The Bible is Bunk

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by 1967 R50/2
Likewise, with Bruce. I mean, the man was a Bible Apologetic for cyrin' out loud...expecting anything other than statements absolutely defending the authenticity of the bible would be out of character.

Tell that to these supposed Catholic leaders...We know the problems of the Catholic church; I would link those problems with their calling into question the very scriptures that they purport to defend...In other words, in order to believe what they believe, they MUST call into question the veracity of the Biblical texts.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by 1967 R50/2
And plenty of modern CHRISTIAN theologians believe that.

That is all. This thread has already become a bore.

Are you going to hit and run, or stand up and fight?.

Prove your point...I have offered scholars that support mine.

[CamB]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
So, do you agree with the heretical teachings of the "Catholic leadership" that this thread discusses?...namely, that the scriptures cannot be trusted?

Yeah, I agree. Simple example from the Times article, quoting Genesis: So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. I do not, and cannot, treat that statement literally.

We know the problems of the Catholic church

What church do you attend? How old is it? When yours is 2000 years old and spans the globe, shall we see how many skeletons it has?

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by CamB
Yeah, I agree. Simple example from the Times article, quoting Genesis: So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. I do not, and cannot, treat that statement literally.

So the Bible is errant and fallible?...Is it beyond God's capability to defy man's finite reason?

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
wikipedia

Simon Greenleaf was a Harvard Law professor.

OK, so now in order to "prove" your point you are using two things (wikipedia and "academics") that you have thoroughly vilified in umpteen previous posts.



Oh well, consistency isn't really a feature of the bible either, so you're in good company.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by CamB
What church do you attend? How old is it? When yours is 2000 years old and spans the globe, shall we see how many skeletons it has?

When my church begins the worship of saints, demands its leadership the extra-Biblical demand of life-time celibacy, and elevates a man, the Pope, to a level above other men, extra-Biblically, I will leave my church...If my church defends abortion, homosexuality or anything varying from the Holy and inerrant and infallible Word of God...I will leave.

Why would I stay?

[CamB]

What was God's intent when "writing" that passage? Was his intent to provide a scientific explanation?

Intelligent design doesn't tie in with what you just said - are you a strict creationalist?

[Mulhollanddose]

nonstatic...Is it hard for you to understand that, although WickedPedia is unaccountable, at times even they get it right?

Greenleaf is often cited by Christians because he set out to disprove the Biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ and subsequently became a Christian. [1] His work Testimony of the Evangelist is a often cited Christian apologetic work.:

Obviously something that isn't questionable.

[CamB]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Why would I stay?

Would you make an effort to understand the position first? Or would you leave in a huff?

The Catholic Church doesn't worship saints, doesn't pretend their is a biblical precedent for celibacy of those in religious orders, and most - if not all - Church's elevate their senior pastors (if not explicitly).

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by CamB
What was God's intent when "writing" that passage? Was his intent to provide a scientific explanation?

Intelligent design doesn't tie in with what you just said - are you a strict creationalist?

I offer that it is more profitable to accept the Word of God as inerrant and infallible...Every single statement it makes.

Why follow a falsified and suspect religion?...Would that not make you a fool?

[IROC]

Heck, there are Biblical scholars who doubt the authenticity of the four gospels. Nothing new there.

I think the only people who "trust the scriptures" and subscribe to literal interpretations of the bible are those that have suspended rational thought.

The Catholic church, IMO, is at least making an attempt to "evolve" and provide guidance to Christians in today's world. At the other end of the spectrum, Biblical literalists and fundamentalists are destined to fail as they hold steadfastly to ideals that will ultimately drive believers away from their religion.

Mike

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by CamB
The Catholic Church doesn't worship saints, doesn't pretend their is a biblical precedent for celibacy of those in religious orders, and most - if not all - Church's elevate their senior pastors (if not explicitly).

No man is capable of absolving sin except Christ Jesus, as advocate to his Father...We are to call NO MAN "father" except God himself, there is no Biblical foundation for a Papacy, idol worship of what you call saints is no secret in Catholic orthodoxy.

It is by Grace and the unmerited favor of God that we are absolved of sin, not the works of penance or the recitation of "Hail Mary's" or "Our Father's"...We need merely ask for forgiveness, of Him directly, and we are forgiven (if, of course, you regard the Bible as inerrant and infallible -- which you do not).

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
nonstatic...Is it hard for you to understand that, although WickedPedia is unaccountable, at times even they get it right?

right when *you* say so, not anyone else.

If you're myopic and really angry clap your hands

[Dixie]

translated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin...and then to English, Italian, Spanish, German, etc. might have some inaccuracies?

All I can add to this thread is that if English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by IROC
Heck, there are Biblical scholars who doubt the authenticity of the four gospels. Nothing new there.

I think the only people who "trust the scriptures" and subscribe to literal interpretations of the bible are those that have suspended rational thought.

"If we compare the present state of the New Testament text with that of any other ancient writing, we must...declare it to be marvelously correct. Such has been the care with which the New Testament has been copied--a care which has doubtless grown out of true reverence for its holy words...The New Testament [is] unrivaled among ancient writings in the purity of its text as actually transmitted and kept in use."


Benjamin Warfield (Princeton Theological Seminary)

[Hugh R]

I'm not a theologian, but are you telling me that Adam and Eve might not be true, that Lot's wife didn't turn into a pillar of salt, and the sun didn't stop in the sky? What about the Big One, Jesus died for our sins and was buried and three days later he awoke from the dead, came out of the crypt, saw his shadow and went back in for six more weeks of winter?

[Superman]

Originally posted by legion
So what they are saying, is that a document that has been translated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin...and then to English, Italian, Spanish, German, etc. might have some inaccuracies? Imagine that.

I'm sure somebody already covered this. The who like to whack on a subject are never interested in gathering accurate information about it. The facts take all the fun out of being a whiner. The New Testament was originally written in Greek. A language very similar to latin anyway. And most of the Western world's languages are based on latin as well. Quite frankly, there are no Bible scholars who pretend that a good deal of meaning may have been lost. A few words and phrases are still debated, but those who deal in these questions will quickly dismiss assertions that there are serious translation confusions. There are not.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by nostatic
If you're myopic and really angry clap your hands

A momentary lapse of reason

[nostatic]

but the texts come out of an oral tradition, and were put into writing *many* years after the original events. Now you can argue that the 30 some odd authors were all "divinely inspired", and as such not subject to the vagaries of things like bias, memory lapses, embellishment, hyperbole and allegory. Or perhaps you could take those into account and take the *messages* in the text rather than the text itself to heart.

[Superman]

Originally posted by 1967 R50/2

Modern researchers believe there was a more substantial delay between the actual events and the written versions that we currently have.

Also not accurate according to my understanding. Recent re-datings have moved actual writings CLOSER to the actual events. And something else that folks do not understand is the dating we're talking about. The core NT books were generally thought to have been written between 60 and 90 AD. Some folks are even asserting less. Well, this is the number of years after Jesus BIRTH. We think he was 33 at time of crucifiction. And we're not sure the dating process actually chose the right year for Jesus' birth. So, the earliest NT scriptures MAY have been written as soon as ten or fifteen years after his death. Probably not. Probably more like 25-30 years. But not the eons that most folks seem to think.