Is the Bible correct?

JohnT · May 25, 2008

On a now-closed thread, KCKID wrote in post #776 in an effort to discredit Scripture, and thus make a case for the pro homosexual agenda:

I just grabbed this statement from your rather lengthy post. What I'm about to say has been said a number of times previously but it (obviously) takes some time to sink in. Peter could NOT have been talking about the NT at the time the words he said/wrote were stated.

He, nor anyone else of his day, would have had an inkling that they would eventually be a part of the two canons of scripture. This scripture could NOT have been referring to Paul or ANYONE ELSE who was alive at that time.

That scripture is referring SOLELY to the Old Testament. We have no (logical) reason to believe that the NT writers were led by a divine hand. Just because YOU might say that the NT is the word of God and the Christian Church might say that the NT is the word of God that does not necessarily make the NT the word of God.

Whether or not the OT is the word of God or also of man is, I guess, open to dicussion elsewhere.

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh...

1 Corinthians 1:1Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 2Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours...

2 Corinthians 1:1 1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia: 2Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ...

Galatians 1: 1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead 2And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: 3Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ...

Ephesians 1: 1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: 2Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

LEFT OTHER BOOKS OUT, FOR POINT IS ESTABLISHED

JAMES 1 (THE BROTHER OF CHRIST, THE BISHOP OF JERUSALEM) 1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. 2My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; 3Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.

1Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ...

2 Peter 1 1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ

Jude: 1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called...

Nice theory, but the facts strongly refute it

AetheriusLamia · May 25, 2008

Nothing you've quoted refutes what was stated. Yes, the man was a servant of Christ, a disciple, an apostle. What's your point? That your Bible has that in the title? ...

The fact is that the Bible is a gathering of miscellaneous writings and oral traditions gathered over the ages, canonized by the Roman Catholic Church, later edited by Martin Luther to exclude bits he found superfluous. And not every religious writing about Jesus Christ made it into the Bible. I would highly recommend reading about the history of the Bible, and how it came to be what you know today. Wikipedia is typically a good place to start; they typically have good references at the bottom for you to investigate at your leisure. See also the Wikipedia article regarding Biblical canon.

onemessiah · May 26, 2008

Actually, what KCKID said makes a lot of sense.
I don't believe that your response refuted him either, because obviously the NT was written after the OT, and as such, it could be easy to claim so and so was called upon to be an apostle after the fact. And that's where the post above me regarding canonization comes into play...
It's fair to say that the bible was carefully crafted to paint a certain picture.

lincolngreen50 · May 26, 2008

Is the Bible correct?.........Yes!

Polycarp1 · May 26, 2008

You know, I hate this sort of thread. Because, with what I'm convinced is unintentional arrogance, the OPs of threads like this create a logically invalid dichotomy with an enormous excluded middle.

The ostensible setup is, "Either the Bible is true, or it's not true." But, and I believe in most cases this is not the intent, the actual, unspoken assumptions underlying the setup result in the dichotomy which is really intended being, "Either you believe in the Bible understood according to my personal hermeneutic, with all the assumptions that I bring to the Bible and read into it, ore you don't believe that the Bible every says one useful word to anybody, and you probably do the latter because, unlike me, you're arguing with a particular agenda."

The Bible is quite true, as what it is. But the presumptions that John T or KCKid or any of us, me included, bring to it, may or may not be.

Polycarp1 · May 26, 2008

You know, I hate this sort of thread. Because, with what I'm convinced is unintentional arrogance, the OPs of threads like this create a logically invalid dichotomy with an enormous excluded middle.

The ostensible setup is, "Either the Bible is true, or it's not true." But, and I believe in most cases this is not the intent, the actual, unspoken assumptions underlying the setup result in the dichotomy which is really intended being, "Either you believe in the Bible understood according to my personal hermeneutic, with all the assumptions that I bring to the Bible and read into it, ore you don't believe that the Bible every says one useful word to anybody, and you probably do the latter because, unlike me, you're arguing with a particular agenda."

The Bible is quite true, as what it is. But the presumptions that John T or KCKid or any of us, me included, bring to it, may or may not be.

Ave Maria · May 26, 2008

Deleted

AetheriusLamia · May 26, 2008

onemessiah said:
It's fair to say that the bible was carefully crafted to paint a certain picture.

Another way of saying that would be, "They selected all the writings that most coherently fit together." I wouldn't say they necessarily had an agenda when they did it, other than they wished to compile as much fact-based info as they could.

Ave Maria · May 26, 2008

AetheriusLamia said:
Another way of saying that would be, "They selected all the writings that most coherently fit together." I wouldn't say they necessarily had an agenda when they did it, other than they wished to compile as much fact-based info as they could.

If the Bible writers wished to compile as much fact-based info as they could, then why did they include myths such as the story of Jonah and the Whale?

AetheriusLamia · May 26, 2008

PaladinGirl said:
If the Bible writers wished to compile as much fact-based info as they could, then why did they include myths such as the story of Jonah and the Whale?

Because it teaches more Jewish morality. I suppose I should have said "consistent." They disregarded writings from various religious sects that contradicted previous writings; a bit like collecting a bunch of the river silt and sifting for gold.

I think I meant "authentic," not necessarily fact-based. You know, "this writing came from a jewish scholar/priest of this time period," vs. "this is heresy from this other region, throw it out."

JohnT · May 26, 2008

Polycarp1;47107807 The ostensible setup is said:
actual[/B], unspoken assumptions underlying the setup result in the dichotomy which is really intended being, "Either you believe in the Bible understood according to my personal hermeneutic, with all the assumptions that I bring to the Bible and read into it, ore you don't believe that the Bible every says one useful word to anybody, and you probably do the latter because, unlike me, you're arguing with a particular agenda."

Deal with the issue in the OP, or not. That is your choice.

Leave psychology to the experts. I do not think you are licensed in the profession.

OllieFranz · May 26, 2008

JohnT said:
Deal with the issue in the OP, or not. That is your choice.

Leave psychology to the experts. I do not think you are licensed in the profession.

What Polycarp1 was saying is that the OP, as phrased, is a set-up and a blatant attempt to call everyone who does not understand the Bible exactly the way you interpret it, a heretic and a liar. What you are calling the "psychology" was an attempt give you an excuse to let you back up and rephrase it without guilt or shame. Since you want to deal with the OP as is, you obviously are OK with the fact that your argument is unChristian, unloving, and untrue. In that case, there is nothing more to say.

JohnT · May 26, 2008

OllieFranz said:
What Polycarp1 was saying is that the OP, as phrased, is a set-up and a blatant attempt to call everyone who does not understand the Bible exactly the way you interpret it, a heretic and a liar. What you are calling the "psychology" was an attempt give you an excuse to let you back up and rephrase it without guilt or shame. Since you want to deal with the OP as is, you obviously are OK with the fact that your argument is unChristian, unloving, and untrue. In that case, there is nothing more to say.

Can we say the words, "ad homineum agenda", folks?

Obviously the poster does not like the OP, and wants to hijack it, by casting aspersions on the premise of the OP, and by extension anyone who dares to take up the position that God did not stutter when He, through the work of Holy Spirit and the unique personalities of men, caused the Bible to be written.

Either you believe in the Bible understood according to my personal hermeneutic, with all the assumptions that I bring to the Bible and read into it, ore you don't believe that the Bible every says one useful word to anybody, and you probably do the latter because, unlike me, you're arguing with a particular agenda

Polycarp1 is creating a false dichotomy; that is a debate pitfall into which I will not go.

And when he goes to the issue of intent, he is delving into psychology, for which he is not qualified, and if he were to be qualified, he would know that what he did was unethical.

Finally notice the words he uses to describe the Bible: unChristian, unloving, and untrue WOW! That is a contradiction in terms and definition. For how can the AUTHOR of Scripture, God the Father deny in deed or word what he through God the Son practiced and taught and what God, Holy Spirit inspired? If he actually means what he wrote, the poster is presenting a schizophrenic god, one who is at odds with himself.

kiwimac · May 27, 2008

Actually I find far more truth in what Polycarp has to say than what you are trying to say. Each person necessarily interprets scripture according to their own world-view and out of their own milieu, it is simply the way it is.

onemessiah · May 27, 2008

AetheriusLamia said:
Another way of saying that would be, "They selected all the writings that most coherently fit together." I wouldn't say they necessarily had an agenda when they did it, other than they wished to compile as much fact-based info as they could.

They selected all the writings that most coherently fit together

Click to expand...

....in order to paint a certain picture.

lol..."fact based info" has nothing to do with the bible, or any other book that talks about angels and magic and talking donkeys.

Phinehas2 · May 27, 2008

Dear John T

This is actually the basis of the whole discussion on this section of the forum, those who believe the Biblical testimony of our God and those who don’t for various deceptive reasons.

onemessiah · May 27, 2008

Phinehas2 said:
Dear John T

This is actually the basis of the whole discussion on this section of the forum, those who believe the Biblical testimony of our God and those who dont for various deceptive reasons.

Nice....so because we reject your bible, we're deceptive?
And you wonder why people don't become christians??

Phinehas2 · May 27, 2008

Dear Polycarp1,

"Either you believe in the Bible understood according to my personal hermeneutic, with all the assumptions that I bring to the Bible and read into it, ore you don't believe that the Bible every says one useful word to anybody, and you probably do the latter because, unlike me, you're arguing with a particular agenda."

That’s not the issue as has been discussed many times before. The truth is the Bible says what it says, many here dispute what it says. In the case of same-sex sex it only countenances man/woman unions, it describes them as God’s creation purpose, which logically excludes same-sex unions, and it describes sex outside of man/woman faithful marriage, which same-sex sex is, as sin, and it condemns directly and indirectly same-sex unions in 9 passages.
These are taken in context and holistically, to show us same-sex sex is error.
The argument for same-sex sex is based solely on disputing every passage, and It’s the very definition of disbelief, not hermeneutics or interpretation.

onemessiah · May 27, 2008

Phinehas2 said:
Dear Polycarp1,
Thats not the issue as has been discussed many times before. The truth is the Bible says what it says, many here dispute what it says. In the case of same-sex sex it only countenances man/woman unions, it describes them as Gods creation purpose, which logically excludes same-sex unions, and it describes sex outside of man/woman faithful marriage, which same-sex sex is, as sin, and it condemns directly and indirectly same-sex unions in 9 passages.
These are taken in context and holistically, to show us same-sex sex is error.
The argument for same-sex sex is based solely on disputing every passage, and Its the very definition of disbelief, not hermeneutics or interpretation.

Problem is is that the bible has no authority, unless you're a christian. And that authority is only over christians. So keep it that way, instead of trying to force the bible down the world's collective throat.

Phinehas2 · May 27, 2008

Dear Onemessiah,

Nice....so because we reject your bible, we're deceptive?

Its not my Bible, its THE Bible and take some of the translations such as KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, CEV and the all say the same sort of thing.
Who wrote your Bible then and what translation and version is it?

And you wonder why people don't become christians??

We know why people dont become Christians, THE Bible tells us, and there are various reasons.

Is the Bible correct?

Regular Member

Regular Member

onemessiah

Guest

A follower of Christ

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian

Ave Maria Gratia Plena

Regular Member

Ave Maria Gratia Plena

Regular Member

Regular Member

Senior Member

Regular Member

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian

onemessiah

Guest

Phinehas2

Guest

onemessiah

Guest

Phinehas2

Guest

onemessiah

Guest

Phinehas2

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency