely separation from God, or as far away as you can get from an omnipresent entity. Basically you have been lied to about what hell is. There is less pain and suffering in hell than there is on earth. 
Hell is fundamentally the state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed. This separation is the most profound suffering, as it is the ultimate loss of the beatific vision and the presence of God, who is the source of all goodness and joy. Descriptions of hell in the Bible often use vivid imagery, such as unquenchable fire (Mark 9:43), outer darkness (Matthew 25:30), and a place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 13:42). Revelation 14:11 depicts hell as the eternal torment and unrest for those there. It definitely seems that there will be more pain and suffering in hell than there is on Earth. Catholic teaching holds that the suffering in hell is greater than any suffering experienced on Earth because it is eternal and involves the complete absence of God’s grace and love.

Because God is the source of all goodness and joy, separation from Him would mean to be excluded from happiness, peace, and love. The Bible certainly does not depict hell to be a peaceful place. It seems like there will be more suffering in hell than on Earth.
#38
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 70
0
1
6
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
1
6
-->
@Stephen
As I suspected from the beginning. You would be, and are, full of contradiction/s.
I have remained steadfast in the beliefs I have been trying to communicate with you. I guess we had a different understanding of the question, but not once have I changed by opinion. Which remains: I believe the Bible is God's Word, and humans have not corrupted the salvific message. On the surface level, which was not the question I was initially attempting to answer, there are elements you can consider to be human flaws (such as grammatical mistakes).
#39
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 70
0
1
6
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
1
6
-->
@Mall
I'd say it's up for interpretation. For example, the Bible teaches that all born with original sin have sinned, so you can interpret our sinful nature as a rejection from God. Because everyone has sinned, then everyone has rejected God in one form or another.

This is only one interpretation. I'd recommend reading the Bible, starting with the Gospels.
#40
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@CatholicApologetics
As I suspected from the beginning. You would be, and are, full of contradiction/s.
I have remained steadfast in the beliefs I have been trying to communicate with you.


 You are even now  contradicting you own statements. 
You have, on one hand claimed the bible is without flaws, while on the other have admitted to there actually being flaws i.e. mistakes: human mistakes and on a few occasions now. Its all there for anyone following the thread to see for themselves. And in very typical apologist fashion, you have attempted to divert from your  original claim concerning as you say "the perfect and flawless words of the bible" and are attempting to make this thread about "the message", of which the OP mentions nothing.

I guess we had a different understanding of the question

  DID YOU NOT READ THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD? 

Here you go;

Validity of the Bible
Author Owen_T
You see, nothing either in the title nor the op that asks about, comments about or even touches on  "the message".  

 There are elements you can consider to be human flaws (such as grammatical mistakes).#38

I am glad it was you that wrote that.  You do realise the massive implications of what you have written there, don't you?

I shall await Owen-T' return

#41
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 70
0
1
6
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
1
6
-->
@Stephen
I had assumed we were initially talking about the message of the Bible. I later had a suspicion that we were not talking about the same thing, so I made an attempt to clarify [1]. Since then, I have accommodated my response to answer your question [2] [3] [4], which was not about the message but about the literal text of the Bible. I thought I was articulating my responses in a manner which was easy to understand. I initially thought we were on the same page in regards to what the question entails but I suppose we were not. Ultimately I answered two different questions for your understanding. I hope this clears up the miscommunication once and for all.

As for the title of your threat, Validity of the Bible, once again I would assume you are talking about its message. The question "Is the Bible true or false?" rephrased as "Is what the Bible claims, like the resurrection, true or false?" seems pretty logical to me so I assumed we were talking about the message. I apologize if I understood this incorrectly.
#42
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@WyIted
Hell is not fire and brimstone. It is merely separation from God, or as far away as you can get from an omnipresent entity. Basically you have been lied to about what hell is. There is less pain and suffering in hell than there is on earth.
Uh, stop trying to make Christianity look good.

#43
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@CatholicApologetics
I had assumed we were initially talking about the message of the Bible.
"we"? 
Stop it!  You attempted  to divert to "the message" only once your own contradictions had been pointed out to you by me. Your claim of  "the message" didn't even enter the dialogue until  YOU mentioned it HERE> #11


As for the title of your threat, Validity of the Bible, 
I'll assume you mean thread? And once again you fail to take in whose THREAD this is and who authored it although I have clearly pointed both out to you.


once again I would assume you are talking about its message.
I gave you absolutely no reason to assume that. 


The question "Is the Bible true or false?"

Nope there is no question to the title , Go see for yourself. The question/s come in the OP.  Please learn to read what it is that you actually intend to comment on.


rephrased as "Is what the Bible claims, like the resurrection, true or false?"

Wrong again. The OP, unless he wants to clarify further, appears to be content that the resurrection is valid because he makes the point of saying; " Gra[n]ted, there is evidence for Christianity and the resurrection" #1. Which I may challenge him on later.


 Ultimately I answered two different questions for your understanding. 

I understood perfectly both the TITLE and the two part question posed by the OP. I had no misunderstanding whatsoever.  I also know that I am not the author of this thread, whereas , you don't. 


#44
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,803
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@CatholicApologetics
If you're sinning , you're going contrary to God. How can you go contrary without rejection?
I believe the answer to the original question is flat out "yes".
You can say man has freewill but it will never be the will of the spirit but the will of the flesh according to the scripture .

#45
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@CatholicApologetics
 Descriptions of hell in the Bible often use vivid imagery, such as unquenchable fire (Mark 9:43), outer darkness (Matthew 25:30), and a place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth
...
Revelation 14:11 depicts hell as the eternal torment and unrest for those there
...
It definitely seems that there will be more pain and suffering in hell than there is on Earth. Catholic teaching holds that the suffering in hell is greater than any suffering experienced on Earth
Thanks for correcting WyIted and returning Christianity from "looking kind, nice and peaceful" to "my God burns people" status again.

Kinda like how Jesus said that most people will burn in Hell.

It doesnt look for them.
#46
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mall
That's about the strength of it.

But, which version are you actually referring to?

The old tales have been translated transcribed and reinterpreted many times.
#47
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,803
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm not referring to any particular version.
#48
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Owen_T
or how a loving god sends people to eternal suffering

this is a common misconception

nowhere in the bible does it say souls will be tortured forever
#49
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
nowhere in the bible does it say souls will be tortured forever

Well unless you are word playing on the word- Soul/s;  there are a few mentions here of everlasting torture?

Hebrews 6:2
Revelation 20:10
Matthew 25:46
Daniel 12:2
2 Thessalonians 1:9











#50
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stephen
Hebrews 6:2
Hebrews 6:2 in Greek is: "διδαχῆς βαπτισμῶν, ἐπιθέσεώς τε χειρῶν, ἀναστάσεώς τε νεκρῶν, καὶ κρίματος αἰωνίου."



From κρίνω (krínō, “to judge”) +‎ -μᾰ (-ma).[1] [[LINK]]

From αἰών (aiṓn, “age, eon”) +‎ -ιος (-ios, adjective suffix). [[LINK]]



in other words

to be judged for an age
#51
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stephen
Revelation 20:10
Revelation 20:10 in Greek is: "καὶ ὁ διάβολος ὁ πλανῶν αὐτοὺς ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν λίμνην τοῦ πυρὸς καὶ θείου, ὅπου τὸ θηρίον καὶ ὁ ψευδοπροφήτης, καὶ βασανισθήσονται ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων."



θηρίον = beast

ψευδοπροφήτης = false prophet

βασανισθήσονται = torture

αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων = ages of centuries



in other words

the one who claims to be a prophet of the almighty (claims to speak for YHWH)

will be tortured for a very long time
#52
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
nowhere in the bible does it say souls will be tortured forever


Well unless you are word playing on the word- Soul/s;  there are a few mentions here of everlasting torture?
Hebrews 6:2  Revelation 20:10  Matthew 25:46 Daniel 12:22 Thessalonians 1:9

in other words  the one who claims to be a prophet of the almighty (claims to speak for YHWH)will be tortured for a very long time


"The one" could mean anyone or the many and or those  (plural) that do claims to speak for YHWH.  example;  those that claim to be chosen by god  to speak for god.


Hebrews 6:2  "eternal judgment.".   Meaning of eternal in English = lasting forever or for a very long time:


Revelation 20:10 " shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever".

 Matthew 25:46  "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment"

Daniel 12:2 " and some to shame and everlasting contempt".

2 Thessalonians 1:9  "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction" 



Matthew 12:32 "whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come".

All the above suggest an eternity to me, 3RU7AL



#53
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stephen
Matthew 25:46
Matthew 25:46 in Greek is: "καὶ ἀπελεύσονται οὗτοι εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον, οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον."



κόλασιν = torment

αἰώνιον = From αἰών (aiṓn, “age, eon”) +‎ -ιος (-ios, adjective suffix). [[LINK]]



in other words

the "κακοί" will be tortured for a very long time



κακοί = ugly, useless, wretched, unhappy

Etymology
[edit]
The origin is unknown, with multiple theories proposed:[1]
See also Phrygian κακον (kakon, “harm”), which was borrowed from Greek, and Albanian keq (“bad”).
Pronunciation
[edit]
  • IPA(key): /ka.kós/ → /kaˈkos/ → /kaˈkos/
Adjective
[edit]
κᾰκός • (kakós) m (feminine κᾰκή, neuter κᾰκόν); first/second declension
  1. As a measure of quality: bad, worthless, useless
  2. As a measure of appearance: ugly, hideous
  3. Of circumstances: injurious, wretched, unhappy
  4. As a measure of character: low, mean, vile, evil
#54
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stephen
Hebrews 6:2  "eternal judgment.".   Meaning of eternal in English = lasting forever or for a very long time:
the original word of god was not communicated in english
#55
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stephen
Hebrews 6:2  "eternal judgment.".   Meaning of eternal in English = lasting forever or for a very long time:
also "judgement" does not equal "torture"
#56
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stephen
2 Thessalonians 1:9  "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction" 

even at face-value

this seems to be suggesting "destruction" that will never be repaired

for example

if i said the world trade center will be "forever destroyed"

that doesn't in any way suggest that the building will be continuously damaged every day for all eternity
#57
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
ebrews 6:2  "eternal judgment.".   Meaning of eternal in English = lasting forever or for a very long time:
the original word of god was not communicated in english


I am sure - eternal -  in any language means the same thing. But you are welcome to play semantics if it makes you feel better.


Hebrews 6:2  "eternal judgment.".   Meaning of eternal in English = lasting forever or for a very long time:
also "judgement" does not equal "torture"

I agree, but ETERNAL Judgment would mean  to be judged ETERNALY. And I would say to be judged forever and eternally would be TORTURE.


2 Thessalonians 1:9  "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction" 

even at face-value

this seems to be suggesting "destruction" that will never be repaired.



Yes, it must be torture to be destroyed forever and enteral. 
#58
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stephen
Yes, it must be torture to be destroyed forever and enteral. 
destroyed forever wouldn't feel like anything at all
#59
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
the original word of god was not communicated in english

It wasn't communicated in Greek either. Which appears to be your approved language of choice when it come to the translation of scripture. Strange that.

And of course, like all believers that believe themselves to be knowledgeable concerning the translation on the bible you have fallen into you own  trap of consigning all bibles written in English to the rubbish bin..... without realising it. The Reverend Tradesecret made a habit of doing it.

Stating:  


There are those that I have met that believe the Bible to be clear and concise in its presentation and self evidently true and without any ambiguity whatsoever in the way it has come down to us. Until of course they are posed a few simple questions which usually arise not just frequently from the Bible but just as frequent from their own commentary, and when pressed on such it appears that these very same people will resort to the default that one must understand Greek or Hebrew to even begin to understand a Bible that is written in English! But by saying so they do not seem to understand that they have, in just a few words, rendered the Bible written in English redundant, pointless and unreliable as any kind of “witness” source to the life and times of the Christ.

So is there at all any point to reading, never mind studying the Bible written in English? A Bible that those who have said that is clear and concise but suddenly insist that the Bible is fathomable and understandable only when one is tutored, trained and learned in the ancient Greek or Hebrew languages?




#60
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stephen
was an eternal flaming hell created exclusively for the new testament ?