What if Jesus didn't die on the cross

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

That's the central issue, I think. Most people get their information from more than one source. Again, from a pretty religious source:

"The error of the theologians of the time . . . was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture."

I think creationists make a similar mistake.

I can't speak for the accuracy or inaccuracy of every theologian but the Bible can be trusted....literally.

Why? Why is it that you believe the Bible to be literal, factual, historically accurate "TRUTH"?

Especially when it is full of contradictions, mistranslations and changes that were proven to be made well after the original was written.

You make it clear that you believe so, yet despite repeatedly being asked, you have yet to answer. You simply deflect the question, or post some AiG page or ignore it.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

I agree. However, I'd say we strive to understand how God created the universe by studying the universe.

How? You say we can't learn anything about the past by studying present phenomena. So how can you possibly learn anything about how it was created by looking at what it is now?

For all you are prepared to say it could have started off as a pink blancmange.

Quote

I don't disagree with them. I just don't think we can know exactly. I think they're in the ball park, however.

Ok, they're in the ballpark. So, again, why could the universal constants have been subject to wild changes in the few thousand years before humans started writing, but not in the few thousand years since?

(And btw, 'know exactly'? Between 6 and several 10's of thousands of years isn't even approximate!)

Quote

I'm not prepared to make the assumptions you just made. It's got nothing to do with the timeframe of written language.

A) What assumptions?

B) Yes it is.

Quote

You're showing your biased presuppositions. Don't worry. It's okay. At least, it's honest.

OK, that they're idiots is a matter of opinion, that they're liars is a matter of record.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,991]

>I can't speak for the accuracy or inaccuracy of every theologian but the
>Bible can be trusted....literally.

So gays must be put to death; their blood shall be upon them?

Do you keep your women silent in church, forbidding them to speak?

You think the world is fixed and cannot move?

I think that you're smarter than that.

[stevebabin 0]

Quote

>I can't speak for the accuracy or inaccuracy of every theologian but the
>Bible can be trusted....literally.

So gays must be put to death; their blood shall be upon them?

Do you keep your women silent in church, forbidding them to speak?

You think the world is fixed and cannot move?

I think that you're smarter than that.

I'm not so sure about that last part...

"Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings."
"Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up."

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That's the central issue, I think. Most people get their information from more than one source. Again, from a pretty religious source:

"The error of the theologians of the time . . . was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture."

I think creationists make a similar mistake.

I can't speak for the accuracy or inaccuracy of every theologian but the Bible can be trusted....literally.

Why? Why is it that you believe the Bible to be literal, factual, historically accurate "TRUTH"?

Especially when it is full of contradictions, mistranslations and changes that were proven to be

They are not contradictions if you redefine the rules of logic, like Creationists do. Logic bends to fit what is written in the bible.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jaybird18c 24]

Quote

Why? Why is it that you believe the Bible to be literal, factual, historically accurate "TRUTH"?

That is a loaded question. One could go into detail and explain infallibility, authority, self-authentication, sufficiency, perspicuity, finality, reliability, trustworthiness, internal & external evidences...but simply put, it is the revealed word of God, written by men moved along by the Holy Spirit.

Quote

Especially when it is full of contradictions, mistranslations and changes that were proven to be made well after the original was written.

That is a loaded assertion. All of which have been dealt with ad-nauseam. You guys really need to do some research and come up with some new material instead of just reading off the top 10 common objections.

[jaybird18c 24]

Quote

So gays must be put to death; their blood shall be upon them?

Do you keep your women silent in church, forbidding them to speak?

You think the world is fixed and cannot move?

I think that you're smarter than that.

We've discussed this a lot before Billvon. I KNOW you're smarter than that. I know you understand the progressive revelatory nature of the scriptures telling the very long story of God's chosen people and illustrating His plan of salvation for his people. You make reference to certain laws which I know...you know the difference between civil law (pertaining only to the Nation of Israel), ceremonial law (which was eventually fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ), and God's moral law (ten commandments; which apply to us today). I know...you know because we've discussed it. I know...you know the proper context which must be applied to the verses stating silence of women in church...that it is not a matter of male superiority...but one of differing roles...and Godly submission. I know that you know the Bible contains lots of literary forms one of which is poetry and metaphor as with Psalm 93:1. Of course you read it literally....it is literally poetry. Come on man...

[billvon 2,991]

>the difference between civil law (pertaining only to the Nation of Israel)

Yep. Like most intelligent people, you do not take the Bible 100% literally, and instead use qualifiers like "well, that was an ancient law that's no longer applicable" and "that's just an analogy, we don't _really_ want to silence women in church" and "that was just a metaphor; we now know the Earth really moves." Such an interpretation is, IMO, a wise approach.

>the Bible contains lots of literary forms one of which is poetry and metaphor . . .

Exactly! Everything in the Bible cannot be trusted literally; there are a great many examples of metaphor, parable and fiction.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

>the Bible contains lots of literary forms one of which is poetry and metaphor . . .

Exactly! Everything in the Bible cannot be trusted literally; there are a great many examples of metaphor, parable and fiction.

However, when the reader has the gift of the Holy Spirit to rightly divide the word of truth he can understand how it is revealed in his own life for proper revelation and application. The Holy Spirit guides the believer to a stronger relationship with Jesus the Christ. Without the Holy Spirit the reader is just reading words.

You have to join the club to enjoy the benefits of membership.

As far as I am concerned, being a Christian counselor, the origin of the universe is a moot point. But, that is just me.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Meso 38]

So you're saying you need to be enlightened for the bible to make sense.

Yet, the bible is supposed to be the source of the original enlightenment. Is it not? If it is not, and you're supposed to find god on your own accord, to such a degree that you're willing to dedicate your life to it, it just doesn't seem to make sense since. It's like signing a contract before reading it, and being told you can only read what it says when you sign it.

How are you going to find God without the map?

I'm fairly certain that most churches promote things the other way around, that you read the bible, and understand what it is you're going to be basing your life on, and from there you invite the holy spirit into your life.

Not blindly calling for something you don't know and THEN deciding to read what it is that your religion promotes and what it has to say.

Without doing that, you'd be relying on the word of man, which in most cases strays so very far from what the bible teaches.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

One could go into detail and explain infallibility, authority, self-authentication, sufficiency, perspicuity, finality, reliability, trustworthiness, internal & external evidences...

You could, but you know you'll get shot down on every point.

BTW, the presentation of that list (which I know you just lifted straight from WotM) is the classic example of the Baffle Them With Bullshit approach. Just string together enough words that it sounds like you must have quite a detailed argument. Not just a string of random words.

Quote

but simply put, it is the revealed word of God, written by men moved along by the Holy Spirit.

And that is the classic example of the circular approach. It's true because it's the revealed word of god, it's the revealed word of god because it says it is, and we believe it because it's true.

Quote

You guys really need to do some research and come up with some new material instead of just reading off the top 10 common objections.

Since you guys have never satisfactorily answered any of the most obvious objections, there's no need to come up with anything new.


But I'm still looking for an answer for my question. Why do you believe the universal constants could have changed in the 1 or two thousand years before humans discovered writing, but not in the 5,000 years since?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jaybird18c 24]

Quote

Yep. Like most intelligent people, you do not take the Bible 100% literally, and instead use qualifiers like "well, that was an ancient law that's no longer applicable" and "that's just an analogy, we don't _really_ want to silence women in church" and "that was just a metaphor; we now know the Earth really moves." Such an interpretation is, IMO, a wise approach.

Exactly! Everything in the Bible cannot be trusted literally; there are a great many examples of metaphor, parable and fiction.

No Billvon. The bible can be trusted literally. However, there obviously is a misunderstanding of what we mean by literal interpretation.

A literal interpretation of the Bible does not mean that we, for instance in Psalm 93:1, believe that the Earth stands still. We have to understand the literary type and purpose. Psalm 93, according to Dr. John MacArthur, is “dedicated to celebrating God’s sovereign kingship over the world.” It “glorifies God’s eternal, universal kingdom which is providentially administered through His Son. Nothing is more powerful than the Lord, nothing is more steadfast than his reign; nothing is more sure than His revelation.” Psalm 93:1 is “an exclamation of the Lord’s universal reign over the earth from the time of creation and forever.”

Literal interpretation means that the bible is to be read and understood in a plain and straightforward manner. It means that we read the text literally understanding what is meant to be conveyed by the original author to the original audience. It means that we read it with the understanding that historical narratives are literally that. In other places, there are metaphors and simile and are literally read as such. Poetry and songs are also included and are to be read as such. It doesn’t mean that they aren’t conveying truth. It just means that we take into consideration the literary style. Because we understand that the bible is to be read and interpreted literally and not allegorically, we also understand the creation story, for instance, as a historical narrative. It was written as a literal account of events, times, and genealogies.

[jaybird18c 24]

Quote

BTW, the presentation of that list (which I know you just lifted straight from WotM) is the classic example of the Baffle Them With Bullshit approach. Just string together enough words that it sounds like you must have quite a detailed argument. Not just a string of random words.

Not really. It’s just way more in-depth than you’d like to make it seem. The bible is probably the most scrutinized book in history because of what’s at stake. Those topics can be found in several good systematic theology books. The one I had to read for a seminary class was “A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith” by Dr. Robert L. Reymond.

Quote

But I'm still looking for an answer for my question. Why do you believe the universal constants could have changed in the 1 or two thousand years before humans discovered writing, but not in the 5,000 years since?

Because the creation event is over? ….and we can measure and accurately predict physical properties in the present? I can’t say with absolute certainty how things occurred in the beginning. That’s why it’s called a theory. But then, neither can you. Again…I see organization and I think…Organizer. I see design (e.g. DNA)…and I think….Designer. You must believe it all happened on its own…by chance. Either way…ultimately…you can’t prove it scientifically.

Added: And that goes back to our presuppostitions...which influence all of our interpretations going forward.

[jaybird18c 24]

Quote

So you're saying you need to be enlightened for the bible to make sense.

In a sense, that's true. The Bible does have the property of perspecuity meaning that it is understandable even to an atheist. An atheist can read what it says and understand it even if he doesn't believe it. However, there is more to it than that. Simply giving a mental ascent to what the bible says isn't enough. In that sense, one must be enlightened to understand it. That is to say, understood with the intent of submitting to what it says. It is "spiritually understood." For example, John 11:35 reads "Jesus wept." (the shortest verse in the bible). You could survey a group of atheists in a room and they'd probably come up with the consensus that it means, Jesus was upset and cried. On the other hand, the verses that explain Jesus as the only way to salvation and why will not really make sense to them...because "the preaching of the gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing." So, I completely understand the misunderstanding of and hostility toward what we're talking about. I used to be there.

[beowulf 1]

It's always interesting when people redefine words to fit what want them to mean. Like the word "Literal".

[jaybird18c 24]

Quote

It's always interesting when people redefine words to fit what want them to mean. Like the word "Literal".

Can I understand what you just said literally as sarcastic?

[beowulf 1]

I wasn't being sarcastic, just making an observation.

Very little of what you say here makes any rational sense and that sentence is no exception.

[jaybird18c 24]

Quote

Very little of what you say here makes any rational sense and that sentence is no exception.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Opinions vary.

[beowulf 1]

Why would you be sorry?

[jaybird18c 24]

Quote

Why would you be sorry?

Because I like to at least be understood even if not agreed with?

[beowulf 1]

Just a suggestion, but try using words that actually mean what you are trying to say.

Saying you take the bible literally and then explaining that some parts are metaphorical is a contradiction.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Not really. It’s just way more in-depth than you’d like to make it seem.

No, that's not it. "Perspicuity"? "Sufficiency"? "Finality"? Verbal diarrhea.

Quote

Because the creation event is over?

Nope, that doesn't fit. The link you posted to attack radioisotope dating methods talked about changing half lives to thow off apparent age. That would need to have happened at some point between creation and now.

Quote

and we can measure and accurately predict physical properties in the present?

Not for 5,000 years we haven't been able to. Not by a long shot.


You know what I think? I think you let whatever is left of your rational mind get the better of you for a moment. I think you described recorded human history as being "not that long" compared to the scope of time because, really, you know that the claim that the scope of time is limited to what's described in the biblical genealogy is ludicrous and absurd.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[winsor 236]

So, I completely understand the misunderstanding of and hostility toward what we're talking about. I used to be there.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

Why? Why is it that you believe the Bible to be literal, factual, historically accurate "TRUTH"?

That is a loaded question. One could go into detail and explain infallibility, authority, self-authentication, sufficiency, perspicuity, finality, reliability, trustworthiness, internal & external evidences...but simply put, it is the revealed word of God, written by men moved along by the Holy Spirit.

Quote

Especially when it is full of contradictions, mistranslations and changes that were proven to be made well after the original was written.

That is a loaded assertion. All of which have been dealt with ad-nauseam. You guys really need to do some research and come up with some new material instead of just reading off the top 10 common objections.

With the exception of "external evidence" (internal evidence is simply "it's true because it says it is true") those are the "what" you believe. Not the "why". Simply put, you have yet to say why you believe it to be true. Is it what you were taught when young? Have you examined all sides of the issue with an open mind (not the arguments in AiG)? Did God at some point speak directly to you and say "Yes, the Bible is true"?

And the assertion of the accuracy (or lack of it) hasn't been dealt with "ad nauseam". You have only answered it with links to a very biased website. One which stated (the first line on the page about the speed of light not being constant) that :

"In virtually all areas of science, we find evidence that strongly confirms the Genesis account of creation."

Really? Which areas are those?

Biology? Botany? Geology? Paleontology? Physics? Chemistry?

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[jaybird18c 24]

Quote

So, I completely understand the misunderstanding of and hostility toward what we're talking about. I used to be there.

You neither understand nor were there. Ever.