Fundies are often easier to deal with then "moderate-conservative" Christians.

One major problem I have with them is that they ignore the attrocities in the Old Testament and

they will readily and eagarly tell me why.


"Well, sure, there were a lot of bad things mentioned in the Old Testament, but that was because the people didn't understand the word of God correctly. That's why Jesus came, to correct us. He came to teach us that God is about love."


Okay, so I'm still stumbling a bit to answer this, and as you may well know, if you stumble at all... theists call "victory."



Thank you

Views: 103

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Surely... the statements I made were made by a Christian Bishop [who was also a historian] in a 1970s book called "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism"
You should look at it.
Reverend Dr. John Shelby Spong begins by examning the original authors of the Old Testament and showing their various motives. He makes the claim that Christianity must learn to adapt to the new evidence of biblical history that has come to light, or it will die. [The process of Christianity's death has already begun, given that 1. The religion is polarizing - fewer people choose to be non-literalist Christians, and 2. The religion is losing members faster than in it's 2000 years of history. The acceleration of this trend is astounding with the Pew Research showing a spike in abandonment in just a few generations. "The U.S. religious marketplace is extremely volatile, with nearly half of American adults leaving the faith tradition of their upbringing to either switch allegiances or abandon religious affiliation altogether, a new survey finds." -

Also Dr. Spong reveals that the OT had 4 writers who were "editing" eachothers work. None of these writers wrote at the same time. Rather, they edited and added to the work of older texts over hundreds of years.
again that is speculation
again that is speculation

Now you're getting it! It's ALL speculation! The very fact there is so little consensus among Bible scholars/historians is important.

All credible scientists accept Evolution as fact; it is not disputed. Sure, there are people who disagree, but they're not credible sources; they don't even understand the nature of evolution. There are ZERO credible sources regarding the Bible, hence the ongoing debate among people who believe the Bible is more than a book.
I had heard that. Ghenna was a dump. By burning, based on the new evidence of this translation, Yeshua [the Aramaic name of Jesus] was referring to the tendancy of the stinking refuse to catch fire.
...or the fact there may have been volcanic activity in the area. There are much more reasonable explanations for the origin of the concept of Hell than just accepting, at face value, there really is a "gateway to the underworld", or even an "underworld" at all.

If we admit Gehenna was a real place; a real place that wasn't a "gateway" but a dump, then maybe the place where it led was also made-up and misunderstood. Mt St. Helen seems like a better candidate for Sheol anyway.
//All credible scientists accept Evolution as fact; it is not disputed. Sure, there are people who disagree, but they're not credible sources; they don't even understand the nature of evolution. There are ZERO credible sources regarding the Bible, hence the ongoing debate among people who believe the Bible is more than a book.//

Actually there are two main camps as far as the Bible goes, the Skeptics and the Believers, and they both hold different views, but the book that Meghan brought up was a bunch of theories and half truths
I dont understand what your trying to say Ghenna refers to an area in Jerusalem. I never said it had any correlation with hell
Jews say it has correlation with Hell; Jesus used the word "Gehenna" in the NT. According the Jews, it was considered the gateway to the underworld, or Sheol. Jesus referred to Gehenna 14 times in the NT, which means he obviously took the "Jewish superstitions" quite seriously himself. And since Jesus is your savior and the alleged Son of God, I would assume you take him seriously as well... more seriously, even, than the Bible scholars.

And, you can't just put everyone who studies into two camps: Believer and Skeptics. It simply isn't true. I've mentioned this several times, but I guess no one is interested. There are BELIEVERS who think the events in Revelations occurred in 70 AD (the Preterists), and the Roman emperor, Nero, perfectly fits the description of the Beast, not to mention (in Roman), his name equals or correlates with 666. Whether or not you agree is beside the point; these people believe the Bible is the Word of God as much as you do, and would claim you weren't a "true Christian" either... and they do.

There are others who study the Bible who have yet different interpretations and, I can tell you, they're not Skeptics of the Bible... they just look at it from a different angle than you and the people whose views you accept.

I don't know what book Meghan is talking about. I read a book called Misquoting Jesus by a man who grew up in a staunch Christian home, went to seminary school and eventually found himself unable to ignore the inconsistencies, contradictions, and discrepancies in the manuscripts. In fact, if you're at all interested, I can send you the PDF so you can analyze it yourself.
//The New Testament was picked and chosen by a Group of Elite Roman Elders from hundreds or even thousands of Gospels [most lost to time - although we have been able to resurrect the Gospel of Judas and the Gnostic Gospels]. The choice had nothing to do with following the orders of God, it had to do with keeping a dying and overstretched Roman Empire together by forcefeeding 1 AND ONLY 1 version of the Christian Religion upon the masses, under penalty of Death. So it was not out of religious conviction that the decision was made, but out of shrewd politics.//
totally false the by the time the Council of NIcea came around the entire group of about 350 people voted almost unanimously (one person voted agaist). and all it did was affirm what had been circulated for centuries to be the New Testament.

//David the OT [Old Testament] was originally written in Hebrew [that is undisputed] and the NT [New Testament] was originally written in Aramaic, [also undisputed] a dead language that was commonly used among the people in the Jewish part of the Roman Empire in the First Centurey C.E.//

Actually almost everyone disagrees with you the New Testament was written in Greek which everyone used in the Roman Empire., the old testament contains some Aramaic but is mostly in Hebrew
//There were a lot of scribes who were even literate! They just copied what they saw, and not always accurately because of the complexity of Hebrew and the fact they wouldn't know a mistake if it kicked them in the face. Imagine copying down this sentence, having no idea what it actually said:

I like eating ice cream on Sunday.
I like eating ice cream on Sunday.
I like eating ice cream on Sunday.
I like eating ice ceram on Sunday.
I like eating ceram on Sunday.

Honestly, as I was copying that, I really made a mistake on "cream" and left out "ice". If I didn't know how to check my work, this mistake could be passed down for thousands of translations. And what if "ceram" had an actual meaning, like "too" and "to".

Hebrew isn't the same as English, either, where our characters are separated and there are spaces between words. Hebrew just flows; it's easier to make mistakes, again, if you don't even know what you're writing.

The reason I say some of the scribes weren't literate is because, according to our modern standards, they weren't. But, back then, they had the skill of copying and were considered "literate" then, even though they couldn't comprehend the scrawling.

Bah... this is way too hard online.//
The Hebrew Scribes were well trained, they were an order of people completely dedicated to accuratlye passing down the Old Testament and were very educated. I think you are referring to the Greek transcribers who were not well trained or in alot of cases not even literate. I will concede that it does leave room for errors in copying, but soo many people copied the texts and quoted the texts and translated the texts that you could just take away all of the inconsistencies and have only the truth left. For example lets say I was trying to transcribe the statement "I like eating Ice cream" and so were you. LEts say we both make about 100 copies and we start out fine but eventually you start typing I like Cream in some of your manuscripts. The chances that I will get the same errors as you are pretty slim but the chance that I will get errors is pretty high.
IF I wrote
I eating ice crema

and you wrote
I like eating cream

and we both claimed to be the same document we could piece together what the actualy statement is
especially if we had hundreds of other documents written by different people, and some would bound to be correct. and those two discrepancies I showed you are the only discrepancies that is allowed by someone who has no faith in that the Bible is God's word at all. Ill take it by faith that the beasts number (According to John ) was 666 because it is more likely to be that way than not to be that way, I give it the benefits of the doubt, and I trust that God accurately transmitted the New Testament


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service