Why the bible?

[Ruthie24]

When I investigate something to see if it is true I look for several things:

1) I follow where the evidence leads me.

2) I look at the history and culture of each situation going back as far as I can.

3) I look at the agenda behind the scholars. I can find that out by what organizations they belong too, what societies they are part of, and what universities they go to.

4) When I look at a Biblical account I look at it from all the authors I can find and see if there are any similarities of thought in the pros and cons of their theories.

5) I look at what agendas, scholars, factions, institutions, and governments have that effect biblical authenticity.

6) When I look at biblical texts I also look at non biblical scriptures, creation stories, other sacred scriptures, myths, and histories of those cultures.

When it comes to archaeological evidence and history I've come across a basic battle ground between religions, atheism, the scientific community including satanism.

I also investigate evidence that is considered conspiracy theory, and archaeological finds and theories that are not accepted by the scientific community.

I have found that there is so much bias in the scientific, religious, and non religious communities that they have intentionally sequestered themselves into tight little boxes which prevents them from seeing where the truth really lies.

This is how I went about my research because I found there were so many people willing to outright lie to me because they had their own personal agendas and they were assuming I would believe their garbage and not research for myself.

 

[Sayre]

When I investigate something to see if it is true I look for several things:

1) I follow where the evidence leads me.

2) I look at the history and culture of each situation going back as far as I can.

3) I look at the agenda behind the scholars. I can find that out by what organizations they belong too, what societies they are part of, and what universities they go to.

4) When I look at a Biblical account I look at it from all the authors I can find and see if there are any similarities of thought in the pros and cons of their theories.

5) I look at what agendas, scholars, factions, institutions, and governments have that effect biblical authenticity.

6) When I look at biblical texts I also look at non biblical scriptures, creation stories, other sacred scriptures, myths, and histories of those cultures.

When it comes to archaeological evidence and history I've come across a basic battle ground between religions, atheism, the scientific community including satanism.

I also investigate evidence that is considered conspiracy theory, and archaeological finds and theories that are not accepted by the scientific community.

I have found that there is so much bias in the scientific, religious, and non religious communities that they have intentionally sequestered themselves into tight little boxes which prevents them from seeing where the truth really lies.

This is how I went about my research because I found there were so many people willing to outright lie to me because they had their own personal agendas and they were assuming I would believe their garbage and not research for myself.

This tells me about how you approach research - not the research itself. What research have you done into the evidence of the historicity of the bible?

 

[Senator Cheese]

I don't mean in the church sense, I mean in the actual definition of the word worship. If worshiping god is not that important, then the entire religion is not important. Just be a good person to others and don't even bother with the religious faith.

Can you use another word? I only know the word in the context you describe, so I'm having difficulty following.

Worship, to me, is the act of expressing love and greatfulness to my Creator for blessing me with life and for blessing me with love. It's not something that is "forced upon me" by religion, but something that I am compelled to do because of those exact feelings.
If the concept of a conscious divinity seems estranged to you, you could show the same gratitude for your life and for your well-being to "cosmic luck" or whatever you want. Gratitude is a sign of humility (knowing that ones own achievements are the result of something greater than oneself).

 

[Heissonear]

Righteo then. Let's see the evidence.

.



.

 

[Heissonear]

There is one thing that really bothers me about nonbelievers. Not only are you unwilling to have even one iota of faith, but you are obviously unwilling to do any kind of work to search for biblical scholarly evidence. Instead you piggyback off of internet hearsay, atheist quacks who run with 2 or 3 quips that must prove the Bible false because "well they must be right because I got it off the internet".

I have collected a well documented library of evidence that I worked hard at for 3 years because I was full of doubt at one time until I came upon biblical archeology and scholars who understood ancient history and scripture.

Instead of asking me to present you evidence that you won't believe anyway because you are already ensconced in your beliefs, why don't you open your mind up and do the research yourself? No authors or works I present will change your mind because you have already made it up.

.

Let them have it, Ruthie!

The atheists on this forum are unwilling to search matters themselves and are lazy. They are also quick to lean on what other Naturalists say, to support their foundational stance.

In your other post you point out the bias in their "research" and "evidence" they find to support there predisposition in the subject matter.

They have a lazy faith in life, and are full of bias rather than openness and firsthand investigation.

.

 

[Sayre]

.

Let them have it, Ruthie!

The atheists on this forum are unwilling to search matters themselves and are lazy. They are also quick to lean on what other Naturalists say, to support their foundational stance.

In your other post you point out the bias in their "research" and "evidence" they find to support there predisposition in the subject matter.

They have a lazy faith in life, and are full of bias rather than openness and firsthand investigation.

.

Why can you ask her to "bring it", but when I ask her to do the same thing, I am lazy? I'm an ex Christian - I know the research, but don't believe any of it. I am not lazy at all.

If there is evidence, bring it, otherwise quit pretending to have it. And offering evidence, and then running away scared when asked to provide it, accusing the opponent of laziness... is nothing more than cowardice.

If you claim you have evidence, bring it, or zip it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

When I investigate something to see if it is true I look for several things:

1) I follow where the evidence leads me.

First, let me tell you that it's incredibly arrogant of you to simply assume that atheists don't bother reading about or studying religions.
In fact, most atheists grew up as theists.

Research has also shown, btw, that the average random atheist actually knows more about religious myths then average random theists of said religion. Just so you know...

Having said that, I always follow the evidence. In fact, I only follow the evidence. And it does not lead me to stories about talking snakes, talking burning bushes and jewish gods that can walk on water.

2) I look at the history and culture of each situation going back as far as I can.

3) I look at the agenda behind the scholars. I can find that out by what organizations they belong too, what societies they are part of, and what universities they go to.

4) When I look at a Biblical account I look at it from all the authors I can find and see if there are any similarities of thought in the pros and cons of their theories.

5) I look at what agendas, scholars, factions, institutions, and governments have that effect biblical authenticity.

6) When I look at biblical texts I also look at non biblical scriptures, creation stories, other sacred scriptures, myths, and histories of those cultures.

When you follow the evidence, then all that other stuff doesn't matter. Agenda's and even sources are irrelevant. The evidence is the same for everyone. It's how they are presented and taken up in a whole that makes the difference.

And when it comes to that, I trust the science. And not "by faith", but for good reason. Science is a methodology to differentiate truth from fiction and it has an incredible track record.

Religion has no track record. Except for being proven wrong by science (either directly or indirectly). Not once did a religious answer turn out to be correct instead of the scientific answer. Science is a self-correcting mechanism, while religion is a dogmatic way of giving answers before asking questions.

I'll stick to the intellectually honest method to get answers to questions, thanks.

I also investigate evidence that is considered conspiracy theory, and archaeological finds and theories that are not accepted by the scientific community.

Why would you do that? What possible good can come of it?
If science doesn't accept it, there is a reason for that. Ever thought about that?

Tell me, what do you think is the requirement for an idea to become accepted by science?

I have found that there is so much bias in the scientific

There is bias alright. Bias towards supportive evidence. Without it, your ideas are worthless.

This is the good kind of bias.

, religious, and non religious communities that they have intentionally sequestered themselves into tight little boxes which prevents them from seeing where the truth really lies.

Truth is demonstrable. So is science.
Religion is not.

Religion confines itself to the "box" that is the religion. Science does not. Science just demands evidence for claims and ideas. Science has no problem shooting down previously accepted ideas when new evidence comes up. Religion? You're more likely to be accused of blasphemy or herecy if you wish to make a point using newly discovered evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

.

They have a lazy faith in life, and are full of bias rather than openness and firsthand investigation.

.

Nobody can investigate everything in science for themselves. It would take multiple lifetimes of around the clock study to do that.

So instead, I rely on the work of experts in specific fields for knowledge. You do that too, eventhough you aren't willing to admit it.

You probably have no problem at all with for example E = mc²
You probably also have no clue on how to explain what the variables in that formula really mean, how they were obtained and how you get to that formula. You have also very little knowledge (if any at all) about nuclear physics, but have no problem accepting that either.

The only times you start disagreeing with these experts is when the claims / ideas / theories contradict your religious beliefs. Which you take an blind faith.

Accepting science = trust, based on track record and the reality of practical applications (nuclear physics is accurate because nukes explode).

Accepting religion = blind faith; dogma


And that's the difference between us. I don't play the dogma game.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What is the purpose behind God doing as you claim? There is a definite correlation between education levels and belief in creation and or Gods, but why would an all loving God who loves all his creation want to make it so difficult for certain people to believe in him? Sounds like a childish game to me.

God's purpose is redemption and restoration. This is the way he has chosen to do it. Some things remain a mystery. Christianity looks at the past and the future, not just the present. "A great purpose is being worked out here below." That old statement says a lot.

Most Christians are quite content with their beliefs. It is confrontational atheists that are uncomfortable with the beliefs of those Christians. This is also a mystery. Why is this particular religion such a threat to unbelievers?

 

[Ruthie24]

The central theme of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is that God sent His only Son Jesus Christ to suffer and die on the cross for the sins of humanity.

So every evidence of the Bible has to rely on the fact that Jesus Christ existed, was born of a virgin, pronounced himself to the people, talked to them about his Father, explained how to behave as a human race, that he was God incarnate, that he would suffer and die at the hands of man, rise from the dead as a pronouncement that He has come to save man from His sins if they believed in Him, and that His spirit would reside with them. So if Jesus did not exist then there is no God and there is no Christianity.

Scholars believe that the epistles of Paul were written prior to the gospels. They believe that he used the very earliest scriptures from the first original church while the apostles were still alive who witnessed the life of Jesus. When writing the Epistles Paul utilized the creeds, confessions of faith, and hymns from the earliest Christian Church which began soon after the resurrection.

"In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul utilized technical language to indicate that he was passing along oral tradition in a relatively fixed form." Dr. Craig Blomberg.

Scholars believe that Paul's conversion to Christianity began 32ad and that he utilized earlier scriptures from oral Christian beliefs that can be dated to within two years after Christ's resurrection.

 

[Heissonear]

Nobody can investigate everything in science for themselves. It would take multiple lifetimes of around the clock study to do that.

So instead, I rely on the work of experts in specific fields for knowledge. You do that too, eventhough you aren't willing to admit it.

You probably have no problem at all with for example E = mc²
You probably also have no clue on how to explain what the variables in that formula really mean, how they were obtained and how you get to that formula. You have also very little knowledge (if any at all) about nuclear physics, but have no problem accepting that either.

The only times you start disagreeing with these experts is when the claims / ideas / theories contradict your religious beliefs. Which you take an blind faith.

Accepting science = trust, based on track record and the reality of practical applications (nuclear physics is accurate because nukes explode).

Accepting religion = blind faith; dogma


And that's the difference between us. I don't play the dogma game.

.

You are on a "learning" course, not an "I've arrived" position in matters about God on High.

This OP is about the Bible, and your slant view of it. I have met the Author. He has manifested Himself to me through the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

He has "opened" many Scriptures to me before I physically read them. They were written by His Finger, the Holy Spirit, upon my heart. When I physically read these Scriptures for the first time I KNEW WHAT THEY SAID. I did not understand them by natural intelligence.

Your error in stating you have intensive "learning of the Bible" is blatant. Your ignorance of Him a clear sign of who teaches you are mere men.

You now have to face someone who is not a church goer or Bible reader, but a witness of Him and His ways.

You are the one who has mere head knowledge about the Bible. What do you know about the His Kingdom in our midst? Are you professing to be a religion expert but are Spiritually Barren?

Your religion equation is for simpletons. You forgot the parameter of being touched by Him on High, and in no uncertain manor. What do you know of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit but by mere words?

.

 

[Ruthie24]

First, let me tell you that it's incredibly arrogant of you to simply assume that atheists don't bother reading about or studying religions.
In fact, most atheists grew up as theists.

[\quote]

First, I don't believe I'm being arrogant. I'm basing my words on multiple encounters with atheists both on and off line whom I have found do not do research and have based their beliefs on ignorant assumptions of scriptures that they have not investigated to any degree. Instead of disagreeing with them first hand I went off to discover for myself what they were saying. I have a voluminous library of texts and scriptures from all over the world and I can attest from my own research that these people do not know what they are talking about and some are just downright liars who have attempted to falsify scripture through their expert "observations" not realizing that I actually follow through and do my own homework.

"Talking snakes "

This is a prime example of what I am talking about.
The Hebrew for the serpent in the garden is "nacash" It does not literally mean a talking snake. The word for nacash means Shining One, deceiver, or liar. The snake was used to symbolize the fallen angel Lucifer (who goes by many names *and this can be explained also through linguistical changes in words as languages change over time through cultures.)

 

[Syd the Human]

Can you use another word? I only know the word in the context you describe, so I'm having difficulty following.

Worship, to me, is the act of expressing love and greatfulness to my Creator for blessing me with life and for blessing me with love. It's not something that is "forced upon me" by religion, but something that I am compelled to do because of those exact feelings.
If the concept of a conscious divinity seems estranged to you, you could show the same gratitude for your life and for your well-being to "cosmic luck" or whatever you want. Gratitude is a sign of humility (knowing that ones own achievements are the result of something greater than oneself).

Worshiping is part of religion.

"re·li·gion
1.
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods."

and this is how I think of the word worship

"wor·ship
1.
the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity."

If neither is necessary to reach heaven, then the Christian religion is a pointless and time-wasting exercise. That means you can be a pagan or an atheist or whatever and just be nice.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Deleted double post.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

First, let me tell you that it's incredibly arrogant of you to simply assume that atheists don't bother reading about or studying religions.
In fact, most atheists grew up as theists.

[\quote]

First, I don't believe I'm being arrogant. I'm basing my words on multiple encounters with atheists both on and off line whom I have found do not do research and have based their beliefs on ignorant assumptions of scriptures that they have not investigated to any degree. Instead of disagreeing with them first hand I went off to discover for myself what they were saying. I have a voluminous library of texts and scriptures from all over the world and I can attest from my own research that these people do not know what they are talking about and some are just downright liars who have attempted to falsify scripture through their expert "observations" not realizing that I actually follow through and do my own homework.

"Talking snakes "

This is a prime example of what I am talking about.
The Hebrew for the serpent in the garden is "nacash" It does not literally mean a talking snake. The word for nacash means Shining One, deceiver, or liar. The snake was used to symbolize the fallen angel Lucifer (who goes by many names *and this can be explained also through linguistical changes in words as languages change over time through cultures.)

Great point. Here is the Hebrew root word for serpent,

05172 // vxn // nachash // naw-khash' //

a primitive root; TWOT - 1348; v

AV - enchantment 4, divine 2, enchanter 1, indeed 1, certainly 1,
learn by experience 1, diligently observe 1; 11

1) to practice divination, divine, observe signs, learn by experience,
diligently observe, practice fortunetelling, take as an omen
1a) (Piel)
1a1) to practice divination
1a2) to observe the signs or omens

I bolded learn by experience. because it reveals the 'scientific method' of obtaining knowledge, as distinct from knowledge gained by revelation. While the two are compatible to a large degree they are often at odds i.e. special creation vs evolution.

 

[Ruthie24]

Great point. Here is the Hebrew root word for serpent,

05172 // vxn // nachash // naw-khash' //

a primitive root; TWOT - 1348; v

AV - enchantment 4, divine 2, enchanter 1, indeed 1, certainly 1,
learn by experience 1, diligently observe 1; 11

1) to practice divination, divine, observe signs, learn by experience,
diligently observe, practice fortunetelling, take as an omen
1a) (Piel)
1a1) to practice divination
1a2) to observe the signs or omens

I bolded learn by experience. because it reveals the 'scientific method' of obtaining knowledge, as distinct from knowledge gained by revelation. While the two are compatible to a large degree they are often at odds i.e. special creation vs evolution.

Dr. Michael S. Heiser who has a PhD in Hebrew bible and Semitic languages explains that the word nachash is used as both a noun, verb, and adjective in the Garden of Eden account.

1. Noun: Serpentine/divine being. This explains that the serpent in the garden was at one time an angel of God. (Lucifer)

2. Verb: deceiver, diviner. This explains that the fallen angel Lucifer deceived Eve. This also goes back to the book of Enoch where Semyaza (also Lucifer) made a pact with 200 of God's angels and directly disobeyed God by attempting to destroy humanity when they fell to earth to mate (basically rape) the daughters of Eve which created the nephilim (the men of renoun). They also taught humanity all kinds of forbidden things as explained in Enoch.

3. Adjective: Shining One. This describes the nature of Lucifer that he can appear as an angel of light and was once the most beautiful angel of God before pride overtook him and he decided to destroy God and mankind.

When you mention diligently observe it had nothing to do with the scientific method but everything to do with the watchers some of them who were fallen angels, one whom was Semyaza (Lucifer). These words specifically describe Lucifer as the nachash who was the most subtle and cunning beast in all the kingdom. In Greek the term Earth Lion is used to describe the nachash which means "chameleon".

 

[OldWiseGuy]

When you mention diligently observe it had nothing to do with the scientific method but everything to do with the watchers some of them who were fallen angels, one whom was Semyaza (Lucifer). These words specifically describe Lucifer as the nachash who was the most subtle and cunning beast in all the kingdom. In Greek the term Earth Lion is used to describe the nachash which means "chameleon".

I was mainly referring to "learn by experience" as distinct from learning by revelation, meaning coming to conclusions base on (leaning towards) one's own understanding. The scientific theory of evolution is just such a conclusion.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Most Christians are quite content with their beliefs. It is confrontational atheists that are uncomfortable with the beliefs of those Christians. This is also a mystery. Why is this particular religion such a threat to unbelievers?

Because they push their religious nonsense on society through legislation and worse.

 

[DogmaHunter]

.

You are on a "learning" course, not an "I've arrived" position in matters about God on High.

This OP is about the Bible, and your slant view of it. I have met the Author. He has manifested Himself to me through the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

He has "opened" many Scriptures to me before I physically read them. They were written by His Finger, the Holy Spirit, upon my heart. When I physically read these Scriptures for the first time I KNEW WHAT THEY SAID. I did not understand them by natural intelligence.

Your error in stating you have intensive "learning of the Bible" is blatant. Your ignorance of Him a clear sign of who teaches you are mere men.

You now have to face someone who is not a church goer or Bible reader, but a witness of Him and His ways.

You are the one who has mere head knowledge about the Bible. What do you know about the His Kingdom in our midst? Are you professing to be a religion expert but are Spiritually Barren?

Your religion equation is for simpletons. You forgot the parameter of being touched by Him on High, and in no uncertain manor. What do you know of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit but by mere words?

.

You're preaching. There's no difference in essence between your preaching and the preaching of a muslim or of followers of any other religion.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Because they push their religious nonsense on society through legislation and worse.

Some truth to that.