Bacteria Amaze

[Guest shiloh357]

Now this raises the inevitable question: If the Bible contains flaws, who is to say any of it is true?

That is your conundrum. If the testimony of the Bible is not true in relation to man's origin, how can it be trusted to be accurate in terms of man's sin and need of a Redeemer?

The Bible was inspired by God. He revealed Himself to its various authors who subsequently transcribed His message. Thusly did God's message come into the form of a physical book. While the book embodies a divine message, it is still a book and therefore has been subject to error and human distortion over the thousands of years of its existence.

Which demonstrates your fundamental ignorance concerning the manuscript evidence, not to mention the archeolocial evidence that shows the Bible's history and testimony to be amazingly accurate. In fact, every attempt to find flaw's in the historical and biographical accounts have ended up in vindicating the Bible's unswerving accuracy.

There are parts, specifically in the Old Testament, that I find downright repugnant. You know, the various things on genocide, slavery, etc. These cannot be reconciled with a loving God, period. In my opinion, these atrocities imperfection reflects the barbaric times in which the Bible was written. Either that or God is the barbarian, and that's something I refuse to believe.

God never called for Genocide and the slavery in which Bible legislates is not the type of slavery that occurred when Egypt enslaved the Israelites or the slavery of pre-Civil War United States. In Bible times slavery was almost a profession and also a voluntary act used to pay off a debt. Again, you really don't know what you are talking about, when it comes to the Bible.

While God's message was a perfect message, I do not believe the Bible is a perfect book, to the extent that it was transcribed, translated, and reproduced by fallible human beings over the ages.

Again, the manuscript evidence avalaible to us defies that claim. Furthermore, your statement flies in the face of God's omscience and omnipoetence and His ability to preserve His word.

It is my personal relationship with Jesus Christ, not my scholarship of the Bible, that keeps me in the faith.

Yet it is the Bible that is so flawed, according to you, that provides you with what you know about Jesus. If the Bible has been subject to as much tampering you assert, how do you know that what it records about Jesus is accurate? How do you KNOW that Jesus even promised salvation? How do you know that "salvation" wasn't added later by an errant scribe? It is internally inconsistent to reject the accuracy of the Bible in some matters, but claim you have faith in the Bible's accuracy in other matters. Again, you are simply treating the Bible like a smorgasboard and making it servant to your whims.

The bottom line for me is, I am not willing to throw away my God-given sense of decency in order to stand by genocides, torture, and other things that are written about the Bible, specifically the Old Testament. I simply can't reconcile that with Jesus or with a loving God.

If the Bible is so flawed, how do you know that God is loving? Could not the "loving" parts of the Bible be as flawed or made up, or tampered with as the other parts you reject on that basis? The problem here is that you basing truth on what you can or cannnot accept as an accurate record of events. The issue is not what you find acceptible. The question is, is the Bible's record of events truthfully reocorded? If not, then it unravels any ability to trust in more important spiritual matters.

Anyway, I expect to get an earful from you and many others, sure. This won't bother me, because I understand there are hundreds of sects of Christianity and manifold interpretations of the Bible.

That is nothing to take comfort in. When you stand before Christ at judgment, you will not be measured against what other people beleived. You won't be measured or judged on the basis of what some other group of Christians said was true. Your life and your words, your very testimony of your rejection of the Bible on this thread will be held up to the light of God's Word. God's word is what we are measured against. The very Bible you say is flawed and unreliable will be the standard by which you are judged. So, it doesn't really matter what others believe as that will avail you nothing before the throne. You will have to give an account for your rejection of God's testimonies and will have to explain why you felt that you were superior enough in knowledge to challenge God's integrity.

The God I believe does not allow people to fry in a fire forever.

Well you have a different god. The Bible says that those who choose continued separation from God here and die in that condition face an eternity separated from God and that is not something God wanted.

God made a way for mankind to return to Him. He opened the gates and whosever will may come. He paid the ultimate price so that man will not have to suffer in eternity, but it is man's rejection of God that brings about that eternal condition. Hell is not something God sends people to. It a consequence of rejecting His grace, and after death, that choice cannot be reversed.

[Guest shiloh357]

...Because I don't believe the Bible is completely inerrant.

Then how do you trust any of it?

Now this raises the inevitable question: If the Bible contains flaws, who is to say any of it is true?

Exactly! Do you just pick the parts you want to believe?

Yes, he picks the parts that sound good to him and he believes them. If they dont agree with this preconceived idea of what God should be, he dismisses them. and then he calls himself open minded!

Thomas Jefferson did the same the thing. He literally cut out of the pages of the NT, the parts He did not like or refused to believe. The Lorax is basically doing the same thing. He is making Himself the standard against which the Bible is measured. If He doesn't like it, or finds some part "unacceptible," suddenly it was "tampered" with or some other nonsense.

[The Lorax]

Do you really think God would allow His perfect book to have human error in it? So there would be doubt as to what is true and what isn't?

Was the Bible not printed and reprinted by humans? Did God not give humans free will? Do humans not err?

[The Lorax]

As for the Bible being either 100% true or 100% untrue - what basis do any of you have for claiming that?

If the Bible were 100% true when it was first revealed -- and I believe it was -- but accumulated human error over time, then it would neither be 100% true or 100% untrue. You've all demonstrated what's called the fallacy of the excluded middle. This fallacy is very common because humans have a bias to think in black-or-white terms, often for no good reason.

[The Lorax]

But again, going with your view here, how could or would you know which parts were "right" and which were no longer the words of God?

That's the tricky part - you can't, not with complete certainty, anyway. That's why I want to make clear these are just my personal beliefs. I'm not asking anyone to agree with them; I'm just explaining them. That's also why I'm open to change.

All you have to go on is what you read in the Bible and your own preconceived notions of how things should be. Since you can’t trust the Bible, all you have to go on is your preconceived notions, which is the same thing you were blasting Shiloh about not long ago.

I would not call our God-given moral compass a "preconceived notion." It is deeper and more essential than that.

There is part of me that knows stealing is unacceptable, murder is unacceptable, etc. It is this part of me that guides my biblical interpretation.

[The Lorax]

Thomas Jefferson did the same the thing. He literally cut out of the pages of the NT, the parts He did not like or refused to believe.

Woah, I'm following after Thomas Jefferson!

[The Lorax]

going with your idea that the Bible has been tampered with, how do you know that the part about Jesus is the "real" part and the rest is what was added? With your view, couldnt it be that the part about Jesus was the part that was tampered with?

Didn't see this.

I know because I have experienced Jesus.

[The Lorax]

I dont know about you, but my God does not play tricks, so there is no tricky part. The whole thing is the Word of God, just as it tells us it is.

It's interesting you see it through that lens, "my God" vs. your God.

I see it as one God and many interpretations.

But anyway, I don't think God plays tricks. Never said He did.

yes, but going with your way of viewing the Bible, the person to whom stealing is nacceptable and murder is acceptable, could ignore the parts that tell him that to do so is wrong.

People can and do ignore the Bible regardless. This is not what I do - I don't ignore what I dislike. I *question* things that may be logically and/or demonstrably impossible. For instance, the idea of 7-day of creation does not stand up to scientific evidence As a result, I interpret 7-day creation metaphorically. This decision is based on evidence, not on whims.

Anyone can ignore any part that wanted to fit their views. Is this really how you think God is going to give us his Word? You are basically going by your fallen nature to determine what is right and wrong instead of going by the Word that God gave us.

Again, your argument presupposes the Bible has not been changed in an number of ways by any number of fallen human beings. Tautology: an argument that assumes the point it's made to prove.

[The Lorax]

It's interesting you see it through that lens, "my God" vs. your God.

I see it as one God and many interpretations.

But anyway, I don't think God plays tricks. Never said He did.

I dont see it as one God. The god you speak of is not the same as the God that I worship. It is not the God of the Bible

There is only one God, though.

yes, you do ignore the parts of the Bible you dont like, you ignore them by saying they are false.

Way off the mark. Rejecting an impossible interpretation is not "ignoring the Bible." Furthermore, my interpretation is based on evidence, not personal preference.

If the Bible has not been changed in an number of ways by any number of fallen human beings then we are both ignorant for even talking about it.

I don't see how assessing possibilities can make us ignorant. Ignorance does not arise from thorough consideration; it arises from the lack of it.

If it has been changed then none of it can be trusted.

It certainly opens a can of theological worms, yes, and that's why many are hesitant to even consider that possibility. But the possibility is undeniable given that the Bible has been vulnerable to the influence of humans for ages.

How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain. Jeremiah 8:8

You position is one of great ease

Not really. It would be theologically expedient to take the Bible literally in its entirety, but of course evidence prevents that.

you take the parts you like and say they are from God, you take the parts you don’t like and say they are false.

This is a flawed diagnosis. My interpretation is guided by evidence and by logic, not by personal preference.

This is a position that can’t be defended as you have no way of knowing what is from God and what is not.

You know what's a position that can't be defended? That a loving God commanded genocide and condoned slavery. Or that a loving God permits torture, *eternal* torture. Belief in such is indefensible, as these things are logically self-negating. There can't be square circles.

[The Lorax]

One more thing:

Although I think the Bible has been altered, I think the Lord's message still shines through. After all, it was through the Holy Bible that I found Jesus. If the Bible were flawed beyond measure, this could not have happened. That is why these excluded middle arguments have no weight with me.