Is the Bible wrong?
- Thread starter JohnR7
- Start date
JohnR7 said:
Ok, then why does it say Christians are not allowed to kill, yet the Pope ordered tens of thousands of Crusaders to give up everything they had, walk across half of the knonw world and fight a group that was not threatening them?
Upvote
0
E
Esayah
Guest
Why do you guys try to talk to John? He's utterly ignorant and entirely unwilling to learn. If he's not a troll, he's stupid, and if he's not stupid he's insane. Time and time again he's shown that not only can he not be convinced of ANYTHING contrary to his current opinions, he'll insult your character for suggesting that he might be wrong. There is no point arguing with him, troll, stupid, or crazy.
Unless you find this fun, you're wasting your time.
Unless you find this fun, you're wasting your time.
Upvote
0
Abongil said:
I am not a catholic, or a expert on the catholic beliefs, so you will have to ask them about it.
Upvote
0
John, you both argued that there was no world wide flood, and that the bible is correct. on the basis of the following (bold emphasis mine), how do you reconcile the two statements that you have made:
Genesis 7: (NIV)
17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perishedbirds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
Nomr
Genesis 7: (NIV)
17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perishedbirds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
Nomr
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Abongil said:
A good place to start would be in the beginning. Science now believes that there was a beginning, just like the Bible says there was. So in the very first sentance in the Bible, science verifys the truthfullness of there being a beginning.
Upvote
0
JohnR7 said:
For goodness sake. Nothing in the New Testament has anything to do with science. It isn't a science textbook.
The reason why the Bible isn't disproven by science is that it doesn't talk about anything that science deals with.
If the book of Genesis is interpreted as dealing with scientific issues (and this would be a forced interpretation remember) then it is completely falsified by science. For example, there is no such thing as a 'first man'.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
dawiyd said:
Here are seven rules of Bible interpretation. Usually when there is a problem then one of these rules has been broken.
Here are the seven rules:
1) The rule of DEFINITION: What does the word mean? Any study of Scripture must begin with a study of words. Define your terms and then keep to the terms defined. The interpreter should conscientiously abide by the plain meaning of the words. This quite often may require using a Hebrew/English or Greek/English lexicon in order to make sure that the sense of the English translation is understood. A couple of good examples of this are the Greek words "allos" and "heteros". Both are usually translated as "another" in English - yet "allos" literally means "another of the same type" and "heteros" means "another of a different type."
2) The rule of USAGE: It must be remembered that the Old Testament was written originally by, to and for Jews. The words and idioms must have been intelligible to them - just as the words of Christ when talking to them must have been. The majority of the New Testament likewise was written in a milieu of Greco-Roman (and to a lesser extent Jewish) culture and it is important to not impose our modern usage into our interpretation. It is not worth much to interpret a great many phrases and histories if one's interpretations are shaded by pre-conceived notions and cultural biases, thereby rendering an inaccurate and ineffectual lesson.
3) The rule of CONTEXT: The meaning must be gathered from the context. Every word you read must be understood in the light of the words that come before and after it. Many passages will not be understood at all, or understood incorrectly, without the help afforded by the context. A good example of this is the Mormon practice of using 1 Cor. 8:5b: "...for there be gods many and lords many..." as a "proof text" of their doctrine of polytheism. However, a simple reading of the whole verse in the context of the whole chapter (e.g. where Paul calls these gods "so-called"), plainly demonstrates that Paul is not teaching polytheism.
4) The rule of HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: The interpreter must have some awareness of the life and society of the times in which the Scripture was written. The spiritual principle will be timeless but often can't be properly appreciated without some knowledge of the background. If the interpreter can have in his mind what the writer had in his mind when he wrote - without adding any excess baggage from the interpreter's own culture or society - then the true thought of the Scripture can be captured resulting in an accurate interpretation. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Our only interest in the past is for the light it throws upon the present."
5) The rule of LOGIC: Interpretation is merely logical reasoning. When interpreting Scripture, the use of reason is everywhere to be assumed. Does the interpretation make sense? The Bible was given to us in the form of human language and therefore appeals to human reason - it invites investigation. It is to be interpreted as we would any other volume: applying the laws of language and grammatical analysis. As Bernard Ramm said:
"What is the control we use to weed out false theological speculation? Certainly the control is logic and evidence... interpreters who have not had the sharpening experience of logic...may have improper notions of implication and evidence. Too frequently such a person uses a basis of appeal that is a notorious violation of the laws of logic and evidence." (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, Boston:W. A. Wilde, 1956)
6) The rule of PRECEDENT: We must not violate the known usage of a word and invent another for which there is no precedent. Just as a judge's chief occupation is the study of previous cases, so must the interpreter use precedents in order to determine whether they really support an alleged doctrine. Consider the Bereans in Acts 17:10-12 who were called "noble" because they searched the Scriptures to determine if what Paul taught them was true.
7) The rule of INFERENCE: An inference is a fact reasonably implied from another fact. It is a logical consequence. It derives a con- clusion from a given fact or premise. It is the deduction of one proposition from another proposition. Such inferential facts or propositions are sufficiently binding when their truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. Competent evidence means such evidence as the nature of the thing to be proved admits. Satisfactory evidence means that amount of proof which would ordinarily satisfy an unprejudiced mind beyond a reasonable doubt. Jesus used this rule when he proved the resurrection of the dead to the unbelieving Sadducees in Matt. 22:23-33.
Learning these seven rules and properly applying them will help keep any interpreter from making errors and will hopefully alleviate many of the disagreements unfortunately present in Christianity today.
"A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: to understand a proverb, and the interpretation." (Prov. 1:5,6)
Upvote
0
JohnR7 said:
Great....now stop avoiding the question, what interpretation of the Bible is correct, because if you don't give us a definite answer you can keep using this
JohnR7 said:
All day
Upvote
0
JohnR7 said:
Detailed examples? If that is proof, then it only proves the Old Testament and the Jews correct, but that has nothing to do with Christianity being correct...
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I
Ioinc
Guest
JohnR7 said:
Lets take history....
Lets take the first gospel
Early in the gospel Matthew attempts to show that Jesus Christ is of Davidic decent (and therefore fulfills an OT prophecy)
Matthew 1:17 and the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.
Lets look at Matthews lists.
The first set of fourteen are:
1) Abraham
2) Isaac
3) Jacob
4) Judas [Judah]
5) Phares [Perez]
6) Esrom [Hezron]
7) Aram [Ram]
8) Aminadab
9) Nasson [Nahshon]
10) Salmon
11) Booz
12) Obed
13) Jesse
14) David
The next set of 14 is:
1) Solomon
2) Roboam
3) Abia
4) Asa
5) Josaphat
6) Joram
7) Ozias
8) Joatham
9) Achaz
10) Ezecias
11) Manasses
12) Amon
13) Josias
14) Jechonias,
This list is actually just incorrect in genealogy.
Matthew goes from Joram to Ozias. Matthew 1:8 and Joram begat Ozias
Joram died in 844 B.C. and Ozias did not being his reign until 780 B.C.
This 64 year gap was actually filled with 3 kings.
Joram had a son, Ahaziah who was succeeded by his son Joash, who was succeded by his son Amaziah.
Ozias was actually the son of Amaziah. The names are simply missing. The bible is wrong.
The bible is also wrong when it omits yet another king . Matthew 1:11 And Josias begat Jechonias
This is not correct. Josias was the father of Jehoiakim, who was the father of Jechonias.
The next group of 14 is:
1) Salathiel
2) Zorobabel
3) Abiud
4) Eliakim
5) Azor
6) Sadoc
7) Achim
8) Eliud
9) Elezar
10) Matthan
11) Jacom
12) Joseph
13) And Joseph the husband of Mary to whom Jesus was born.
A name is missing. Even if your bible was correct it looks like it would not matter since in all the various copies of it that were made things were omitted (like the 14th name of this list).
It is also of note that Matthew is following the genealogy of Jesus thru Joseph, who is not actually related to Jesus (according to Matthew)
Matthew goes on to give an incorrect translation ending up with a virgin birth.
Perhaps Matthew felt the need to include a birth for his fictional hero because this was a popular theme of the time.
The twin brothers Romulus and Remus are (in legend) described as being of virgin birth. Their mother, Silvia, was a vestal virgin whose children were fathered by Mars.
In this short version your bible is wrong, incomplete, and based on the fiction of other (earlier myths)
Upvote
0
Similar threads
