Something I read in the bible today

[TerryBPP]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
The Koran is much newer, and written all by one man. It draws heavily on Old Testement stories, but diverges at the Isaac/Ishmael junction. I don't know how old the Torah is, nor do I know much about it. I believe it also contains Old Testement stories, but I'm not sure.

Lutheranism is a form of Protestentism; they are not "seperate religions". They, along with Mormanism and others, fall under the broader umbrella of Christianity. Islam is a different religion; it does not recognize Christ. The distinctions between religions are very clear, as are the distinctions between denominations within those religions. Your comments point to a missunderstanding of the differences, which points to a greater missunderstanding of religion as a whole. It kind of looks from here like you have formed your opinions concerning "religion" somewhat in a vacuum, without understanding it in the least. Are you comfortable forming opinions about other matters prior to coming to an understanding of them? Most of us are not, and I would be surprised if you were in other areas.

Mike, you missed my point. People question the authenticity of books in the Bible. They claim some books were written long after they claim to have been; at times long after the places in which the stories allegedly took place are gone. As in ruins. They claim the places were made up, and the stories were made up. The fact that many of these "made up" places have been found, and found to match Biblical descriptions, is significant. Even the allegations that the author was describing a known, verified place from the distant past after the fact have come into question when the accuracy of the detailed descriptions is revealed. In other words, the description could not have been penned by some one that was not actually there.

They are also finding stories carved into ancient palace walls and the like, sort of like Egyptian hieroglyphics. Most ancient kings were very happy to record their exploits and victories on their palace walls. They have found many of these today and have accurately dated them. They have found many that were apparently recorded by kings mentioned in Old Testement stories. The time frame is correct, and most interesting of all, the stories match those in the Bible.

That's the point I was trying to make, Mike. Modern archeological evidence supports many of the stories in the Bible. Stories that were supposedly made up about places that were supposedly made up. I find that very interesting.

The point I was making in reference to Lutheran, etc. is that one man (Martin Luther in this case) didnt approve of the christain belief system so he wrote his own book and beileved in that. Much like Elron Hubbard.

I never said that the stories in the bible were not based on real events. I was mearly pointing out the stories might have been "elaborated" over the years.

[Nathans_Dad]

Uh Terry...you are way off on that one.

Perhaps you mean that Luther didn't approve of the Catholic church and its doctrine so he was one of the central figures in the Reformation. Catholics are still Christians you know...

[IROC]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
That's the point I was trying to make, Mike. Modern archeological evidence supports many of the stories in the Bible. Stories that were supposedly made up about places that were supposedly made up. I find that very interesting.

I understood your point, actually. The counterpoint is that there are many things in the Bible that we know are incorrect and many things that are not supported (even refuted) by modern geology and archeology. So, where does that leave us?

If your beliefs are reinforced by archeological accuracies in the Bible, should they not also be called into question when it is found to be incorrect?

Mike

[Nathans_Dad]

IROC I would be interested (for my own curiosity) on which things in the Bible are refuted by archeology and geology? Unless you are talking about the story of Creation which has already been discussed in another thread...

[tchanson]

Originally posted by dhoward
Then did he raise on high the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, saying, "Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy." And the people did rejoice and did feast upon the lambs and toads and tree-sloths and fruit-bats and orangutans and breakfast cereals ... Now did the Lord say, "First thou pullest the Holy Pin. Then thou must count to three. Three shall be the number of the counting and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count two, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the number of the counting, be reached, then lobbest thou the Holy Hand Grenade in the direction of thine foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it."

Exactly. I often find solace in that and other passages from the Book of Armaments.


Tim

[IROC]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
IROC I would be interested (for my own curiosity) on which things in the Bible are refuted by archeology and geology? Unless you are talking about the story of Creation which has already been discussed in another thread...

For one, modern geology has refuted the Biblical "global flood".

Mike

[kang]

Religious people in politics don't make politics better, they make religion worse.

This is just one reason the separation of church and state is so important. It was truly “intelligent design” when the founding fathers realized this and built it into the constitution.

I would modify that sentence to say “they make religion and politics worse.”

I don’t know why believers, of all faiths, have a need to “prove” they are right, or that the bible is correct, or that there are historical accuracies in the bible. Sure there are, and there are inaccuracies too. Big deal. Doesn’t mean a thing.

I like the proof of the non-existence of god that was given in the “Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy.” In that book, they used a fictional character for this. I’ll paraphrase using Intelligent Design:

God says “I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.” “But what about evolution?” says Man. “It could not have happened without intelligent design. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t.”

Humor, mostly, but it makes a point. You can’t prove god exists, so why try? It’s as if the believers are so insecure in their own beliefs that they need to find proof. Or that they are trying to convince others, either to “save” them or to just gather more strength from more numbers.

No, leave the proof out. Spirituality is not logical and it is not science, so why try? It’s as if I needed to prove that I love my wife. I cannot. Love is also not logical and not science. I can exhibit behaviors consistent with love, but that is not proof. I know it inside my heart and that is enough. It’s not a bad thing that spirituality is not logical and not science. Likewise for love. It’s just the way they are.

Since spirituality is neither logical nor science, it should be left out of politics and the science classroom.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by IROC
For one, modern geology has refuted the Biblical "global flood".

Mike

Somehow I thought you were going to say this. You are correct in that there is no geologic evidence of a "global flood", however there IS evidence of several large scale floods in Mesopotamia, some of which show mud layers of up to 12 feet. So, I would agree with you that a global flood is not supported, but I would also say that you must take the context of the writing into account. I would venture to say that the writer of Genesis (thought to be Moses) likely took a large flood involving Mesopotamia as a "Global" flood.

Course, I'm probably not the best target for you since I don't interpret the Bible literally all the time.

[Superman]

Originally posted by TerryBPP
A book written by men and revised hundreds of times over the centuries.

Research your assumption. It is incorrect. In fact, one of the startling things about the Bible is its lack of editorial change over the centuries. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, the faithfulness of those texts against the ones we used today is striking, to say the least.

Lots of folks have made a decision to reject God and reject Jesus, and then dove into the research to prove that conclusion, and then their eyes were opened. If you want to hang on to your disbelief, just don't do the research.

[Superman]

Originally posted by TerryBPP
Much like Elron Hubbard.

Terry, making conclusions without doing the research yourself is not impressive. It's "L. Ron Hubbard."

[targa911S]

Originally posted by nostatic
what's the definition of "intact"?

Uncircumcised or unneutered

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by TerryBPP
The point I was making in reference to Lutheran, etc. is that one man (Martin Luther in this case) didnt approve of the christain belief system so he wrote his own book and beileved in that. Much like Elron Hubbard.

I never said that the stories in the bible were not based on real events. I was mearly pointing out the stories might have been "elaborated" over the years.

As others have pointed out, you kind of missed it on Martin Luther. He was a Catholica nd a Biblical scholar. The more he read the actual Bible, the more he found the Catholic church of the time had corrupted its message. Bibles were not widely available at the time, which really did not matter anyway, because most people couldn't read. They relied on the church to tell them what it said, and the church lied. Martin Luther protested and started what is now known as the Protest(ant) movement; a break away in protest from the only Christian autority of the day, the Catholic Church.

Luther did not "write his own book". He did not start a new religion. He went back to the Bible. He wrote many things over the years, including commentaries on the Bible - fully annotated back to the Bible. He never added to it in any way; like I pointed out earlier, it would be very difficult to do that. It would have been very difficult, at any time in history, to have "elaborated" upon any story in the Bible. Further research, as I suggested earlier, would clear that up for you.

You have apparently chosen to dismiss the whole thing with no knowledge of the topic whatsoever. That's fine - it's up to you; all I'm trying to do is point out that your assumptions about it are incorrect, and that it can be an interesting area of study.

Mike, modern archeology/geology has done nothing to refute the Biblical flood. Nothing to "prove" it either, though. Creation remains the big sticking point between modern science and the Bible. As far as specific places and events, as well as the people involved, many have been verified by modern archeology. It is important to point out that they cannot "disprove" events from the Bible through a lack of evidence. In other words, just because they cannot find the place anymore doe not mean it wasn't there at one time. Just because they can't find another reference to an event does not mean it never happened. We have lost the vast majority of history from those years, but it does not mean there was nothing going on. If you take a look, though, the corraboration of Biblical stories provided by modern archeology is pretty stunning. It adds to the credibility of the stories; it has never diminished the credibility of a single one.

[dhoward]

Originally posted by Superman
Terry, making conclusions without doing the research yourself is not impressive. It's "L. Ron Hubbard."

Elron sounds better...

[dhoward]

Originally posted by Superman
Research your assumption. It is incorrect. In fact, one of the startling things about the Bible is its lack of editorial change over the centuries. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, the faithfulness of those texts against the ones we used today is striking, to say the least.

Lots of folks have made a decision to reject God and reject Jesus, and then dove into the research to prove that conclusion, and then their eyes were opened. If you want to hang on to your disbelief, just don't do the research.

Striking similarities may be a bit much. Similarities, yes. Bear in mind however, that there are other texts that were left out of the canonization, because the church felt that they had too negative a connotation.
My information comes from a cousin-in-law, who happens to be a Franciscan Brother. He specializes in translating ancient languages and texts. Worked many years in Vatican City, and the Middle East. Not supposed to talk about what he sees or knows because of his work, outside of the church.
Get about a half of a bottle of scotch in him though.....

[oldE]

"Woe to you, O land, when your king is a child, and your princes feast in the morning." Eccl. 10.16

How many child kings/emperors have there been through the centuries?
"You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you."
Not everything is about you!
Les

[dhoward]

Originally posted by oldE
Snipped...
"You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you."
Not everything is about you!
Les

[kang]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
The more he read the actual Bible, the more he found the Catholic church of the time had corrupted its message.

So who does interpret the bible correctly? The Catholics? The Protestants? The Seventh Day Adventists? They too had a “scholar” that said that all the other interpretations were wrong and that she had the correct one. I am sure there are others, even Pat Robertson, and they all claim to have the correct interpretation.

[Nathans_Dad]

Kang, trying to pit the different denominations against each other is an interesting tactic, but doesn't really answer the question. To me, the only "interpretation" of the Bible that matters is your own. The Bible is a tool to improve your personal relationship with God. So while I think reading what other people think of the Bible or what Biblical scholars have said isi interesting, I don't take anything that someone else says about the Bible as dogma...

Christianity is through Christ, denominations are a creation of man.

[Jeff Higgins]

Kang, Rick says it pretty well. There are as many interpretations of the Bible as there are people who have read it. It is actually an incredibly complex book, subject to limitless interpretation.

I don't have to tell you that much of mankind's troubles have, and will continue to originate when factions push their interpretation on others. That does not make the book itself bad as many would assert. The men that have used it to their own ends might have an extra warm spot next to the fire awaiting them, but that does not make its message "bad". It's a real shame that it has been at the center of so much violence and suffering, but that does not make it the cause of such.

The best thing I can say is just read it. It's a great book. Even if you buy none on it, at least you will know what everyone is talking about. You may actually have to read it several times to get a grasp of all of its nuances; it's that difficult of a book to understand. Most of us that have read it over and over, if we are honest and not trying to push some agenda, will readily admit how little of it we comprehend. The arguments come from those that either can't admit that, or know no one else gets it either and try to take advantage of that to push their agenda.

[M.D. Holloway]

Boy did you guys fall hook-line-n-sinker for ol beetrovins thread! That ol button'd up so-d-so is sitt'n back laughing at the turmoil he just created. Isn't there a term for that?