My "Do atheists understand the Bible" Challenge

[John 1720]

A lot of stuff in there but the basics seems to be.
Jesus competed the mission he was sent to accomplish to the glory of God.
Then a long prayer that the elect, who would suffer persecution for being in the world but not of it would continue to glorify God and realize their hope of reunion with Jesus and God.
I could go into more details but that seems to be the general thrust of it.

Did it speak to you or resonate with you at all? I really believe it shows us the very heart of Christ. For a believer the Word is alive. It is like Jesus speaking directly to us, knowing we are the object of His love. It impels us deeper. It is on the surface gold in itself but there is so much more to mine in the depths of what we find there. Where your treasure is there will be your heart also is a pretty profound statement. Like you I love my family dearly but my journey has brought me to comprehend the love of loves through Christ, and that has changed my life. It is a journey full of wonder and insight into the love of God and He is directing the tour. I may never quite know where the bus is going. - John 3:8
Rather than short facts about John 17 I see the love Jesus has for the Father, the love the Father has for Him, the love which equals life eternal, which He wants to share - not only with the apostles but with those who will believe through them. How can we believe through them if all of them have been dead for more than 1900 years? Their words are recorded here and when I read I believe and taste that the Lord is good. The difference maker really is having a real encounter with the Lord of love and glory and it that is the power to transform our hearts to begin to walk like Jesus.

May God bless you and your family,
in Christ, Patrick

 

[Norbert L]

There was a lot of good stuff in there and the one element that really jumped out to me was your statement about a clear picture of reality. You said atheists don't think God, in the bible, is giving a more clear picture of reality. I agree but I wonder if you have any way to demonstrate that he is giving a more clear picture of reality?

Reality as I was using the word in my sentence is about how people perceive this present world, their world view. We are the blind men and as a whole the world has different explanations about what's in our room. Is there even a reader witnessing this dilemma? I think it's fair to state we have a world wide culture clash going on about whose reality is real. It's a rather large area of discussion.

How about singling in on one objection that is largely offered by those who don't believe God has a clear picture. If God was real he wouldn't of killed such a good and humanitarian person. A doctor without borders on his way to offer his help gets swept away to his death in a huge flash flood in the third world. If there was a God, He wouldn't of allowed this to happen. What is the clear picture of the reality we have to deal with?

No matter how a person views the existence of God, the basic story found about a good king Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:2) is highly probable in its' essence. He becomes very ill, knows its' critical and then miraculously goes into a sudden remission and lives 15 more years. But it's what happens during those years that is of interest. He father's the next king that is wicked and acts unjustly 2 Kings 21:6.

Now rather than offer the simplistic conclusion that all early deaths of good people is due to them somehow creating a great evil down the road, I would say that we can't presume to conclude that if there was a God he wouldn't have good people to have premature deaths either Ecclesiastes 12:7. We don't know how our lives, how individual lives will pan out in the great scheme of things. None of us are capable of micromanaging the course of a shared society by our beliefs, we can only be responsible for our own.

I would say that it's within the actions made by people found within the pages of the Bible as they relate to the God of Israel that demonstrate a clear picture of who God is and what He does. Reality is rarely fully explained by simplistic slogans or conclusions.

 

[SolomonVII]

One major theme of the Bible is the difference between understanding and knowing.
Eve understood that it was wrong to eat from the tree forbidden her, but she never really knew evil until she did.
A scientist, working in the lab and hooking up all kinds of wires and probes and testing devises to my wife may come to understand everything it is about my wife that makes her tick. But that does not mean he knows my wife, Biblically speaking.
Well, he better not.

It is certainly possible for an atheist to understand the Bible, and to be more knowledgeable about the Bible than a Christian. And in his understanding he make well come across the idea of the bible as food.
He will see prophets actually eating the word of God, honey sweet even. He will see Christians eating the Word,which is the Tree of Life.
He will be able to understand the meaning, and the symbology, and the metaphor, and the historic and cultural contexts, and the allegories and caballistic and secret interpretive methods as well as or even better than many theists.

But there is a difference between studying a recipe and actually eating. To know what the food tastes like, one must first eat it. Without digestion, one starves.

 

[Athée]

Reality as I was using the word in my sentence is about how people perceive this present world, their world view. We are the blind men and as a whole the world has different explanations about what's in our room. Is there even a reader witnessing this dilemma? I think it's fair to state we have a world wide culture clash going on about whose reality is real. It's a rather large area of discussion.

How about singling in on one objection that is largely offered by those who don't believe God has a clear picture. If God was real he wouldn't of killed such a good and humanitarian person. A doctor without borders on his way to offer his help gets swept away to his death in a huge flash flood in the third world. If there was a God, He wouldn't of allowed this to happen. What is the clear picture of the reality we have to deal with?

No matter how a person views the existence of God, the basic story found about a good king Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:2) is highly probable in its' essence. He becomes very ill, knows its' critical and then miraculously goes into a sudden remission and lives 15 more years. But it's what happens during those years that is of interest. He father's the next king that is wicked and acts unjustly 2 Kings 21:6.

Now rather than offer the simplistic conclusion that all early deaths of good people is due to them somehow creating a great evil down the road, I would say that we can't presume to conclude that if there was a God he wouldn't have good people to have premature deaths either Ecclesiastes 12:7. We don't know how our lives, how individual lives will pan out in the great scheme of things. None of us are capable of micromanaging the course of a shared society by our beliefs, we can only be responsible for our own.

I would say that it's within the actions made by people found within the pages of the Bible as they relate to the God of Israel that demonstrate a clear picture of who God is and what He does. Reality is rarely fully explained by simplistic slogans or conclusions.

Certainly you can offer theodicies to account for the facts of the exam you proposed but it seems to me that, where's this example makes perfect sense on naturalism it doesn't fit as intuitively under theism. To the extent that this is true we would say that naturalism is offering a more probable version of reality. I didn't find anything in your response that would demonstrate that the bible offers a clearer picture of reality. Instead it seems to offer one possible narrative framework for interpreting the observed facts of reality.

 

[Athée]

One major theme of the Bible is the difference between understanding and knowing.
Eve understood that it was wrong to eat from the tree forbidden her, but she never really knew evil until she did.
A scientist, working in the lab and hooking up all kinds of wires and probes and testing devises to my wife may come to understand everything it is about my wife that makes her tick. But that does not mean he knows my wife, Biblically speaking.
Well, he better not.

It is certainly possible for an atheist to understand the Bible, and to be more knowledgeable about the Bible than a Christian. And in his understanding he make well come across the idea of the bible as food.
He will see prophets actually eating the word of God, honey sweet even. He will see Christians eating the Word,which is the Tree of Life.
He will be able to understand the meaning, and the symbology, and the metaphor, and the historic and cultural contexts, and the allegories and caballistic and secret interpretive methods as well as or even better than many theists.

But there is a difference between studying a recipe and actually eating. To know what the food tastes like, one must first eat it. Without digestion, one starves.

Wonderful articulate and indeed poetic Where this misses the mark for me is that the believer will assert that they have a deeper experience as a result of being Christian but then be totally unable to demonstrate that this is true. If the believer says they have a more profound peace that I do, that they can love more fully than I can, I want them to demonstrate how they know this to be true. Beyond simply quoting scripture at me and saying they believe it, that is. What tangible differences does this deeper understanding, this tasting of the food impart?

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[SolomonVII]

Wonderful articulate and indeed poetic Where this misses the mark for me is that the believer will assert that they have a deeper experience as a result of being Christian but then be totally unable to demonstrate that this is true. If the believer says they have a more profound peace that I do, that they can love more fully than I can, I want them to demonstrate how they know this to be true. Beyond simply quoting scripture at me and saying they believe it, that is. What tangible differences does this deeper understanding, this tasting of the food impart?

The peace and love that are the first values that spring to your own mind are in fact Christian inspired. Spartans and European tribal pagans,for example, would disdain such values that are anathema to who they are.
The truer question then is not what deeper understanding does this food impart, for that is already your own experience. You want us to in fact demonstrate how a Christian is more Christian than you, the purported unbeliever, already is. The more pertinent question therefore becomes what Christian belief is it that you as an unbeliever, disbelieve?
Peace is peace, and love is love. The love of Christ and the peace of Christ are none other than love and peace in general, and whosoever believes in love and peace already shares with us our Christian values, the values that Christ advocates.
You have tasted of that tree. You have already drunk the Koolaid, it would seem,

 

[rjs330]

Wonderful articulate and indeed poetic Where this misses the mark for me is that the believer will assert that they have a deeper experience as a result of being Christian but then be totally unable to demonstrate that this is true. If the believer says they have a more profound peace that I do, that they can love more fully than I can, I want them to demonstrate how they know this to be true. Beyond simply quoting scripture at me and saying they believe it, that is. What tangible differences does this deeper understanding, this tasting of the food impart?

The understanding that the believer is dependent upon Christ for salvation and that they were lost in their sin and bound for eternal separation from God and are now heaven bound to live with him in glory forever. That really is the bottom line.

 

[Uber Genius]

Hey all (AV the copyright cheque for the title is in the mail...)

In a recent conversation with a church leader he expressed the idea that as an atheist I simply can't understand scripture as accurately as he does. He pointed out that Jesus taught in parables explicitly to preclude understanding by some segment of his audience. I have hear this same claim from other believers as well and so.... Your mission, should you choose to accept it...

Present me with a section of scripture that you think an atheist simply can't understand. I will take a stab at interpreting it and if I mess it up you can explain to me what it actually means. If after your explanation I still can't understand it (note I am not saying agree with it) then you will have completed this challenge successfully!

Note: If you are not of the belief that an atheist can't understand scripture properly and have never deployed that argument yourself, please give this thread a pass. If this OP does reflect your belief, however, please cast down thy gauntlets

He may have not done such a good job communicating his message. The point is not an intellectual gap! Anyone can look at the teaching over time and properly exegete a passage with the help of scholars.

"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4The god of this agehas blinded the minds of unbelievers so they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." 2 Cor. 4:4

"We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at the end of what was fading away. 14But their minds were closed. For to this day the same veil remains at the reading of the old covenant. It has not been lifted, because only in Christ can it be removed." 2 Cor 3:13 (Specifically referring to why the Jews rejected Christ as messiah.)

So one's understanding of a passage, even a parable, can be researched and we can all have the same interpretation. But to trust that the message is one worth rearranging your life for, is a whole different matter. So if I mentioned to you something about demons, you would comprehend my claims but that is far from believing that my statements are a reasonable representation of the external world we live in.

Likewise you could lead someone to Jesus with words and all along they wouldn't know that you think that the Christian claims are childish and foolish.

 

[Serving Zion]

he expressed the idea that as an atheist I simply can't understand scripture as accurately as he does.

Hi Athee! I would like to thank you for making such a generous offer!

I'd like to see how accurately you understand Deuteronomy 5:11, the third commandment:

‘You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

Deuteronomy 5:11 Hebrew Text Analysis

 

[Peter1000]

Thanks for checking out the thread
So gen 1:1-10 is the account (some think literal, some not) of God (presumably Yaweh) creating light/dark, the heavens and the earth. V. 11 is about the flora that he then created. The point of the passage seems to be the God is the creator of the universe generally and earth specifically.

How did I do?

Yahweh did not create in Genesis 1, any of it.
The English name, God, which you read in the first line of the bible, is translated from the Hebrew name Elohim, not Yahweh.

After God/Elohim had finished the creation in chapter 1, He rests. See Genesis 2:3. AT this point we are introduced to another God who has the English name, the Lord God, found in Genesis 2:4. This name is translated from the Hebrew Yahweh Elohim. This Lord God/Yahweh Elohim now creates things all over again in chapter 2.

I would like you to tell me why there are 2 Gods, each with a creation chapter?

I would also like you to analyze Genesis 2:5 and tell me what's going on there?

Thank you

 

[rjs330]

Yahweh did not create in Genesis 1, any of it.
The English name, God, which you read in the first line of the bible, is translated from the Hebrew name Elohim, not Yahweh.

After God/Elohim had finished the creation in chapter 1, He rests. See Genesis 2:3. AT this point we are introduced to another God who has the English name, the Lord God, found in Genesis 2:4. This name is translated from the Hebrew Yahweh Elohim. This Lord God/Yahweh Elohim now creates things all over again in chapter 2.

I would like you to tell me why there are 2 Gods, each with a creation chapter?

I would also like you to analyze Genesis 2:5 and tell me what's going on there?

Thank you

Elohim and Yaweh are both names for God. Depending on what the description of his power is being used. Yaweh is often tied in Scripture to a personal God dealing with his interaction with men. Elohim is usually associated with his power and glory.

It's entirely consistent with the rest of the OT. Elohim in Genesis 1 is the power of God displayed. Genesis 2 is the personal God who formed man personally with his own hands out of the dust of the ground and blew life into him in his image for a special relationship, different from all the creatures if the planet.

 

[Peter1000]

Elohim and Yaweh are both names for God. Depending on what the description of his power is being used. Yaweh is often tied in Scripture to a personal God dealing with his interaction with men. Elohim is usually associated with his power and glory.

It's entirely consistent with the rest of the OT. Elohim in Genesis 1 is the power of God displayed. Genesis 2 is the personal God who formed man personally with his own hands out of the dust of the ground and blew life into him in his image for a special relationship, different from all the creatures if the planet.

So with what you have said in mind, when we read Genesis 19:24, it must be that Yahweh was the Lord on the earth, making sure that Lot was safe, and when Lot was safe, Yahweh called upon Elohim who was the other Lord in the heavens to rain brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah? Am I right?
Here is the text of Genesis 19:24, it seems to fit your narrative.
Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven;

 

[Peter1000]

Elohim and Yaweh are both names for God. Depending on what the description of his power is being used. Yaweh is often tied in Scripture to a personal God dealing with his interaction with men. Elohim is usually associated with his power and glory.

It's entirely consistent with the rest of the OT. Elohim in Genesis 1 is the power of God displayed. Genesis 2 is the personal God who formed man personally with his own hands out of the dust of the ground and blew life into him in his image for a special relationship, different from all the creatures if the planet.

Do you believe in the Holy Trinity? I suspect you do, so answer a biblical question about the Holy Trinity.
The Holy Tinity is 1 God, comprised of 3 distinct Persons, they are God the Father, God the Son, and God the HS.

The question is this:
What is the name of God the Father?
What is at least 1 name of God the Son?
The name of the HS is just that, the HS.