Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Quote from: Colin Michael on May 27, 2009, 06:48:40 PM

Quote from: Rrulez on May 27, 2009, 06:47:05 PM

Quote from: Colin Michael on May 27, 2009, 06:41:39 PM

Quote from: Rrulez on May 27, 2009, 06:40:02 PM

That isn't heresy, Colin. It's faith. Stop critisizing Christians for having faith on this message board. Go spread your doctrine on the athiest's mb. Not here. Its not welcome here.

For a Christian who seems so concerned with "truth" (and so convinced that you've found it), why should there be any problem in criticising something that is true?

Because this is a christian forum. Not a doubter's forum. Believe what you will, but stop taking people down with you. I'm not going to go flame some athiests on an athiest's forum about not believing in YHWH. I wouldn't get anywhere. You obviously aren't either.

Maybe you should re-read the creeds. I'm still in line with Orthodox Christianity by not believing the Bible to be written by God, in fact, many prominent theologians and ministers are also in agreement with me.

I agree that the bible has some minor flaws that are the result of poor translations, etc. But you arent doubting the flaws of the bible, you are doubting its authority over us. And why not doubt God why you're at it? There's nothing productive that comes out of it. Nothing.

I'm not doubting God, I'm doubting that the Bible was written by God and rather am saying that the Bible was written by the people it says wrote it.

Quote from: Colin Michael on May 27, 2009, 06:57:11 PM

Quote from: Rrulez on May 27, 2009, 06:51:55 PM

Quote from: Colin Michael on May 27, 2009, 06:48:40 PM

Quote from: Rrulez on May 27, 2009, 06:47:05 PM

Quote from: Colin Michael on May 27, 2009, 06:41:39 PM

Quote from: Rrulez on May 27, 2009, 06:40:02 PM

That isn't heresy, Colin. It's faith. Stop critisizing Christians for having faith on this message board. Go spread your doctrine on the athiest's mb. Not here. Its not welcome here.

For a Christian who seems so concerned with "truth" (and so convinced that you've found it), why should there be any problem in criticising something that is true?

Because this is a christian forum. Not a doubter's forum. Believe what you will, but stop taking people down with you. I'm not going to go flame some athiests on an athiest's forum about not believing in YHWH. I wouldn't get anywhere. You obviously aren't either.

Maybe you should re-read the creeds. I'm still in line with Orthodox Christianity by not believing the Bible to be written by God, in fact, many prominent theologians and ministers are also in agreement with me.

I agree that the bible has some minor flaws that are the result of poor translations, etc. But you arent doubting the flaws of the bible, you are doubting its authority over us. And why not doubt God why you're at it? There's nothing productive that comes out of it. Nothing.

I'm not doubting God, I'm doubting that the Bible was written by God and rather am saying that the Bible was written by the people it says wrote it.

Who has disagreed with you on that?

I'm pretty sure that you just did.

All that I'm saying is that Jesus didn't say the Bible was the word of God, and the disciples and Paul didn't say their writings were the word of God. Also, the Bible never says it's without error. Add to this the fact that it was compiled more that three hundred years after the last of the books where written. Add to this that it wasn't until the reformation that the 72 books were reduced to 66. Also, remember that the Bible was written by the fathers of a Church that was believed to be inerrant and divinely inspired in everything it ever did or said (which makes it not surprising that this view of the Bible evolved over time).

Quote from: Colin Michael on May 27, 2009, 06:59:55 PM

Quote from: Rrulez on May 27, 2009, 06:58:43 PM

Quote from: Colin Michael on May 27, 2009, 06:57:11 PM

Quote from: Rrulez on May 27, 2009, 06:51:55 PM

Quote from: Colin Michael on May 27, 2009, 06:48:40 PM

Quote from: Rrulez on May 27, 2009, 06:47:05 PM

Quote from: Colin Michael on May 27, 2009, 06:41:39 PM

Quote from: Rrulez on May 27, 2009, 06:40:02 PM

That isn't heresy, Colin. It's faith. Stop critisizing Christians for having faith on this message board. Go spread your doctrine on the athiest's mb. Not here. Its not welcome here.

For a Christian who seems so concerned with "truth" (and so convinced that you've found it), why should there be any problem in criticising something that is true?

Because this is a christian forum. Not a doubter's forum. Believe what you will, but stop taking people down with you. I'm not going to go flame some athiests on an athiest's forum about not believing in YHWH. I wouldn't get anywhere. You obviously aren't either.

Maybe you should re-read the creeds. I'm still in line with Orthodox Christianity by not believing the Bible to be written by God, in fact, many prominent theologians and ministers are also in agreement with me.

I agree that the bible has some minor flaws that are the result of poor translations, etc. But you arent doubting the flaws of the bible, you are doubting its authority over us. And why not doubt God why you're at it? There's nothing productive that comes out of it. Nothing.

I'm not doubting God, I'm doubting that the Bible was written by God and rather am saying that the Bible was written by the people it says wrote it.

Who has disagreed with you on that?

I'm pretty sure that you just did.

All that I'm saying is that Jesus didn't say the Bible was the word of God, and the disciples and Paul didn't say their writings were the word of God. Also, the Bible never says it's without error. Add to this the fact that it was compiled more that three hundred years after the last of the books where written. Add to this that it wasn't until the reformation that the 72 books were reduced to 66. Also, remember that the Bible was written by the fathers of a Church that was believed to be inerrant and divinely inspired in everything it ever did or said (which makes it not surprising that this view of the Bible evolved over time).

Try Revelation 1:3

Psalm 33:4?

Those were written pre-Bible, first of all. Second of all, the verse in Revelation doesn't imply divine authorship. The verse in Psalms is made elucidatory when you take into account the Hebrew mindset of one's "spoken word".

33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made,
       their starry host by the breath of his mouth.
 33:9 For he spoke, and it came to be;
       he commanded, and it stood firm.

Clearly not speaking of "the Bible" as the word.

Quote from: Colin Michael on May 27, 2009, 07:19:17 PM

Quote from: Rrulez on May 27, 2009, 07:11:24 PM

Quote from: Colin Michael on May 27, 2009, 06:59:55 PM

Quote from: Rrulez on May 27, 2009, 06:58:43 PM

Quote from: Colin Michael on May 27, 2009, 06:57:11 PM

Quote from: Rrulez on May 27, 2009, 06:51:55 PM

Quote from: Colin Michael on May 27, 2009, 06:48:40 PM

Quote from: Rrulez on May 27, 2009, 06:47:05 PM

Quote from: Colin Michael on May 27, 2009, 06:41:39 PM

Quote from: Rrulez on May 27, 2009, 06:40:02 PM

That isn't heresy, Colin. It's faith. Stop critisizing Christians for having faith on this message board. Go spread your doctrine on the athiest's mb. Not here. Its not welcome here.

For a Christian who seems so concerned with "truth" (and so convinced that you've found it), why should there be any problem in criticising something that is true?

Because this is a christian forum. Not a doubter's forum. Believe what you will, but stop taking people down with you. I'm not going to go flame some athiests on an athiest's forum about not believing in YHWH. I wouldn't get anywhere. You obviously aren't either.

Maybe you should re-read the creeds. I'm still in line with Orthodox Christianity by not believing the Bible to be written by God, in fact, many prominent theologians and ministers are also in agreement with me.

I agree that the bible has some minor flaws that are the result of poor translations, etc. But you arent doubting the flaws of the bible, you are doubting its authority over us. And why not doubt God why you're at it? There's nothing productive that comes out of it. Nothing.

I'm not doubting God, I'm doubting that the Bible was written by God and rather am saying that the Bible was written by the people it says wrote it.

Who has disagreed with you on that?

I'm pretty sure that you just did.

All that I'm saying is that Jesus didn't say the Bible was the word of God, and the disciples and Paul didn't say their writings were the word of God. Also, the Bible never says it's without error. Add to this the fact that it was compiled more that three hundred years after the last of the books where written. Add to this that it wasn't until the reformation that the 72 books were reduced to 66. Also, remember that the Bible was written by the fathers of a Church that was believed to be inerrant and divinely inspired in everything it ever did or said (which makes it not surprising that this view of the Bible evolved over time).

Try Revelation 1:3

Psalm 33:4?

Those were written pre-Bible, first of all. Second of all, the verse in Revelation doesn't imply divine authorship. The verse in Psalms is made elucidatory when you take into account the Hebrew mindset of one's "spoken word".

Quote

33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made,
       their starry host by the breath of his mouth.
 33:9 For he spoke, and it came to be;
       he commanded, and it stood firm.

Clearly not speaking of "the Bible" as the word.

Oh so you're implying that God is a mortal? Or that he can't tell the future? Or that two guys in a cubicle found a bunch of ancient writings and called it the holy book?

I don't see how any of that makes sense from the premises. Clearly the Bible was written by the fathers of the Church.

Quote from: Colin Michael

I don't see how any of that makes sense from the premises. Clearly the Bible was written by the fathers of the Church.

I'm doubting that the Bible was written by God and rather am saying that the Bible was written by the people it says wrote it.

I sense a condradiction, Colin Michael.

In the first statement I say that the Bible was written by the Church fathers.
In the second statement I say that the Bible was written by the people it says wrote it (i.e. the Church fathers).

There's no contradiction.

Quote from: Colin Michael on May 27, 2009, 07:28:48 PM

Quote from: Rrulez on May 27, 2009, 07:27:06 PM

Quote from: Colin Michael

I don't see how any of that makes sense from the premises. Clearly the Bible was written by the fathers of the Church.

I'm doubting that the Bible was written by God and rather am saying that the Bible was written by the people it says wrote it.

I sense a condradiction, Colin Michael.

In the first statement I say that the Bible was written by the church fathers.
In the second statement I say that the Bible was written by the people it says wrote it (i.e. the Church fathers).

There's no contradiction.

So now David and Moses are the church fathers?

I'm strictly speaking of the New Testament now (however David and Moses did not write any part of the Bible, although various songs included are attributed to the king, David, as was the custom. Others were probably written by him and passed down).

Quote from: Colin Michael on May 27, 2009, 07:32:07 PM

Quote from: Rrulez on May 27, 2009, 07:30:56 PM

Quote from: Colin Michael on May 27, 2009, 07:28:48 PM

Quote from: Rrulez on May 27, 2009, 07:27:06 PM

Quote from: Colin Michael

I don't see how any of that makes sense from the premises. Clearly the Bible was written by the fathers of the Church.

I'm doubting that the Bible was written by God and rather am saying that the Bible was written by the people it says wrote it.

I sense a condradiction, Colin Michael.

In the first statement I say that the Bible was written by the church fathers.
In the second statement I say that the Bible was written by the people it says wrote it (i.e. the Church fathers).

There's no contradiction.

So now David and Moses are the church fathers?

I'm strictly speaking of the New Testament now (however David and Moses did not write any part of the Bible, although various songs included are attributed to the king, David, as was the custom. Others were probably written by him and passed down).

The Torah was written by Moses. And Psalms were sung by King David.


You're going out on a limb. I'm not going to follow.

You're right that the Torah, excluding Genesis and possibly Exodus, were traditionally believed to be authored by Moses.

This has nothing to do with the argument, thus I wasn't giving it much effort.

I just remembered this and it gave me a chuckle.

It's more logical to believe that the Bible is 100% than false?

What about the different genealogies of Christ, was Joseph born twice?
Did Jesus get anointed with expensive perfume three different times by different women, all with similar circumstances?
When Paul writes to the churches, why doesn't he say something like "thus sayeth the Lord?"
Heck, if you examine the history some of the churches Paul went to completely disliked him and asked him to leave.
Why does James openly refute Paul's "saved by grace doctrine?"
Why isn't there ever a mention of the Bible in the Bible (and the verse in Timothy is about the Hebrew law, written before the separation of Judaism and Christianity.)
Also, how do we know Peter's opinion on prophesy is correct? Did Peter mean just the prophesy in the current Old Testament or was he speaking more broadly?
What about the book of Revelation, of which the early church doubted its authenticity?


The most logical explanation is that the Bible was written by humans, and thus it isn't perfectly accurate.

These are old arguments about "apparent" contradictions/shortcomings in the Bible.  They have long been explained.  Do some research.

What about the different genealogies of Christ, was Joseph born twice?
One is of the spiritual ancestry of Christ (thru Mary, "the seed", as mentioned in Genesis 3), and the other is the physical ancestry (thru Joseph).

Did Jesus get anointed with expensive perfume three different times by different women, all with similar circumstances?
No.

When Paul writes to the churches, why doesn't he say something like "thus sayeth the Lord?"
When you write your posts, why don't you say something like "thus sayeth Colin?"  Because it's already known to be you saying it.

Heck, if you examine the history some of the churches Paul went to completely disliked him and asked him to leave.
I'll go further: he was stoned, shipwrecked, and imprisoned for being disliked.  So?

Why does James openly refute Paul's "saved by grace doctrine?"
I've heard a bunch of different explanations for this.  It basically has to do with audience.

Why isn't there ever a mention of the Bible in the Bible (and the verse in Timothy is about the Hebrew law, written before the separation of Judaism and Christianity.)
Because it has no need to be self-reflexive?  You know, like most texts?

The most logical explanation is that the Bible was written by humans, and thus it isn't perfectly accurate.
I'n not saying that the Bible is, but just because something was written only by humans doesn't make it inaccurate.

These are old arguments about "apparent" contradictions/shortcomings in the Bible.  They have long been explained.  Do some research.

As many of you know or have probably guessed, I tend to reside somewhere in the middle with most arguments.  THis one is no exception.  When I claim belief in the infallibility of the bible, I claim that it is theologically infallible.  I do NOT claim that it is historically, medically, Psychologically, Mathematically, ..etc..etc..etc. infallible.

My sister likes to believe that the bible has all the answers to everything in it and when the bible disagrees with other books, then the other books are wrong and the bible is right.  I hold the bible in High esteem but I find this belief to be foolishness and unbecoming her great mind. 

There are many reasons why I beleive this but one of the most obvious is that the Bible was written with the purpose of showing us how God interacts with his people.  It tells us who God is and what he is about, but it was not meant to be a medical journal or a history text book.  There are many instances where the historicity of the bible is innacurate or touched up.  This is why nearly every King of Judah seems ot be just one step shy of Divine and every king of Israel seems to wallow in Evil.  This happens because the text is often infused with human pride and human failings. 

But in spite of this, the Theological message of God and his salvation remains true and unblemished by human failings.

For those who still have problems with the bible being perfect in EVERY way, know this.  Jesus could not have been born sometime before 4BC (In the reign of Herod the Great) and born under Quirinius as Governor of Syria. (Quirinius reigned from 6AD on)  There is at least a 10 year gap between Matthew and Luke regarding the Birth of Jesus.  One of them HAS to give with regards to Historicity because these two accounts CANNOT be reconciled (although I am sure someone will try)

FWIW, I believe the Luke account to be the Historically Accurate on because Luke always cares about accurate detail.  Matthew was writing with other purposes in mind.

On the other side I strongly dissagree with the presupposition of Colin that Neither David nor Moses (or any other biblical figure) had any authorship over their own books.  Moses could have easily written some initial accounts of the early Hebeww History and the accounts of the Exodus etc. and had those acounts further edited later on.  The idea of dismissing Moses from authorship in the bible is tantamount to saying the "Mythological" Troy does not exist..no..wait..it DOES exist and is in the process of excavation.  It seems that they liberal branch of christian scholarship was even ready to discount the existance of King David as Myth until his seal was found in an excavation with in the last 10 years.  So if we keep finding proof of their existance, is it such a big stretch to believe that they may have acutally written the books they are attributed to have written?  perhaps not in their current form but at least to have written some of it.

Why would it necessarily have to be written in Babylon?

I tend to reside somewhere in the middle with most arguments.

Pick a side of the road, Matt.  Driving down the middle is illegal

It [the Bible] tells us who God is and what he is about, but it was not meant to be a medical journal or a history text book.

But if the Bible is wrong about so many other things, then how do you know it's right about God?

This is why nearly every King of Judah seems ot be just one step shy of Divine and every king of Israel seems to wallow in Evil. 

I don't think you've read the books of Kings and Chronicles lately.  The majority of kings in both kingdoms were ungodly and are reflected poorly in the Bible.  If memory serves me there were perhaps 2 good kings in Israel, and maybe 4 good kings in Judah.  Then there are also the kings who started off "good" and went bad, and 1 example of a king who started off badly and ended well.  And even the consistently "good" kings often have flaws mentioned.  For example it will say that they followed the Lord, but failed to take down the pagan high places, or something like that.

There is at least a 10 year gap between Matthew and Luke regarding the Birth of Jesus.  One of them HAS to give with regards to Historicity because these two accounts CANNOT be reconciled (although I am sure someone will try)

It is possible that Quirinius was in charge of an earlier census in Syria during the time of Herod's reign as described here.

Quote from: crustpope on May 28, 2009, 09:49:29 AM

I tend to reside somewhere in the middle with most arguments.

Pick a side of the road, Matt.  Driving down the middle is illegal

Plus:   "You get squashed like a grape"


2 cookies for who can get that movie quote!