I'd like to start this thread. This is a matter of purely intellectual discussion in our quest for truth.
Christianity is a book-based religion. There is no evidence for the claims and dogmas of Christianity other than what is said in the Bible and this fact also makes this book the bedrock of Christianity. In the past as today Christians have picked through the Bible arguing with each other over the meaning of its phrases and words and tried to convince non-Christians of the truth of a book that they cannot even agree about themselves. But one thing which all Christians agree about is that the Bible is God's word - not that it contains God's word, but that it is God's word, an infallible and complete revelation given to man by God. We will examine this claim and show that like most of the claims made by Christians it has very little substance to it at all.
If the Bible really is God's word it indicates that he is a very strange being indeed One would expect that the creator of the universe would only speak to man when he had something of great importance to say and that what he said would be of universal significance. Not so. The book of Chronicles for example consists of little more than lists of names of people we know little or nothing about and who died thousands of years ago. No commandments, no ethical principles, no hints on how to live properly or to worship God - just page after page of useless names. Why would God waste his and our time revealing such things? And what about the Songs of Solomon? This book consists of a collection of erotic love poetry. Once again, with the world in such a mess one would have supposed that God could have thought of something more important to say to man than this.
Then we come to the Gospels which recount the life of Jesus. Why has God decided to reveal the whole of Jesus' biography, not once, but four times? And why has he revealed what are, quite clearly, four different and contradictory versions of the same story? Unlike Christians, historians have given perfectly plausible answers to these questions. The Bible is not a revelation from God, rather it is a compilation, a fairly untidy compilation, written by many different people, over many centuries, changed and edited from time to time, and containing legends, stories, genealogies, fables, sacred and secular writings. It is no more a revelation from God than are the Iliad or the Odyssey, the Ramayana or the Mahabharata, books which the Bible resembles quite closely.
Now, its time to scrutinize the bible through objectivity not by subjectivity.
Gender: Male Location: Drifting off around the bend
I can respect your position, but your desired discussion requires a stance as to the purpose of life according to Christianity. This is one of the variances between some groups that believe in the Bible. My religion believes that the ties between parents and children are important in the eternities, this impacts the import of keeping of genealogical record. Also, authority in the Bible is based heavily in patriarchal order, this authority grants some precedence to some individuals throughout.
Given the strength of the subjective aspect of Christianity's interpretations it may be impossible to truly discuss the Bible entirely objectively.
Also, the Bible is the writings of men that heard God's word. They then wrote the scripture. It is not often direct from God to writing. Many of us do not hold it infallible. Some will disagree, but that is some Bible followers view on the subject.
While contemporary Christians make this claim that although the books of the Bible were actually written by different people, these people were inspired and guided by God as they wrote, the ancient authors of the Bible never did. For example Luke says at the beginning of his Gospel:
Insomuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us it seemed good to me also having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you (Lk 1:1-3).
Nothing about being filled with the spirit of God either before or while he wrote, he simply says that others had written accounts of the life of Jesus so he thought it might be a good idea if he wrote something also. If he really was inspired by God to write the Gospel why didn't he say so? But the claim of inspiration is not just unsubstantiated, it also raises a very serious problem. Christians are always claiming that in prayer God speaks to them, gives them advice and tells them what to do. They claim that his voice is very direct, very clear and very real. But if they really have no doubt that God is communicating with them surely his words should he recorded and included in the Bible. The Bible contains words God spoken to Moses, Joshua, Matthew, Mark Peter and Paul so why shouldn't the words he speaks to modern day Christians be included also?
Your position is uneducated. If you had actually read Chronicles you would realize that are references to the Spirit in several places such as 1 Chron. 12:18 or references to the Saul's errs which may be considered a warning against in 1 Chron. 10:13 and a large portion of 1 Chron. 16 is a powerful and meaningful prophecy. Moving onto 2 Chronicles you should probably read 2 Chron. 6:40-42 or read further mentions of God's Spirit in 2 Chron. 20:20 and I am only scratching the surface.
Genealogies are extremely important in prophecy as the Messiah was prophecied to be a descendant of David and of Abraham.
The Chronicles and the other so-called Books of History in the Bible were written with the purpose of showing the progress of the Jewish people so that the writings of the Jewish prophets may be connected back to them and show God's power and love for the Jewish people over the centuries.
As for the Bible being infallible, yes it is. The gift of prophecy is extremely real and God's Word was written through the prophets. Despite what many here would say the Bible does not contradict itself as has been shown by many scholars over the last few decades, however, I accept that some here will never accept that fact.
In ancient times there was no standardized version of the Old Testament. Different Jewish groups and different regions had their own versions. There were the Septuagint, the Aquila, Theodotion's version and Symmachu's version, all containing different text and different numbers of books. The Old Testament used by modern Christians is based on the Massonetic version which only appeared after the Jamnia Synod at the end of the 1st century AD. The New Testament did not appear in its present form until the year 404 AD, nearly four hundred years after the death of Jesus. Before that time, the Gospels of Thomas, the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Acts of Peter, the Acts of Paul and a dozen other books were included in the Bible. In 404 AD these books were simply cut out of the Bible because they contained teachings that were contrary to Christian theology of that time. One of the oldest existing Bibles, The Codex Sinaiticus, includes the Epistle of Barnabas, a book that is not included in the modern Bible. If these books were considered to be revelation by early Christians why don't modern Christians consider them to be revelation?
When we look at the Bibles used by modern Christians we find that there are several different versions. The Bible used by the Ethiopian Church, one of the most ancient of all churches, contains the Books of Enoch and the Shepherd of Hernias which are not found in the versions used by Catholics and Protestants. The Bible used in the Catholic Church contains the books of Judith, Tobias, Banuch, etc which have been cut out of the Bible used in Protestant churches. Prof H.L. Drummingwright of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in his introduction to the Bible explains how these books came to be cut out of the Bible used by the Protestants. These books were, he says, "in most Protestant Bibles until the 19th century, when publishers, led by the British and Foreign Bible Society voluntarily began to omit them". Once again, these books contained ideas which the churches did not like so they just cut them out. How can a book like Judith be the infallible word. of God one moment and not the next? Why are there so many different versions of the Bible? And which version is the infallible word of God?
We have seen that there are many mistakes in the Bible but we will have a look at three more examples of its inaccuracies. Today, even schoolchildren know that the earth moves; it moves on its axis and at the same time it moves around the sun. We also know that the tectonic plates on the earth's surface move .
The Bible however, clearly states that the earth does not move. In 1 Chronicles 16:30 the Bible says, "The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." (See also Ps 93:1, 96:10 and 104:5).
Here, and in many places, the Bible contradicts scientific fact. Moreover the Bible does not just contradict scientific fact it also contradicts itself. Let us have a look at the creation story. In the first book of the Bible it says that God created all the plants and trees on the third day (Gen 1:11-13), all birds, animals and fish on the fifth day (Gen 1:20-23) and finally, man and woman on the sixth day (Gen 1:2627). Yet a little further on the Bible gives a different version of the creation story saying that God created man first (Gen 2:7), then all plants and trees (Gen 2:9), after that all birds and animals (Gen 2:19) and only then did God create woman (Gen 2:21-22). These two versions of the creation story clearly contradict each other.
Now let us have a look at the story of Noah's Ark. In one place in the Bible we are told that Noah took two of every animal and put them in the ark (Gen 6;19). Later the Bible says Noah took seven pairs of all clean animals and birds and two of all other creatures and put them in the ark (Gen 7:2). Again the Bible is contradicting itself. Christians will object to this saying that these and the numerous other mistakes in the Bible are only small and of no significance. However, only one mistake is required to show that the Bible is not infallible. Also, if mistakes can be made in small matters they can be made in important matters. And, finally, one mistake is proof either that the Bible is not the word of God or that God is capable of mistakes.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are the true copies of the Old Testament, end of that discussion. Books blocked: some actually contradict the Truth and should have been removed, others, like the Book of Enoch, should not have been. This has nothing to do with the infallibility of the Bible, but more with the intreptation of man.
1 Chronicles 16:30 - Although I understand your position on this verse I feel you misinterpret the meaning of this passage. In its context it means that God is sovereign over the world and that no one will destroy or change it against his will.
The Creation Story - Your misinterpretation is embarassing in this case. Genesis 2:8 God planted the garden first then put man in it. Wow, I can hardly believe that you didn't see that. Genesis 2:19 God HAD formed, or already created, he simply brings them to man after he created man to get them named. Figure that one out. And finally, Adam got lonely so God created woman. What a beautifully non-contradicting story.
Side note: Interesting how the Bible got the order of the formation of the earth right according to science (plants, then animals, then man).
Noah put seven pairs of clean animals and two of all others. Well, I never took much math in university, but seven pairs of clean animals and two of all others still means two of everything. Stop grasping at straws and read the Bible in its intended context.
* it does NOT say that the earth does not move... the verse says, it cannot BE moved...
* Genesis 2:7 does NOT say God created man first...
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
Genesis 2:7
* now, where does it say that God created man first?
* the verse obviously starts with the word, "AND" which means something happened before it...
* seven pairs... and what is the difference of a pair, and seven pairs? it's still by two's, a male and its female...
* the word of God is infallible... the Bible contains not only the word of God but also words of Christ, apostles, prophets, angels, Satan, demons, etc...
I am comparing the different and contradictory versions of the bibles. If we look at the bottom of the pages in most Bibles we will find many notes These notes indicate mistakes, variations or doubtful readings in the text of the Bible. And there are literally hundreds of them. Some of the mistakes or variation' consist of only a few words but some of them are long passages (see for example the notes to Luke 9:55-56; John 5:3; Acts 24:6; 1 Corinthians 8:36-38; 11:4-7; Corinthians 10:13-15). Also notice that the notes to Mark 16:9-20 mention that this.' long passage is not found in the ancient Bible. In other words, this long passage in the Bible was added at a later time. How can Christians honestly claim that the Bible is infallible and without mistakes when all the mistakes are pointed out at the bottom of each page?
In the New Testament Jesus and his disciples often quote the Old Testament in order to make a point or, more usually, to attempt to prove that the Old Testament prophesizes events in the life of Jesus. But when we compare these quotes with the original text of the Old Testament we find that they are almost always different. We will use here the New International Version of the Bible.
Old Testament: But you, Bethlehem Ephasthah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from old (Mic 5:2).
New Testament : But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah are by no means the least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel (Matt 2:6).
The quote in the New Testament contains not just different words, it also changes the meaning of the original. Has Matthew misquoted the Old Testament because he was not familiar with it and made a mistake? Has he deliberately misquoted in order to alter the meaning? Or is the Old Testament Matthew used different from the one we have today? The New Testament quotes the Old Testament dozens of times and hardly a single quote is accurate. Christians will protest and say that these changes are only minor and of no importance. Perhaps so, but these are proofs that the Bible does contain mistakes, contrary to what Christians say. Also, it is strange that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul, who according to Christians were inspired by God to write the New Testament, could not even quote the Old Testament correctly.
"But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel ; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting."
Micah 5:2
"And thou Bethlehem, land of Judah, Art in no wise least among the princes of Judah: For out of thee shall come forth a governor, Who shall be shepherd of my people Israel ."
Matthew 2:6
I actually agree that Mark 16:9-20 should be omitted considering that the two earliest reliable manuscripts do not contain it and I'm old school purist.
Old Testament: But you, Bethlehem Ephasthah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from old (Mic 5:2).
New Testament : But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah are by no means the least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel (Matt 2:6).
Behtlehem Ephastrah and Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are exactly the same thing, it does not change the meaning. You should research more carefully before claiming these things. Ephastrah was the word used to distinguish the difference between the Bethlehem north of Jeruselaem and south of Jerusalaem. This proved important because Jesus had to be born in Bethlehem Ephastrah to be the Messiah. This is simply a difference between the Greek or whatever Matthew was written in (can't remember, might have been Aramaic) and the Hebrew used in the OT.
If i were try to understand the whole context: " The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." this passage implies unchanging world yet it contradict scientific fact because the world or whole universe is constantly changing(not established) and ceaselessly moving....
KMC Community Forums
Jul 18th, 2006 04:15 AM
