If the Bible contains much that is unreliable, what should we do about it?

[beamishboy]

Hi folks!!!

Every child grows up believing almost literally everything in the Bible. That was what I went through myself as a young child. As I grew older, I realised that lots of things just can't be taken literally. Adam couldn't have been the first man and it couldn't have been 6000 years ago. That's fine, I revised my view of that portion of the Bible and I read Genesis not literally.

Then, when I was 9, I became a little rebellious in my thoughts and I became an atheist. I know in the GA forum, atheists say I wasn't a real atheist because I was only 9 but I know I really was. I had long chats with my vicar who helped me return to the faith but I found the Bible a rather odd stumbling block. Just how should I treat it?

When I was 10, something happened in my personal life that made me certain that Jesus is real. I escaped the Bali bombing by just seconds but that's another story fit for a different thread.

I decided to discover for myself just how we got our Bible. I read two books: Bruce Metzger's "The Canon of the New Testament" and FF Bruce's "The Canon of Scripture". I read up about the writers and I found that while Metzger was considered liberal by some fundamentalist (he certainly produced the obnoxious Ehrman), FF Bruce was considered by most Christians to be evangelical and conservative. So I figured that whatever damage Metzger might do can easily be healed by FF Bruce. I've read one of FF Bruce's account of the canon (it's called "Is the NT reliable?")

What I didn't know was scholars like FF Bruce wear different hats. In "Is the NT reliable?" he was quite encouraging because he was writing to the masses. But his "The Canon of Scripture" is a scholastic work and he was NO DIFFERENT from Metzger. Both books taught me the same thing about how the NT books came about.

I've already expressed some of the problems in this thread:

http://christianforums.com/t7146227-what-makes-pauls-letters-part-of-the-bible.html&page=4

But that's only the tip of the iceberg. I spoke at great length with my vicar and he tells me it's OK if I don't accept the canonicity of some books eg Hebrews, 2 Peter and Jude. It's OK if I believe the writers of the gospels eg Matthew try to turn the history of Jesus into something that will fulfil non-existent OT prophecies (because the writers could only read the Septuagint which contained errors and was not the same as the Hebrew OT in many areas).

But I'm left with very little. It's tough deciding which parts of the Bible are corrupt, etc etc. Metzger has another book on the corruption of the NT and other textual problems but I'm not buying it only because it's jointly written with Ehrman who I do not like.

Sometimes I wonder if the Christian faith is more easily practised if I had been ignorant of the canon. Perhaps I should have just read books for the masses, eg. Josh McDowell's New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. I saw his book at a bookshop the other day and I looked at what he had to say about the canon. It was shoddy work! It was calculated to make the Bible look good but it was WRONG. He quoted bits from some of the early Church fathers but he didn't show the real problems with the Bible that some other quotations would have revealed. He carefully put in only those parts that would help the case for the Bible. I was really disappointed.

I've stopped reading the Bible for a long time now because I can't be sure which parts are really from God. I should be more industrious because there are ways to decide which parts are the correct ones and which the corrupt ones. Some very good and honest commentaries can be of use here. But it makes reading the Bible too tiring and complicated.

Anyone has any views on this? I find it easier to get answers in the GA forum but there are too many atheists in GA and I don't want them to pounce on this.

 

[EvesAdam]

Ok; lets say there are certain books or chapters or even verses that you don't believe.

Then someone else says Oh I believe that but I just can't believe this.

This could go on and on.

So if you don't believe some thing are you doubting God?

2Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

There are many things we don't understand but that does not make it wrong.

If we knew everything about Scriptures we would know as much as God.

unlikely

TGIF

 

[beamishboy]

Ok; lets say there are certain books or chapters or even verses that you don't believe.

Then someone else says Oh I believe that but I just can't believe this.

This could go on and on.

So if you don't believe some thing are you doubting God?

2Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

There are many things we don't understand but that does not make it wrong.

If we knew everything about Scriptures we would know as much as God.

unlikely

TGIF

You must be careful when you quote that verse. The word that's translated "Scripture" is actually grafia which simply means "writing". Even if you translate it as "Scripture", what books specifically is Paul referring to? At the point he wrote that, it could only be at best the OT.

Some scholars have shown that that verse can in Greek be translated "All writing that is God-breathed is useful for..." This of course begs the question what writings are God-breathed. The verse certainly cannot be used to refer specifically to the 66 books of the Bible as God-breathed.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

read two books: Bruce Metzger's "The Canon of the New Testament" and FF Bruce's "The Canon of Scripture".

First off, Metzger and Bruce are great resources.

What I didn't know was scholars like FF Bruce wear different hats. In "Is the NT reliable?" he was quite encouraging because he was writing to the masses. But his "The Canon of Scripture" is a scholastic work and he was NO DIFFERENT from Metzger. Both books taught me the same thing about how the NT books came about.

Yes, the fact of the matter is that most scholars (and I agree with them) are going to tell you similar ideas about how the NT came to be. Oral tradition, Q, Marken Priority, Matthew's fun use of prophecy, combinations of Paul's letters to produce some of Paul's work, etc. These ideas are fairly standard.

The fact of the matter is that, from a scholarly perspective, most of the books of the NT were not written by eyewitnesses. However, lest I get jumped on myself, this does not mean that the Bible is not holy.

There are two ways of going about this. You can try to figure out what has been "corrupted" and only believe what is left. (This would be a historicist approach) or you can recognize that the Bible is still the word of God and approach it as such. In this view, you recognize that perhaps some of the things are from a later date. Perhaps some of Matthew's more "creative" uses of prophesy are a little stretched, but that doesn't mean that the text is useless.

When you first find out about the scholarly work being done on the Bible it can be like a huge can of worms. I for one went back and forth on this issue. How do we maintain a high view of Scripture when it doesn't seem to be historical? Well, you have already done it to a certain extent. When you realized that parts of Genesis cannot be literally historical you started interpreting it figuratively (arguably how it was meant to be interpreted from the beginning). Now the NT is a little different because for our faith to work parts of it have to be historical. Jesus had to have existed. He had to have died and risen again. etc. However, there are still ways of dealing with non-historical aspects of the texts.

For instance, if you want a really great scholar who can still communicate to the masses and is definitely a solid Christian check out N. T. Wright. Especially his book The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering who Jesus was and Is is an excellent introduction to the Historical Jesus studies and is refreshingly religious.

. Josh McDowell's New Evidence that Demands a Verdict

I would really advise against these types of books.

The one main piece of advise that I can give you is don't give up on it. Biblical Studies are a wonderful way of learning about your faith. Enjoy it, investigating a text can be an amazing experience if you let it.

Lastly, I know that I am going to get slammed by someone or another for my 'liberal' view of the Scripture. I am sorry if I offended people. Feel free to give him opposing advice.

 

[beamishboy]

First off, Metzger and Bruce are great resources.



Yes, the fact of the matter is that most scholars (and I agree with them) are going to tell you similar ideas about how the NT came to be. Oral tradition, Q, Marken Priority, Matthew's fun use of prophecy, combinations of Paul's letters to produce some of Paul's work, etc. These ideas are fairly standard.

The fact of the matter is that, from a scholarly perspective, most of the books of the NT were not written by eyewitnesses. However, lest I get jumped on myself, this does not mean that the Bible is not holy.

There are two ways of going about this. You can try to figure out what has been "corrupted" and only believe what is left. (This would be a historicist approach) or you can recognize that the Bible is still the word of God and approach it as such. In this view, you recognize that perhaps some of the things are from a later date. Perhaps some of Matthew's more "creative" uses of prophesy are a little stretched, but that doesn't mean that the text is useless.

When you first find out about the scholarly work being done on the Bible it can be like a huge can of worms. I for one went back and forth on this issue. How do we maintain a high view of Scripture when it doesn't seem to be historical? Well, you have already done it to a certain extent. When you realized that parts of Genesis cannot be literally historical you started interpreting it figuratively (arguably how it was meant to be interpreted from the beginning). Now the NT is a little different because for our faith to work parts of it have to be historical. Jesus had to have existed. He had to have died and risen again. etc. However, there are still ways of dealing with non-historical aspects of the texts.

For instance, if you want a really great scholar who can still communicate to the masses and is definitely a solid Christian check out N. T. Wright. Especially his book The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering who Jesus was and Is is an excellent introduction to the Historical Jesus studies and is refreshingly religious.



I would really advise against these types of books.

The one main piece of advise that I can give you is don't give up on it. Biblical Studies are a wonderful way of learning about your faith. Enjoy it, investigating a text can be an amazing experience if you let it.

Lastly, I know that I am going to get slammed by someone or another for my 'liberal' view of the Scripture. I am sorry if I offended people. Feel free to give him opposing advice.

Thanks. I don't think you should apologise. You're very knowledgeable and honest.

I must read NT Wright's books. He's a prelate in my church. My vicar knows him. He says the previous Bishop of Durham was theologically unsound because he even denied the historicity of Jesus.

 

[beamishboy]

Hi BeforeTheFoundation,

I really should say something else. You need not fear being slammed even by fundamentalists because this is an area fundamentalists will stay clear of. My vicar tells me that in fundamentalist-type seminaries, a thorough study of the canon is not a part of the syllabus. For them, you're supposed to take the whole Bible (all 66 books) as the Word of God. That's the premise they start with.

Because of this, their knowledge of the canon of the Bible and how each book came to be accepted is non-existent or very shoddy. Or they will take the Josh McDowell sort of position - unanimous decision from the apostles downwards. They will not debate in a thread like this because, in their own words, such a debate would be unedifying.

I know all this because my aunt lived in America for many years and she became fundamentalist. Her church is named after the road it is built on! No names of saints for her.

I have discussed the canon with her and she was very strong about this - any discussion that does not premise all 66 books of the Bible as the inerrant word of God had to stop. It's not edifying and it's blasphemous, she says.

So I asked her what made her think the 66 books were the Word of God? Some of the books were anonymous. The gospels did not have the titles in our Bible today and even modern Bibles will tell you that some parts were not originally there. She said her Bible bore the words "Holy Bible" and that was good enough for her. You just can't argue with her. I told her about the Muratorian Fragment and she shut her ears and prayed out loud!!! I actually felt contempt for her when she behaved that way. She was the one who sought me out to try to change me into a Baptist. She told me my altar boy surplice was Satan's garb which was insulting but when I told her what can easily be found even in FF Bruce's book, she shut her ears and prayed out loud.

So, you need not have any fear. My experience is that people stay clear of a topic such as this. Nobody is going to slam you for being "liberal" because if they had so much as half your knowledge, they'd be "liberal" themselves. For now, they'll just shut their ears (and eyes) and pray out loud.

 

[SimplyNothing]

Hi BeforeTheFoundation,

I really should say something else. You need not fear being slammed even by fundamentalists because this is an area fundamentalists will stay clear of. My vicar tells me that in fundamentalist-type seminaries, a thorough study of the canon is not a part of the syllabus. For them, you're supposed to take the whole Bible (all 66 books) as the Word of God. That's the premise they start with.

Because of this, their knowledge of the canon of the Bible and how each book came to be accepted is non-existent or very shoddy. Or they will take the Josh McDowell sort of position - unanimous decision from the apostles downwards. They will not debate in a thread like this because, in their own words, such a debate would be unedifying.

True story... sadly.

I know all this because my aunt lived in America for many years and she became fundamentalist. Her church is named after the road it is built on! No names of saints for her.

Denominational issues. Many denominations don't plaster the names of Saints over their churces. It doesn't happen in protestant faiths.

I have discussed the canon with her and she was very strong about this - any discussion that does not premise all 66 books of the Bible as the inerrant word of God had to stop. It's not edifying and it's blasphemous, she says.

Did you hand her the books?

So I asked her what made her think the 66 books were the Word of God? Some of the books were anonymous. The gospels did not have the titles in our Bible today and even modern Bibles will tell you that some parts were not originally there. She said her Bible bore the words "Holy Bible" and that was good enough for her. You just can't argue with her. I told her about the Muratorian Fragment and she shut her ears and prayed out loud!!! I actually felt contempt for her when she behaved that way. She was the one who sought me out to try to change me into a Baptist. She told me my altar boy surplice was Satan's garb which was insulting but when I told her what can easily be found even in FF Bruce's book, she shut her ears and prayed out loud.

Your aunt sounds silly. The Muratorian Fragment is a rather reliable list of NT books. It also proves that a few of the books weren't directly written by some of the Apostles, the manuscript itself originating in 170 AD and all.

And she shut her ears and prayed through this?

Lol...

So, you need not have any fear. My experience is that people stay clear of a topic such as this. Nobody is going to slam you for being "liberal" because if they had so much as half your knowledge, they'd be "liberal" themselves. For now, they'll just shut their ears (and eyes) and pray out loud.

There's nothing to discuss.

An atheist doesn't really have anything to say in this thread, and a fundamentalist Christian will avoid it.

I'm simply here to give you a hopefully welcomed pat on the back and a "good research" Kudos.

 

[beamishboy]

True story... sadly.



Denominational issues. Many denominations don't plaster the names of Saints over their churces. It doesn't happen in protestant faiths.



Did you hand her the books?



Your aunt sounds silly. The Muratorian Fragment is a rather reliable list of NT books. It also proves that a few of the books weren't directly written by some of the Apostles, the manuscript itself originating in 170 AD and all.

And she shut her ears and prayed through this?

Lol...



There's nothing to discuss.

An atheist doesn't really have anything to say in this thread, and a fundamentalist Christian will avoid it.

I'm simply here to give you a hopefully welcomed pat on the back and a "good research" Kudos.

Hi,

It's nice to hear from you again. No, I didn't give her the books. She's, as she would say it, "not the reading kind". She's the emotional sort of woman. She's the sort who likes American preachers - more dramatic. I've been to her church once (only once!). The preacher (don't you dare call him a vicar; she hates that word) shouted from time to time. He was dramatic. He didn't stand at the pulpit. He moved on the stage like a rock star and he spoke with theatrics. He sought "spontaneous" reaction from the congregation every now and then. He wore no surplice or cassock. My aunt cried! She was so moved. All her theology comes from hearing such preachers.

Anyway, my aunt thinks I'm bewitched or something. She has a group of friends from another church. This group is trying to talk her out of attending her Baptist church. They said she had to go to a "spirit-led church". I didn't make that one up. Those are their words. They claim to have prophetic abilities and they tell her that my church is the church of Satan. My aunt has been very troubled because I'll soon be made a thurifer because I'm older now and won't swing the incense indiscriminately. She seems to think the thurible and incense are a part of Satan worship. I once bumped into my aunt in Oxford Street and she was with this group of three ladies. My aunt invited me to go with them for a drink. I was meeting some friends and was still early so I joined them. One of them who was American (I could tell from her accent) led in grace and she asked God to "cover me with the blood of Jesus". Again, I didn't make that one up. I was so embarrassed because she said it at the top of her voice and we were in a rather elegant cafe and the other customers cast surreptitious glances at me. The blood (mine; not Jesus') must have shot up to my face because from a reflection in a mirror, I saw that I was red as a beetroot.

My Mum thinks my aunt is influenced by her weird friends.

 

[SimplyNothing]

Hi,

It's nice to hear from you again. No, I didn't give her the books. She's, as she would say it, "not the reading kind". She's the emotional sort of woman. She's the sort who likes American preachers - more dramatic. I've been to her church once (only once!). The preacher (don't you dare call him a vicar; she hates that word) shouted from time to time. He was dramatic. He didn't stand at the pulpit. He moved on the stage like a rock star and he spoke with theatrics. He sought "spontaneous" reaction from the congregation every now and then. He wore no surplice or cassock. My aunt cried! She was so moved. All her theology comes from hearing such preachers.

Anyway, my aunt thinks I'm bewitched or something. She has a group of friends from another church. This group is trying to talk her out of attending her Baptist church. They said she had to go to a "spirit-led church". I didn't make that one up. Those are their words. They claim to have prophetic abilities and they tell her that my church is the church of Satan. My aunt has been very troubled because I'll soon be made a thurifer because I'm older now and won't swing the incense indiscriminately. She seems to think the thurible and incense are a part of Satan worship. I once bumped into my aunt in Oxford Street and she was with this group of three ladies. My aunt invited me to go with them for a drink. I was meeting some friends and was still early so I joined them. One of them who was American (I could tell from her accent) led in grace and she asked God to "cover me with the blood of Jesus". Again, I didn't make that one up. I was so embarrassed because she said it at the top of her voice and we were in a rather elegant cafe and the other customers cast surreptitious glances at me. The blood (mine; not Jesus') must have shot up to my face because from a reflection in a mirror, I saw that I was red as a beetroot.

My Mum thinks my aunt is influenced by her weird friends.

Some terms that Christian use are weird too.

When I preach I rarely stand at the pulpit as well. I like to move around... sometimes into the audience. I enjoy using humor, and I enjoy helping people understand difficult theological concepts in a new and exciting way.

Different denominations... that's all.

I don't enjoy the term spirit led church. A lot of people use it, and it makes no sense. All churches are led by the spirit. The only churches not led by the spirit (this being Jesus as the head of the church) are the ones neglecting the teachings, life, and resurrection of Jesus.

Her version of a spirit-led church is a church that follows what she considered sound theological concepts.

 

[beamishboy]

Some terms that Christian use are weird too.

When I preach I rarely stand at the pulpit as well. I like to move around... sometimes into the audience. I enjoy using humor, and I enjoy helping people understand difficult theological concepts in a new and exciting way.

Different denominations... that's all.

I don't enjoy the term spirit led church. A lot of people use it, and it makes no sense. All churches are led by the spirit. The only churches not led by the spirit (this being Jesus as the head of the church) are the ones neglecting the teachings, life, and resurrection of Jesus.

Her version of a spirit-led church is a church that follows what she considered sound theological concepts.

You can't do that in my church. The priest has to go up the steps to the pulpit and you're restricted to one spot unless you jump off the pulpit and break your legs. I've been to many Anglican churches and they're mainly like this.

In my Aunt's church, the front is just like a stage. The pulpit is the same level as the stage. There is no altar.

 

[SimplyNothing]

You can't do that in my church. The priest has to go up the steps to the pulpit and you're restricted to one spot unless you jump off the pulpit and break your legs. I've been to many Anglican churches and they're mainly like this.

In my Aunt's church, the front is just like a stage. The pulpit is the same level as the stage. There is no altar.

There's an altar at my church. Up the altar is a pulpit, and a baptism tank.

I like to get personal with an audience though. I want to grab their attention before delving into difficult to understand concepts.

 

[beamishboy]

There's an altar at my church. Up the altar is a pulpit, and a baptism tank.

I like to get personal with an audience though. I want to grab their attention before delving into difficult to understand concepts.

Yes, hers has a large fish-tank with a curtain covering it. When she told me it was for baptism, I didn't believe her at first. I thought she was joking.

One would've thought it'd be unsafe for babies - you could drown them if you accidentally dropped them in the tank. Maybe that's why they don't baptise babies. They've got to push the person underwater. They believe in baptism by dunking.

 

[SimplyNothing]

One would've thought it'd be unsafe for babies - you could drown them if you accidentally dropped them in the tank. Maybe that's why they don't baptise babies. They've got to push the person underwater. They believe in baptism by dunking.

The Baptism of babies makes very little sense to me.

Why?

They have made no decision to follow Christ. Theologically... after you became a Christian, the first thing you were supposed to do was find water, and get baptised.

Key word being after.

A baby has made no decision to follow Christ.

What's your opinion on this?

 

[beamishboy]

The Baptism of babies makes very little sense to me.

Why?

They have made no decision to follow Christ. Theologically... after you became a Christian, the first thing you were supposed to do was find water, and get baptised.

Key word being after.

A baby has made no decision to follow Christ.

What's your opinion on this?

I always associate baptism with babies. Very few adults are baptised unless they converted from another religion, eg. the recent convert from Islam who was baptised by the Pope and has caused so much publicity. Shops sell clothes for baptism and they're all for babies.

My baptism clothes are more than 100 years old. It's been worn by the male babies of many generations and it looks terribly Victorian. My Grandpa wore them too, as did my Dad.

 

[SimplyNothing]

I always associate baptism with babies. Very few adults are baptised unless they converted from another religion, eg. the recent convert from Islam who was baptised by the Pope and has caused so much publicity. Shops sell clothes for baptism and they're all for babies.

My baptism clothes are more than 100 years old. It's been worn by the male babies of many generations and it looks terribly Victorian. My Grandpa wore them too, as did my Dad.

I'm not even necessarily referring to adults. Anyone who makes a personal decision to follow Christ should be baptised. Some of the Youth I have worked with for years... even really strong Christian's... still have yet to be baptised.

So again... argument out of tradition on your side? (I don't know how to spin this to sound like a good thing, but understand I by no means am saying the traditions you are used to or bad or wrong. I just couldn't think of any other words.)

 

[beamishboy]

I'm not even necessarily referring to adults. Anyone who makes a personal decision to follow Christ should be baptised. Some of the Youth I have worked with for years... even really strong Christian's... still have yet to be baptised.

So again... argument out of tradition on your side? (I don't know how to spin this to sound like a good thing, but understand I by no means am saying the traditions you are used to or bad or wrong. I just couldn't think of any other words.)

Yes, ultimately, a lot depends on what we're used to.

 

[SimplyNothing]

Yes, ultimately, a lot depends on what we're used to.

Depends what you're raised around I guess.

Do you see any theological backing for it?

 

[drich0150]

Hasn't the anyone the courage to tell the Emperor he has no cloths?

I guess you already know with knowledge comes selfrighteous pride. I already know and yield to your knowledge of scripture, and translation. so I won't bother there.
But if you will suffer a fool a story maybe i'll be able to prove a small point.

There was a young man i'll call Bubba. Bubba wanted to be a shrimp'n boat skipper all his life. But just before he could get a boat of his very own, he was drafted in to the Army, where he met another young man by the name of Forest. (the last name isn't important to this story)

Forrest was a simple man much like myself, and bubba was too, so naturally they hit it off (kinda like peas and carrots) well Bubba's natural love for the shrimp'n business spilled over into the time Forrest and Bubba spent together, and Bubba knew just about everything there was to know about the shrimp'n business.. and, he relayed that to forrest.. They spent so much time talking about Shrimp'n Bubba decided to ask Forrest to work with him after the war was over, Forrest accepted. well long story short Bubba died, and Forest came into a small fortune at the end of the war.

Forrest decided to honor Bubba's memory by buying a commercial shrimp'n boat and name the company after bubba and himself.. Well Forrest listened to bubba very well, and hung on every word.. but Forrest soon found out that "Shrimp'n" wasn't as easy as buying a boat, and knowing it and the gear from top to bottom stem to stern.. Infact there was a great deal more to shrimp'n than just knowing the boat or even where to fish...

Now forrest not being a particular religious person saw the need to ask God for help, because for all he knew about the boat, gear and where to fish.. he knew there was an element missing.. he didn't know what it was, but Forrest knew being a little slower than most he knew he didn't know everything.. (Even if Bubba told him everything there was to know about the shrimp'n business)

So he asked God to intercede for him.. Now God didn't come to him in a dream or send an Angle to sprinkle magic angle water on him.. God sent a Hurricane to rain down fear and destruction... Forrest weathered the storm, and I'm sure his knowledge of the boat and gear were a key part of that, but it was still only a part.. The story ends by forrest finding the shrimp, and in Bubba's memory giving his mama what would be bubba's share of the money.. oh and he helped out his home church...

So I know if you've already heard/seen this story somewhere else you patience is running thin, so I'll be brief.

You are Forrest. You think because you've heard a "shrimp'n boat captain" tell you everything he knew about the shrimp'n business, that you know everything there is to know about the shrimp'n business...
When infact you know only what you have learned.. and if your really only 13 and started this "quest" at ten then you only have 3 years of understanding.. Where as the people your learning from have spent there lives to dedicated to this endeavor.

Now granted you have learned more in three years about what "other men" think about the bible than I will ever know.. but that's the fatal flaw here..
it's the same flaw as found in the world's religion of Science and History.. Your knowledge can only be as dependable as the persons research, that came before you.

Granted from my meager understanding most of it is probably pretty accurate.. but alot of it is also conjecture and speculation.. And to top it all off, like "Forrest" you main goal isn't learning the vessel or the gear, these things are just a means to an end.. your out there to "fish," but somewhere along the way, your "fishing trip" has brought you no futher than the boat...

In other words Instead a relationship with Jesus you worship at the alter of The cannon and commentary.. (that's the no cloths part.) If you want to really know what to do with the unreliable parts of the bible ask God.. or you could always ask him to show you what it is your actually out here for (the fishing part)... What ever you ask.. Ask him to show you no matter the cost, Ask him to Break physically/spiritually if necessary.. ask him to show you even if it costs your life.. Do you think you can do that, and really mean to see it thru?? even unto death?? Or do you think you'll be simply content mocking those with greater faith than knowledge??

I'm not saying you have to die to understand. i just want you to seriously consider your devotion to this cause.. how badly do you want to know??? If you really want answers then knock and keep knocking till someone opens that door (And then hold on)

 

[beamishboy]

Hasn't the anyone the courage to tell the Emperor he has no cloths?

I guess you already know with knowledge comes selfrighteous pride. I already know and yield to your knowledge of scripture, and translation. so I won't bother there.
But if you will suffer a fool a story maybe i'll be able to prove a small point.

There was a young man i'll call Bubba. Bubba wanted to be a shrimp'n boat skipper all his life. But just before he could get a boat of his very own, he was drafted in to the Army, where he met another young man by the name of Forest. (the last name isn't important to this story)

Forrest was a simple man much like myself, and bubba was too, so naturally they hit it off (kinda like peas and carrots) well Bubba's natural love for the shrimp'n business spilled over into the time Forrest and Bubba spent together, and Bubba knew just about everything there was to know about the shrimp'n business.. and, he relayed that to forrest.. They spent so much time talking about Shrimp'n Bubba decided to ask Forrest to work with him after the war was over, Forrest accepted. well long story short Bubba died, and Forest came into a small fortune at the end of the war.

Forrest decided to honor Bubba's memory by buying a commercial shrimp'n boat and name the company after bubba and himself.. Well Forrest listened to bubba very well, and hung on every word.. but Forrest soon found out that "Shrimp'n" wasn't as easy as buying a boat, and knowing it and the gear from top to bottom stem to stern.. Infact there was a great deal more to shrimp'n than just knowing the boat or even where to fish...

Now forrest not being a particular religious person saw the need to ask God for help, because for all he knew about the boat, gear and where to fish.. he knew there was an element missing.. he didn't know what it was, but Forrest knew being a little slower than most he knew he didn't know everything.. (Even if Bubba told him everything there was to know about the shrimp'n business)

So he asked God to intercede for him.. Now God didn't come to him in a dream or send an Angle to sprinkle magic angle water on him.. God sent a Hurricane to rain down fear and destruction... Forrest weathered the storm, and I'm sure his knowledge of the boat and gear were a key part of that, but it was still only a part.. The story ends by forrest finding the shrimp, and in Bubba's memory giving his mama what would be bubba's share of the money.. oh and he helped out his home church...

So I know if you've already heard/seen this story somewhere else you patience is running thin, so I'll be brief.

You are Forrest. You think because you've heard a "shrimp'n boat captain" tell you everything he knew about the shrimp'n business, that you know everything there is to know about the shrimp'n business...
When infact you know only what you have learned.. and if your really only 13 and started this "quest" at ten then you only have 3 years of understanding.. Where as the people your learning from have spent there lives to dedicated to this endeavor.

Now granted you have learned more in three years about what "other men" think about the bible than I will ever know.. but that's the fatal flaw here..
it's the same flaw as found in the world's religion of Science and History.. Your knowledge can only be as dependable as the persons research, that came before you.

Granted from my meager understanding most of it is probably pretty accurate.. but alot of it is also conjecture and speculation.. And to top it all off, like "Forrest" you main goal isn't learning the vessel or the gear, these things are just a means to an end.. your out there to "fish," but somewhere along the way, your "fishing trip" has brought you no futher than the boat...

In other words Instead a relationship with Jesus you worship at the alter of The cannon and commentary.. (that's the no cloths part.) If you want to really know what to do with the unreliable parts of the bible ask God.. or you could always ask him to show you what it is your actually out here for (the fishing part)... What ever you ask.. Ask him to show you no matter the cost, Ask him to Break physically/spiritually if necessary.. ask him to show you even if it costs your life.. Do you think you can do that, and really mean to see it thru?? even unto death?? Or do you think you'll be simply content mocking those with greater faith than knowledge??

I'm not saying you have to die to understand. i just want you to seriously consider your devotion to this cause.. how badly do you want to know??? If you really want answers then knock and keep knocking till someone opens that door (And then hold on)

Hi, thanks for the long reply. I'm not mocking people with greater faith. I'm just desperately seeking answers from older and wiser people. So far, I've not been able to come up with answers.

My vicar tells me everything is OK. But if everything is not really OK if so much of the Bible is unreliable. Actually, I have prayed to God for help but as always, God NEVER replies. The world's history has shown that God didn't reply when mothers wailed to him about their dying children. The early Church saw martyrs begging God for mercy but they saw themselves and their children thrown into lions' dens to be eaten up and watched with glee by Roman spectators. God didn't answer them, he didn't answer Christians and Jews who were killed by Nazis together with their children and infants. I was presumptuous to think God would answer me and so I prayed. But of course there was no answer.

I work hard to keep my faith because the lure of atheism is very strong when I consider all these things. As Paul says - we should work on our salvation with fear and trembling. My constant prayer is to ask Jesus to help my unbelief.

 

[uberd00b]

Hasn't the anyone the courage to tell the Emperor he has no cloths?

That's what the atheists are trying to do.

*Points at his usertitle*