October 28th, 2006, 10:04 PM
it is obvious that many people do not believe in the teachings of the Bible, but does anyone believe that all of the writing in the Bible is "made up"? Meaning, it wasn't written by a number of people throughout the ages based on real (if disputed) events, but was just written by some random guy who wanted to create a big hoax. and i'm not just asking you forum folks, i mean anyone at all, if you know of any individuals or groups that believe the Bible is made up.
that'd be a pretty big hoax.
yes, i agree. which is why i'm thinking that not many people think it is, but i was wondering if there anyone out there who feels that way.Originally Posted by SealOtter
Erm, technically, nothing about scriptures predates the dead sea scrolls (save for non-religiously biased historically recorded events. even then they differ to a good extent).
In any case, it's not so much a "hoax" as much as it is a written text (most likely written by well-educated priests of the time) to keep the populace under control. 'course the theories go from that to aliens, but hey!
And it definitely wasn't one random guy, claiming that would be illogical.
No it seems to about 50 different guys. But any experience with religious people will suggest to you the likelihood that if the people who wrote these were con men then they were con men who believed their own spiel.
Then there were church councils who gathered in the first four centuries AD to decide which of many religious writings used by Christians at that time would make it into an official book that would be considered authoritative. So you could also say that the people in these councils "made up" the Bible in that sense.
October 29th, 2006, 11:02 AM
The old testament may have been made up of some phenomina not readily understood by the people of the dayand other stories handed down, such as flooding etc. Some of the new testament may have been an attempt to impose laws on people and cite examples of how one should behave in certain situations. The ten commandments basically seem also to be a set of basic laws to live by.
Since people mostly believed in some god or another I think they just lumped all this together. MitchellMcKain seems to agree with this but has a better insight into when/how it was done.
That's the council of Nicea I believe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
October 30th, 2006, 02:55 PM
The writing style of the different sections of the bible varies quite a lot. It seems very unlikely that it could have all been faked by one person, unless that person put a huge amount of effort into trying to write like different people.
Also, there are parts of the bible that contradict other parts. If one person deliberately made the whole thing up, it probably would have been more consistent.
the different writing styles are normally different languages. Parts in arabic, greek, and hebrew are translated differently because of this. It's most apparent in literal translation, but almost non-existant in overly-dynamic ones.
But yes, you have a point.
And then you had the translation into English which may have had the effect of 'watering down' some the various differences.
Well each language will portray it differently. English is NOT the best for metephoric speaking, or figurative, and is more of an explanative/diplomatic language. I believe german is similar minus the diplomacy. It really depends on which language it's in.
I'd like to see a modern translation, "The dude on the mount" sort of thing..
No. You confuse "modern" with "stupid". English is not to be confused with the widely spoken dialect known as "stupid". Although megabrain may be an expert on the dialect.
The second word is off, you know the rest!
I thought I'd get through one day without your input - that was stupid!
November 5th, 2006, 07:35 PM
Greetings,
Yes,
many scholars argue the Bible is myth.
The OT certainly is -
Adam, Noah, Moses, Joshua - all myths.
The OT was written by many unknown hands over many centuries.
The NT too, was written by unknown hands - not one single book of the NT was written by anyone who met any historical Jesus - such is the consensus of modern NT scholars.
What is a "random guy" exactly?
How does he differ from a "non-random guy" please?
The idea that it was a HOAX is not the main sceptic claim at all.
Rather, the NT was written as midrash, a form of re-interpretation of scripture. The Gospel stories are based on the first Gospel - G.Mark. G.Mark is crafted from the Tanakh (the OT.)
There ARE more than two types of book -
* true history
* hoax.
Is Shakespeare true?
Or is he a hoax?
Obviously neither.
Well,
yes, there are many scholars who claim the Bible is not historically true.
You may like to read Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle, which makes a good case that Jesus was a MYTH - not a "hoax".
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/jesus.html
Iasion
Greetings,
Actually, no.
That is an urban myth.
The Council of Nicea did NOT decide the books of the Bible, see the minutes of the council here:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm
Iasion
I'm sorry, sir, but I have to question your source. Specifically how it seemingly omits some information about the council. Not to mention how you "meticulusly" (sarcasm) used "Urban Myth".Greetings,
Actually, no.
That is an urban myth.
The Council of Nicea did NOT decide the books of the Bible, see the minutes of the council here:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm
Iasion
http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/trinity.htm
However I'm fairly tired and "out of it" at the moment. I'll post on this topic more extensively tomorrow, as I'll be more cognitive.
Greetings,
My source?
My source is the Council of Nicea.
They produced a set of canons (decisions, or "rules.) These canons exist to this day, you can read them in many places, including the well known New Advent site.
The canons make various pronouncements, such as Canon 1 quoted here :
Canon 1. If any one in sickness has been subjected by physicians to a surgical operation, or if he has been castrated by barbarians, let him remain among the clergy; but, if any one in sound health has castrated himself, it behoves that such an one, if [already] enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who wilfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men the Canon admits to the clergy.
The Council also produced the famous Nicene Creed (not quite the same as what we call the Nicene Creed today, but close) and a Synodal Letter.
NONE of these documents make make any mention of deciding the books of the bible.
Yet somehow many people repeat this false claim.
What?
These are the actual OFFICIAL records of the Council of Nicea.
How can they omit anything?
These ARE the ORIGINAL minutes of the meeting.
What exactly is your point?
This IS a very common urban myth - it is endlessly repeated, especially on the internet, by people who don't check the facts - which show the myth wrong.
It's a perfect example of an urban myth.
Um, that page is about the Trinity.
Nothing to do with the council deciding the books of the Bible.
Iasion
Ah, snap, gave the wrong link. Well I haven't been able to locate the one I WAS going to give in my absence, so hell with it.
Chemboy started this off by asking if anyone knew of anyone who actually believed the whole Bible was made up by a single person, a hoaxster. To my surprised, no one has even tried to answer the question!
No, I personally, in all my 79 years here on this Earth, have I ever even heard about anyone believing something so ridiculous as that!
Why would you be looking for someone that believes that? Chemboy, do YOU believe one person hoaxed the whole Bible and all the Bible scholars are fools?
Personally, I go for the theory that Jesus was an anti-Rome activist trying to get a riot going in the Temple that would esculate into a general insurrection against Rome. After it failed, he was caught and executed, his more Greek followers began changing him into a god because it was what masses of disfranchised Romans and Greeks wanted to hear. The "Miracles" are subliminally motivated insertions needed to prove that what the Jewish Massiah was said to do and be was what Jesus did and said.
charles http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
I'm an athiest and I believe that jesus existed, pretty much along the same lines as you charles. I see him as a mere mortal. A sort of a Che Guevara character from his time and place and these stories passed person to person would have been modified and adjusted from person to person in a kind of chinese whisper way
The same would probably be the same for the koran and other religious scriptures
Caveman, I am always glad to hear from a fellow atheist---although, it often turns out that atheism is the only thing atheists can agree on!
That makes us very divided and makes it difficult for us to get along together and function as a team. It used to be that we believed in a common secular system, but our secular beliefs have evolved into such extremes---such as the vegetarians, the animal-rights fanatics, the nudists, the don't spank your children, no death penalty, unisex, etc. that it no longer serves to unify us. We do have organizations, but they do not compare with the potency and unified involvement found in the Baptist, Penticostal and Evangelical movements. Our Administration has seeded all departments of government with these right wing, born-again people. They are pressing on to remove same sex marriage, abortion and evolution in schools. They are making progress against us and against science. Liberal Christians can have both, but not his highly militant third of the nation.
Yet, it will work out. Civilizations decline, but they are then ultimately replaced with something better. . .
charles http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
Ironically, here's a JW website: http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/article_04.htm
Which discusses where the bible would have been "edited". However that only touches on the trinity subject. Appologies, I cannot find a better one.
Jere...
And even that reference is controversial. There is an interesting "editing" case which occured in the 15th century. It was a particularly low point for the Church, being that God had not stopped the plague and 1/3 of Christendom had died, a period known as "Church Corrupt," there were actually three Popes fighting for recogniition. One Pope proceeded to condense the Bible and clean out all the inconsistencies. After all, the Pope was supposed to be infallable, so why not?
His effort was stopped, however, because it was unnecessary. No one read the Bible anyway. The Church had long prevented the layman from even looking at it!
charles http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
to charles brough...
No, I most certainly do not believe the Bible is a hoax. Just simply wondering if anyone did. And I don't think I ever said (though maybe I'm wrong, and if I did, i take it back now) that I wanted to know if one person made it up. That is truly ridiculous.yes, i agree. which is why i'm thinking that not many people think it is, but i was wondering if there anyone out there who feels that way.
ok, I did mention a "random guy", but i meant that generally, not as in one individual. that was just the way i worded it.
I believe this was explained already. The bible was written around 100 A.D. by a lot of highly intelligent and educated people (presumably). It's improbable for ONE person to write something in three different languages, hundreds of different writing styles, etc. It's more logical to work within the timeframe and amount of people it would have taken to write it.to charles brough...
No, I most certainly do not believe the Bible is a hoax. Just simply wondering if anyone did. And I don't think I ever said (though maybe I'm wrong, and if I did, i take it back now) that I wanted to know if one person made it up. That is truly ridiculous.yes, i agree. which is why i'm thinking that not many people think it is, but i was wondering if there anyone out there who feels that way.
This is true; the books of the bible were voted on at the Council of Hippo in 393, the Council of Carthage in 397, and the Council of Milevis in 416.
It is indeed a common misconception that the cannon was decided at Nicea, but it is true that they were decided by vote at councils early in the church history. You often see web pages saying things like "Many goddless atheists would have you believe that the books of the bible were simply voted on at the Council of Nicea - don't believe their lies!" This is false, yes, but only in the fact that people commonly get the council wrong.
Actually, I'd like to know how the variations of the council of nicea were set in play then. Since most everything I've seen traces the trinity doctrine to said concil. Which suggests editing of the bible to conform to said doctrine.This is true; the books of the bible were voted on at the Council of Hippo in 393, the Council of Carthage in 397, and the Council of Milevis in 416.
It is indeed a common misconception that the cannon was decided at Nicea, but it is true that they were decided by vote at councils early in the church history. You often see web pages saying things like "Many goddless atheists would have you believe that the books of the bible were simply voted on at the Council of Nicea - don't believe their lies!" This is false, yes, but only in the fact that people commonly get the council wrong.
The trinity doctrine was indeed laid down at the council of nicea, but they didn't engage in any formal selection of books to include in the bible until decades later.
Most of the council of nicea was actually spent arguing over increadibly trivial stuff like whether Jesus was created by god before being sent down to earth, or had always existed.
While I dislike being ignorant, I have to say it: So that basically means it was edited. Or "influenced" as the case may be. Doesn't it?The trinity doctrine was indeed laid down at the council of nicea, but they didn't engage in any formal selection of books to include in the bible until decades later.
Most of the council of nicea was actually spent arguing over increadibly trivial stuff like whether Jesus was created by god before being sent down to earth, or had always existed.
Well yes, they certainly had the doctrine of the trinity in mind when they held the later councils to determine the cannon, and of course at the later councils they would have rejected any books that contradicted the trinity doctrine.
But at the time of the council of nicea there wasn't a "bible" that had all of the christian holy books compiled into one volume; they had a lot of separate books by different authors, some of which were more popular and respected than others.
They didn't start formally saying "This book is in, that book is out" until later councils.
Aaaaah I see. I get it now, so I just misnamed the council responsible. Do you have any links to other councils?Well yes, they certainly had the doctrine of the trinity in mind when they held the later councils to determine the cannon, and of course at the later councils they would have rejected any books that contradicted the trinity doctrine.
But at the time of the council of nicea there wasn't a "bible" that had all of the christian holy books compiled into one volume; they had a lot of separate books by different authors, some of which were more popular and respected than others.
They didn't start formally saying "This book is in, that book is out" until later councils.
I'm sure that if you google for "early church councils" you will find more than you ever wanted on the subject.
Greetings,
Yup.
Don't forget these were LOCAL councils though,
thus they did not necessarily speak for all churches.
But, as you say, the canon was essentially decided 4th century or so - the very first canon like ours comes from Athanasius' Festal Epistle (Easter Letter) for 367CE.
Although oddly enough, the first ecumenical (whole church) council to formally approve the canon was not until Trent in the 1500s (which affirmed the earlier decision of the Council of Florence.)
Iasion
Greetings,
What variations?
Um, no.
The Council of Nicea did NOT introduce the Trinity doctrine.
I suggest you actually READ the canons of the Council of Nicea :
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm
The trinitarian comma was probably added by Jerome later in the 4th century.
Iasion
Greetings,
No it wasn't.
I just read through the canons of the Council of Nicea again - there is NOT ONE mention of the trinity therein.
All this talk about the Council of Nicea - yet it seems I am the only one who has bothered to read the actual documents produced by the council : http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm
The first clear description of the Trinity doctrine only came in 381CE in the Council of Constantinople.
Iasion
Greetings,
Yes,
they can be found here :
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
And the early writings can be found here:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
Also,
may I remind people that the word is
" CANON "
which means a rule or a list.
The word CANNON refers to a big gun.
Iasion
A few other websites (like two I mentioned in previous posts) say it was according to the canon. Apparently someone is lying.
Also, I have read the supposed "true" canons. But you have to prove their validity first. It's kind of like using the bible to prove it's own validity when you argue against a claim using the exact same thing the claim is based from!
Greetings,
So what?
The actual documents from the Council of Nicea has been presented to you many times on his thread. But you have shown no interest in actually checking the original facts.
And you still can't figure out who is lying?
Hmmm....
What on earth does that mean?
What "true canons" ?
Do you mean the canon of the bible?
Or the canons of the Council?
Do you even KNOW the DIFFERENCE?
What?
I simply cannot even figure out what you are aguing anymore. You are arguing about the Council of Nicea - and you REFUSE to even READ the documents from the actual council. How bizarre and closed minded is that !
The development of the canon of the NT is well known, you can read about it here :
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/NTcanon.html
Sadly, it appears you do not have the slightest interest in researching the facts - instead you keep making false claims from some unknown sites.
What on earth are you on about?
I did make any claims based ON the bible.
You don't seem able to understand what I write.
Iasion
May I suggest that anyon wishing to dispute Iason's claims in regard to Council of Nicea needs to do so by
a) finding support for their contentions in the linked documents of the Council
or,
b) demonstrating the incompleteness of said documents
Saying you don't believe it, or you read something contrary on a website, or appealing to authority just won't cut it. At present Iason is winning this dispute hands down because he is arguing from a purely factual basis. The rest of you appear to be indulging in supposition, assumption and selective memory. (Not that isn't all hugely entertaining, but it isn't very scientific.)
And I asked you to prove they are, in fact, the actual documents.
It means I've no idea which one is the actual canon. Need proof. Proof good.
Straw man tactics. I am arguing about how valid your links are. I have read them, and yes so far they contain nothing about the trinity, yet other links claim (with a canon citation) that there is. I'm merely asking you to prove your source is more valid over the other.
Special note: http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/article_04.htm again, this website here mentions it was originally brought forth at the council of nicea. I'm not saying it was implemented (did I before? I don't recall. Been having very bad sleep lately) during that time.
Confucious say: Man who assumes personality trait in other man, including ad hominems, is no longer credible.Sadly, it appears you do not have the slightest interest in researching the facts - instead you keep making false claims from some unknown sites.
And they aren't false, nor unknown, in fact what claims have I made? I gave two websites on the trinity, and the latter one was regarding the council of nicea.
I believe it is the other way around, sir.You don't seem able to understand what I write.
Oph, I'm afraid you've fallen for his ad hominem style of writing. It makes the writer appear superior to everybody else, even if they take a statement or post entirely the wrong way. I have given one link (which I have just reposted), that specifically states it was mentioned at the council of nicea.
If I made a statement earlier about it being implemented there, I withdraw it. However, the link he posted here http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/NTcanon.html disagrees with the website I posted.
Actually, no, he's arguing from a basis of websites that I'm STILL asking for proof of their validity. Anybody can write a website or omit information, but just finding a website that says "here are the 'original nicea canons'" doesn't really cut it.Saying you don't believe it, or you read something contrary on a website, or appealing to authority just won't cut it. At present Iason is winning this dispute hands down because he is arguing from a purely factual basis.
You are quite right. I should have added third option - disputing the authenticity of said documents, which you are doing.
Greetings,
What the ?
You are arguing that the Canons of the Council of Nicea are fakes?
You are arguing that the official CHURCH RECORD of the Council is faked?
This is insane.
These documents are some of the most important and influential of all Christendom.
You have no idea what you are talking about Jeremy.
If you REALLY believe these documents are fakes,
then produce the REAL ones.
You keep going on about the Council of Nicea but all you produce as evidence is claims from unknown web-sites.
SHOW US the evidence Jeremy.
SHOW US the evidence for your claims.
SHOW US the documents from the council which support your claims.
Ah,
like I suspected.
You do not even know the difference between:
* a canon of a council
and
* the canon of the Bible.
So, what we see is :
* you have NO IDEA what the Council decided,
* you refuse to study the evidence,
* you have NO evidence to support your claim,
* you DON'T EVEN understand what the basic word "canon" means.
I am sure readers will understand why I don't bother with this ignorant fool anymore.
P.S.
I would really appreciate it if people would get my name right.
My name is
IASION
It is NOT Iason,
ok?
Iasion
*sigh* I have no idea what you are going on about. Nor why you quoted me out of context. Let me say this again: Prove that said canons are, in fact, the official ones. prove they haven't been changed, or that the website isn't lying, etc. I question the authenticity of what your sources CLAIM are the actual documents.
I have no idea what *YOU* are talking about.
You just repeated yourself, and I explained in my previous post had you actually read it.You keep going on about the Council of Nicea but all you produce as evidence is claims from unknown web-sites.
The burden of proof is on you to prove that your sources are, in fact, the actual documents from nicea.SHOW US the evidence Jeremy.
SHOW US the evidence for your claims.
SHOW US the documents from the council which support your claims.
Since most of my claims are questioning the validity, I'm not sure what I have to prove. I did give a link that suggests the trinity was mentioned at the council of nicea, whereas your sources say otherwise. I can google until I'm blue in the face, and everybody disagrees.
Hence why I'm asking which is the real supposed "canon". To put it so even a child can understand: Prove that those documents are accurate and valid.
Erm...what? Seriously, what? I'm questioning the validity of the canon you presented for chrissakes!Ah,
like I suspected.
You do not even know the difference between:
* a canon of a council
and
* the canon of the Bible.
Okay, so now you assume things. Let me give you the definition of Canon and lets go from there: http://www.answers.com/topic/canonSo, what we see is :
* you have NO IDEA what the Council decided,
* you refuse to study the evidence,
* you have NO evidence to support your claim,
* you DON'T EVEN understand what the basic word "canon" means.
1. An ecclesiastical law or code of laws established by a church council.
Yeah, pretty straightforeward. Now let me ask again, reworded as best as I can do: Prove that the canons you presented actually list everything the council decided on. I have little faith in the face-value statement that they are the "true canons" or automatically valid without any skepticism.
I have no idea where your hostility is comming from. Probably poor interpretation of what I am saying. HOwever your selective quotes and ad-hominems seem to suggest you aren't in the mood for a debate. You're in the mood to try and piss people off and make anybody who questions you look like an idiot while feeding your own ego.I am sure readers will understand why I don't bother with this ignorant fool anymore.
Case in point: you are more concerned about the READERS than VALIDITY or DEBATING.
Iasion, I am no expert in this subject area. I am not even a misguided amateur. At best I can classify myself as an interested spectator.
As such, I echo jeremyhfht. What evidence supports the authenticity of the documents you are offering as being the official documents of Council of Nicea?
I am not, nor do I think Jeremy is, arguing that the Canons of the Council of Nicea were faked. We are asking you to offer some form of validation of their authenticity, other than your word. Is this unreasonable?
If I make a claim about what Chillingarian has said about clay minerallogy and am challenged on it, I shall quote the journal article in which the statements were made. We are just asking for a similar validation of your statements. Again I ask, is this unreasonable?
He apparently isn't going to, oph. He probably just did this to inflate his ego or something. So much for this debate. >.>
I suspect that many leaders claiming to belive in the teachings of the bible did not in fact follow its example. Like crusaders killing muslims, inquisitors torturing jews, catholics beheading Protestants and Protestants burning catholics at the stake, Salem clergy presiding over burning alive those falsy accused of witchcraft, all the way to Bush empoverishing the Poor and steamroalling Profits to the priviledge few in the industrial military complex by means of an illegal war killing thousands on false pretenses.it is obvious that many people do not believe in the teachings of the Bible, but does anyone believe that all of the writing in the Bible is "made up"?
I've not read the bible personally but dont expect to see, 'as he gave bread to the apostles, jesus said "Thou shall burn alive at the stakes those who have a disagrement about me" and followed by saying "thou shall kill inocent men, women, children and babies in memory of me" and then gave bread...'.
This being said, I think that the Bible is largely a work of fiction more or less inspired by a number of real events and people that live through the ages, and although many aspects of it portray events with magical fantasies and other events more acurately, the main concept that those who wrote it (the words of god) is a fabrication. It doesnt mean its worthless, many fables and children stories like 'the Wonderful Wizard of Oz' carry within lessons in life, but no ones pretending the book was written by the 'Wizard of Emerald City' himself or that Oz actually exists somewhere over the rainbow, and surely no one has tortured and killed thousands of people that did not also share the belief this book is all true. :wink:
IRT Ophi and Jeremy: Well, Iasion linked to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopaedia site. The bottom of the page gives a book reference. Undoubtedly the contents are derived from ancient documents (I won't make any claims for the provenance of same) which will still be in the possession of the Vatican. Say what you like about the Catholic Church, you can't fault their record-keeping!
Jeremy's backpedalling on "Well, a council, whatever" was pretty much the whole point - it is the fact that the Council of Nicaea of 325 that is always referenced as the origin for the New Testament Canon that Iasion was making a point about. Whether the New Testament Canon was decided at an individual council or simply through custom and convention probably isn't known, other than that it was complete by 400. What is known is that it wasn't the Council of Nicaea that made the decision about the Canon of the New Testament.
Aha. That is what I meant by solid validation. I would certainly accept that as a solid source. So, Jeremy - that takes away one leg of your tripod.
Seriously, though, this is a storm in a teacup. The canon was set at some point, it included (but nearly didn't) Revelation, and it didn't include (but nearly did) The Shepherd of Hermas and The Epistle of Barnabus.
Pretty much the only books in the whole bible that were written by the guy that it says wrote them, are those epistles of Paul which have been established as genuine, ie not the Timothies or Titus, nor the letter to the Ephesians, and most especially Hebrews. Outside the New Testament, there is only the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach (aka Ecclesiasticus), which has been consigned to the Apocrypha (not least because it is self-dated, too, and to well within 200 BCE).
No, there's no evidence that the whole bible was written by one person - because such evidence would be trumpeted by the religionists that the Bible is unprecedentedly coherent and single-styled throughout despite being composed over many centuries. Of course, they claim that anyway, despite the considerable differences of style (and incompatibility of content) throughout!
That's basically all I wanted to know from the start. Alright, so the other websites lied, and that source says the truth. 'kay, I officially concede. At least I finally found some truth on the matter.Aha. That is what I meant by solid validation. I would certainly accept that as a solid source. So, Jeremy - that takes away one leg of your tripod.
Actually, they were following the bible quite well. The bible very explicitly says that we're supposed to kill witches, in multiple passages. It also very explicitly says to kill people who don't worship the christian god. For all that christians today like to go on about love and forgiveness, the bible has far more stories about god's followers mercilessly slaughtering or enslaving people than it does about peace/love/forgiveness.
You can use the bible to support almost anything. Hate war? Great! Jesus wants you to be peaceful.
Matthew 5:38-42
Do you like war? Great! Jesus want you to go to war.If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Matthew 10:34
Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Wow...I never thought i'd see the day where someone would actually take a bible quote IMPOSSIBLY OUT OF CONTEXT! Not only do you ignore the surrounding text that basically defines the interpretation, but you also ignore the fact that jesus never delivered said sword.
Also, jesus was speaking of himself. Not what his followers should do. Your point is mute.
----edit----
actually, he did. The sword of "knowledge"! Hah
Ok, here is the whole thing:
How does that change the context? There is nothing in the passage that would suggest that Jesus meant "knowledge". The fact that he talks about people "losing their life" suggests that he is talking about actual physical violence.Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.
Ah, how I love figurative speech. Not. This section of the bible combines figurative meanings (common with jesus) with literal ones. The sword in this case represents the violence I assume, which would ensue when the man would be pitted against his father and such. The question would be why, since nothing seems to say anything further on the subject.
As for man's enemies being members of his household, I'm not quite sure. Within the context it could mean ones enemies are safer than ones own family, but I'm not a bible scholar. Yet in terms of WAR, this says nothing. It basically means that he who has found his life will lose it, and when compared to the later-areas of the bible this suggests one will lose it at the "end-times" (and lose it permanently). And those that follow in the path of christ will, naturally, find life.
I honestly see no correlation between this and war.
A sword is most commonly interpreted as a symbol of war. If you want to interpret the passage figuratively then the sword representing war would be the most obvious interpretation, especially since Jesus goes on to talk about people dying for him and being rewarded in the afterlife.
The bible is full of stories of god's followers murdering or enslaving unbelievers on god's orders, and the bible explicitly commands us to kill people who worship any other gods. Taken in that context, interpreting Jesus's statement of "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" as a reference to war makes perfect sense.
You clearly have some other interpretation based on what you consider christianity to be about and what parts of the bible you consider most important. However, there is nothing to objectively prove that your peaceful interpretation of a sword is any more valid than a 12th century crusader.
You are thinking too closed. A sword can be a symbol of protection, courage, power, anything. it can also be a symbol of "driving the blade between" someone. In this case probably families, but bleh.
And no, it isn't the most obvious. Jesus talks about finding life and losing it, or following him and finding it (thus keeping it). It's not even within the same manner as the prior scripts. I mean, seriously, how can you correlate "i'll deliver a sword" (which the bible doesn't show he delivered) to "those who follow me will live" and claim war? It states nothing of war, fighting, or anything.
At best what it's saying is that after the sword is delivered, follow him and you will be saved.
Not exactly. The bible also has stories of peace.The bible is full of stories of god's followers murdering or enslaving unbelievers on god's orders, and the bible explicitly commands us to kill people who worship any other gods. Taken in that context, interpreting Jesus's statement of "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" as a reference to war makes perfect sense.
And it makes less sense then saying god exists. If jesus were to bring war, then he certainly failed at it. If you care to read from his birth until death, he sort of utterly failed to bring war. However, you are again looking at it in a closed fashion. Look at the REST of the scripture that follows about families, and how your enemy will dwell within your house. Because it includes families, and an enemy within ones own dwelling, I highly doubt it's considered a representation of war. Unless the war part is "your enemy will dwell within your house".
There is nothing to objectively prove your interpretation valid, either. It's a subjective interpretation. What a surprise.You clearly have some other interpretation based on what you consider christianity to be about and what parts of the bible you consider most important. However, there is nothing to objectively prove that your peaceful interpretation of a sword is any more valid than a 12th century crusader.
My problem with this is that we tend to bash so much about the Bible, and the ony reason is because it is a sacred text that questioned and reflect a lot of our life, I guess.
We do not tend to questioned more antiques texts that can also be invalid, untruth and non reliable, just beacuse there are not religious. Have you ever questioned Plato, the Book of the Death (quite religious btw).
We often are cautionless on this type of questioning. Much of the questioning sometimes come from our unconcious fears, reflections and way of living. We have to think a little bit about it. What doe it matter for a atheist or a non-religious person if the Bible is authentic or not? I guess every one has an inner answer.
Just food for thought
And my entire point, you might recall, was that you can use the bible to provide support for almost anything. It all depends on which parts you choose to pay attention to and how you choose to interpret it.
icewendigo said the he doubted that people who did things like burn witches, go on crusades, etc. were following the bible. My point was that they were; they were just paying attention to different parts and interpreting things differently.
It matters because so very many christians are determined to force everyone to follow their religious laws. If people were trying to change school science ciriculum or pass "morality laws" to control sex/stem cell research/marriage/drinking alcohol/and-so-on based on the Book of Death, people would certainly have a lot more to say about it.
I disagree Scifor Refugee, I think more than the Bible, they were following teachings and practice from church. Many churches has deviated from the Bible teachings in so many aspect.
I suspect there's a lot of people that going to church and do not read the Bible at all.
But a lot of atheists do the same. You know how much atheist can "preach" about it. My experience is that religious people and atheists just preach equally. Just, one is theist and not the other. But, both groups "gospel"or "evagelism" the same. But that is just my opinion after having a lot of friends and family in both groups.It matters because so very many christians are determined to force everyone to follow their religious laws. If people were trying to change school science ciriculum or pass "morality laws" to control sex/stem cell research/marriage/drinking alcohol/and-so-on based on the Book of Death, people would certainly have a lot more to say about it.
We often blame religion for so many things (me included) and what i has seen is that money, politics, society structures are just as equally guilty as religion. I mean, some religious people oppose to something and politicts just sell to them in exchanges for votes. So, it is a
biodirectional situation.
No. Atheists are not trying to restrict anyone's freedom. Christians are trying to restrict freedom by passing laws that force everyone - Christian or not - to follow their religious laws. If Christians were just quietly following their own rules and not trying to force everyone to follow them, very few atheists would care.
How can you possibly say that people who, say, killed witches weren’t following the bible when the bible explicitly says that we are supposed to kill them? It even says it multiple times. You couldn't follow it any more literally than that. It's people today who aren'y killing witches who are failing to follow the bible.
Can you post the text in the Bible that says that, that "you should burn the witches?". I think that was a church method decided by them not extract from the Bible. But tell me, maybe I don't know. :?
Still my point, where the atheists to avoid that? How, atheist permits that christians pass laws and decide for others? Well, because or they are not active enough, they do not care, or they sell themselves according to the money and advantages that christians votes could offer.No. Atheists are not trying to restrict anyone's freedom. Christians are trying to restrict freedom by passing laws that force everyone - Christian or not - to follow their religious laws. If Christians were just quietly following their own rules and not trying to force everyone to follow them, very few atheists would care.
Things happens because contraries permits it. At least christians are acting according to their beliefs? Where are the rest, sitting with pizza and beer?
"THOU SHALT NOT SUFFER A WITCH TO LIVE."Can you post the text in the Bible that says that
Exodus 22:18
Iasion
amazing what i started with just a simple question
It's quite sad, but wars have started for less. >.> <.<
I see. Shame christians still used the Old Testament as a rule of living because that's precicely what Jesus cancelled. :?
Jesus appears to disagree:
Matthew 5:17
So, kimosword, I am very curious to hear your explanation for how a Christian could follow the bible but not kill witches. After all, the bible very clearly commands us to kill witches:"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. "
Lev. 20:27
Exodus 22:18A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones; their blood shall be upon them.
Also, since Jesus himself explicitly says that he did not come to abolish the old law, what's your excuse for not following the bible? If we aren't supposed to follow it, why is it in there? If you contend that we don't have to follow the old testament law any more, why should we follow the 10 Commandments either? I contend that the Christians who burned witches were following the bible much better than most Christians today.Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Actually, this is one of the many supposed contradictions. Really it's not contradictory at all. The bible states that the old law was nailed to the stake with jesus (hence it's invalid). However, jesus himself did not void the law. According to scripture, god did.
Oh, I see. So according to you the christians who are trying to take away our freedom by forcing their religious rules onto all of us are better than the atheists who respect people's religious freedom? Please!At least christians are acting according to their beliefs? Where are the rest, sitting with pizza and beer?
Yeah, I guess you all right. So, we can't not blame them. They were following what they were told and then truth to their beliefs. :?
Beliefs can so easily turn into fanatism. This part of the withches is always and will be a terrible part in the history of christianity.
__________________________________________________ __________
In the other hand Jesus do not follow the sabath, do not want his disciples to do sacrifices or fasting.
Examples:
We can also know that circumcision is no longer a binding requirement for salvation, such as from the Jerusalem Council's decision ( Acts 15:1, 5, 23-29) and from what Paul wrote to the Galatians ( Gal. 5:2, 11). We can also tell, from Hebrews 9:9-10 especially, and from the next chapter in the same book, that the animal sacrifices and the laws about being ceremonially unclean and having to wash are abolished.
Scholars has also a debate about that verse you mention
Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them."
First of all you should have to continue the verse:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law UNTIL everything is accomplished."
There's a debate that Jesus came to fulfill the scriptures of the Old Testament and this is what is meant by "until everything is accomplished" which is until he is crucified.
The Sermon of the Mount also is an example
Mathew 5:21-48
Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
So what I see is that there's a debate between christians about the abolition or not of the law. There's also a difference between the christianity that follows Peter or the ones that follow Paul.
Christians nowdays, I think follow more Jesus teachings and also mix some parts as the 10 Commandments from the Old Testament.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, good post this one. You wonder how much you can discuss form a single question. 8)
!Oh, I see. So according to you the christians who are trying to take away our freedom by forcing their religious rules onto all of us are better than the atheists who respect people's religious freedom? Please
Absolutely no. How you interpret that from what I wrote? (my main language is not english so many time I lost myself in translation :wink: ) What I mean is, that just as christians, atheists can organize and claim also. I can't not blame someone is taking things from me that I do not fight to keep. Where are the atheists when chrstians get organized and pressure with their vote or do a manifestation? Where are they?
"I did not come to abolish the law." I don't see how you could get any more explicit than that.
Can you please provide a reference for your strange interpretation?
There are a lot more christians than atheists in my coutry.
There's debates about that. Give me a minute to see if I can find it. It is not my interpretation just a debate exist about that.
There's sure a debate in christianity about the abolition of the law by Jesus.
I don't know your country but mine is like that too... and the same happens. Specially here, with drugs legalization that will resolve us a lot.There are a lot more christians than atheists in my coutry
I know, I know... sometime a line is needed so to resolve things that do so much harm.
http://resources.theology.ox.ac.uk/library/data/pdf
/THD0023.pdf
http://www.regent.edu/acad/sls/publications/other/
workingpapers/pdf/winston_nomos_sept2004.pdf
http://www.biblenotes.org/Research%20Papers
/Israel%20and%20Church.pdf
You can google. There's a lot about that debate
No, since as far as I know it's mine. JESUS said "I did not come to abolish the law" but you cut the quote in half. The FULL quote is: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. ""I did not come to abolish the law." I don't see how you could get any more explicit than that.
Can you please provide a reference for your strange interpretation?
Jesus himself did not destroy the law. In fact it states nothing of him doing so. The bible DOES say that something was nailed to the stak/cross with jesus , but lets get the quote:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins[c] of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.
?book_id=58&chapter=2&version=50
Oh wait I found a reference:
http://www.freedomsring.org/43nailed.html
It appears that the law was not abolished, but rather the "trespasses" which had occured. The law was not nailed to the cross, but the sins of those that had broken the law. I'm not sure how it can be interpreted the other way, since it appears fairly straightforeward.
December 1st, 2006, 09:59 AM
Hopefully most of those that have posted will read this:
Difinitive, exhaustive and long-term (since 1962) research has been poured into The Oxford Annotated Bible. Every question of dates, persons associated with the text, editing, compilation of a new or old testament canon--as well as the apocryphal books: books included in Greek and Slavonic Bibles, not Roman Catholic/Protestant.
As for the hoax/one person idea: The books of the pentateuch (Torah, or 'Law') are very difficult to peg down; they were passed orally for long periods of time, like many great epics and creation stories. Regardless, the Torah was a complete text for centuries (Leviticus was likely written around 538 BCE) before the Gospel (literally 'Good News') was composed.
For the sake of brevity, the Bible is derrived from so many sources across continents, attempting to peg down individual authors, a lack of interpretation etc., is an impossibility.
Please, if only to peruse in a bookstore (the newest edition of the annotated bible is between $30-$40), internet sources can mislead and on occasionally misinform. A comprehensive study of every Bible ever compiled, supplemented by essays, cultural contexts and other material, this offers a much clearer hold on biblical history, evolution, and, most importantly, the evolution of Judeau-Christian Belief.
Iasion!
Welcome to The Science Forum! I hope to see more of your posts here. For those that haven't read his stuff elsewhere, Iasion is a wealth of information. If encouraged to continue posting here, we may be able to benefit from it.
I might be encouraged to start a series of posts on Syro-Palestinian archaeology (known by some as "biblical" archaeology) and what it informs us with regard the accuracy (or, conversely, the inaccuracy) of Judeo-Christian religious texts.
Your comments and criticisms then would be welcome.
Greetings,
Thank you kindly,
I appreciate your kind words :-)
I hope to pop in here from time to time (I am rather busier just now though) and will contribute to biblical history where I can.
regards,
Iasion
This may spice up the debate
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...41687701731240
All this talk about the "law" needs to be put into perspective. I often hear people talking about all the laws in religion.
Christianity has only two "LAWS." The first being,"Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your might." The second, "Love your neighbor as yourself." As Jesus said, "Upon these hang the law and the prophets."
The idea here is that if your conducted is motivated by these basic laws, you will be doing the right things.
So when Jesus says he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it, that is what he was talking about. Part of his purpose was to show us how to do those things.
When you look at the rest of the "laws" in the Bible starting with the 10 Commandments, they are all examples of ways we can show that we love God or love our neighbor.
Somebody above has suggest that Christians follow the law because "God said so."
I see that attitude as being the same as early seal belt law advertisments which always ended, "It's the law." The more important aspect of seat belt laws is that they make good sense.
So, to the extent that I am able to do the things the Bible says to do or to refrain from conduct the Bible says should not be done, I do so because those things make good sense.
When you get to those things such as stoning witches or people caught in adultry, I suggest those things no longer show love for God or the person. Therefore,they now fall outside the law.
Besides that, in most of western culture, you would be convicted of murder for doing that.
However, in Islamic countries, the Muslim male is duty bound to kill any female member of his family who has been defiled by any sexual impurity, even if she is the victim of rape. You punish the rapee, not the raper.
This is an extract from an essay someone has written regarding the flaw's in the Bible. (http://mindprod.com/religion/noah.html)yes, i agree. which is why i'm thinking that not many people think it is, but i was wondering if there anyone out there who feels that way.
1-God dwells in light 1 Timothy 6:16
God dwells in darkness 1 Kings 8:12
2-Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is unforgivable Mark 3:29, Matthew 12:31-32
Believers are justified in all things. Acts 13:39
3-John the Baptist is Elias Matthew 11:14
John the Baptist isn't Elias John 1:21
4-A brother will marry his brother's widow Deuteronomy 25:5
Such a thing is unclean Leviticus 20:21
5-Think not that I come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34
… all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Matthew 26:52 & Revelations 13:10
6-For wrath killeth the foolish man… Job 5:2
… let not the sun go down on your wrath. Ephesians 4:26
7-And no man hath ascended up to heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. John 3:13
…and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. 2 Kings 2:11
8-If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. John 5:31
I am one that bear witness of myself… John 8:18 [Jesus Christ was the speaker in both of these quotes]
9-A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children… Proverbs 13:22
Sell that ye have… Luke 12:33, Matthew 19:21
Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth Colossians 3:2
10-And the priest shall burn all on the altar to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the Lord. Leviticus 1:9
Your burnt offering are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me. Jeremiah 6:20
11-On the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement; it shall be a holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls and offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord. Leviticus 23:27
For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offering or sacrifices. Jeremiah 7:22
12-God is not the author of confusion. I Corinthians 14:33
Out of the mouth of the most high proceedeth not evil and good? Lamentations 3:38
13-With God all things are possible. Matthew 19:26
And the Lord was with Judah, and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. Judges 1:19
14-…for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever. Jeremiah 3:12
Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever. Jeremiah 17:4
15-…the earth abideth forever. Ecclesiastes 1:4
…the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 2 Peter 3:10
16-If a man vow a vow unto the Lord or swear an oath… he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth. Numbers 30:2
But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven… nor by earth. Matthew 5:34-35
17- Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. 2 Kings 8:26
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. 2 Chronicles 22:2
18- For all have sinned. Romans 3:23
There was a man… whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright. Job 1:1
19- Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire. Matthew 5:22
[Jesus said] Ye fools and blind. Matthew 23:17
---------------------------------------------------------------------
These are extract's from the same website but from the bible study section, I'm only putting up a few if you want to read the whole thing then visit the website. It basically tell's you of some of the scenario's that occur in the Bible, it is however written in a more understandable way.
-Genesis-
1:26 Humans are God's chosen species. They have the right to plunder the planet as they see fit and to enslave and torment all other species. That is probably not what God meant by “giving dominion” but that's how Christians like James Watt and George Bush seem to interpret it.
3:1-5 Talking snake.
7:23 God drowns every living thing on the planet.
19:8 Lot offers his virgin daughters to a mob
-Exodus-
1:22 Throwing all boy babies into the river
7:20 River of human blood
12:29 God kills all first-born babies in Egypt
-Numbers-
5:11-31 "Fidelity" test for women only - men? No problem
15:32-36 God says kill a man for gathering firewood on the Sabbath
16:35 God burns alive 250 men for offering incense
16:33 God swallows up huge crowd in earthquake
-Deuteronomy-
2:33-35 God demands killing of women, children, theft of land, theft of cattle.
3:6 Wide-spread genocide, men, women and children.
7:1 How to be gracious in victory.
7:6 Jews are God's chosen people.
7:16 Kill everyone who is not a Jew.
Written by a supreme being or supremely silly clueless men? You decide for yourselves...
gelanti quotes apparent flaws in the Bible:
To the believer, God dwells in light; to the non-believer, God is hidden in darkness.1-God dwells in light 1 Timothy 6:16
God dwells in darkness 1 Kings 8:12
These two verses have nothing to do with each other. It is like trying to link the verse that says Judas then hanged himself with the verse that says go thou and do likewise.2-Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is unforgivable Mark 3:29, Matthew 12:31-32
Believers are justified in all things. Acts 13:39
In Matthew, Jesus is not saying that John the Baptist is the reincarnation of Elijah, but confirming what John himself had said – that he was the voice in the wilderness prophesied by Elijah.3-John the Baptist is Elias Matthew 11:14
John the Baptist isn't Elias John 1:21
The verse in Dueteronomy requires a brother to take care of his dead brother’s wife; the verse in Leviticus relates to sleeping with your brother’s wife while he is still alive.4-A brother will marry his brother's widow Deuteronomy 25:5
Such a thing is unclean Leviticus 20:21
This is differentiated by the fact that in Mt. 10:34, Jesus is not talking about literal sword fights but of the splitting of families and friendships over the issue of his Messiahship. The other references are talking about people who resort to violence in the settling of disputes.5-Think not that I come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34
… all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Matthew 26:52 & Revelations 13:10
These are not even contradictory when you consider that the foolish man does not let the sun go down on his wrath but carries it around inside himself until it eventually does him harm.6-For wrath killeth the foolish man… Job 5:2
… let not the sun go down on your wrath. Ephesians 4:26
I could continue on through each of the cited alleged discrepancies pointing out how they have been taken out of context trying to compare apples with oranges or applying them literally when they have only figurative meaning and vice versa.
But, as the first “discrepancy” points out, when one is viewing God from the darkness of non-belief, the truth in these verses will not be viewed in the light of God’s perspective.
| « Why did it take 6 days. | Basic assumptions about 'God' » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
