NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you believe the bible to be the inerrant, infallible word of god?

Poll coming :D

Yep.

you need "inerrant" in there somewhere.

Yes, but just because it's infallible doesn't mean it doesn't require interpretation. The Word of God may be infallible, but human language is not.

you need "inerrant" in there somewhere.

done

Yes, but just because it's infallible doesn't mean it doesn't require interpretation. The Word of God may be infallible, but human language is not.

So yes, but no?

So yes, but no?
It depends what you mean by "infallible."
If you mean "there is a certain way to interpret the Bible such that everything in it is true," then my answer is yes.
If you mean "anything that anyone can support with a vague Bible passage must be true," then my answer is no.

Sure, why not.

Why do you have so many questions for Christians?


Anyways, here is my explanation of my views of the Bible.

OT- The Laws, customs, traditions, and history of the Jewish race. There is also the songs of praise, the words of wisdom, and the prophecies regarding the coming messiah, and the judgement of Israel by God.

NT- Gospels are not an exact commentary on the life and teachings of Jesus, but rather accounts from various apostles, or close confidants of apostles, regarding the life of Jesus. And I am perfectly fine with how some of the things don't line up. Because if all the accounts lined up perfectly, that shows me that there was collusion between the parties.

The Acts is a historical account of the first church.

The epistles are not necessarily doctrine that we have to obey, but rather they need to be taken in context of the church they were given to. They are advice to churches in living a christ-like life, and help handle any problems that come about.

Revelation isn't necesarily an exact account of the end times, but rather it is a message of good over coming evil, given to the early christian community, to give them hope during some very tough and rough times.

Do you believe the bible to be the inerrant, infallible word of god?

Poll coming :D

Of course not.

No, it's a bunch of stories written by some guys who should be retroactively shot.

So yes, but no?
If that's a Vicki Pollard quote, hat's off to you.

As a non-Christian, I feel the Bible is certainly a momentous work of human thought, and I do believe it is plausible that it had some divine inspiration, but I do not see it as fitting any of the qualities you list.

The Bible wasn't written, or even dictated, by God. Nevertheless, I believe it was inspired by Him and in that way is infallible.
The problem with the book is the diversity of its content. Imagine you compiled Gibbon's history, Shakespeare's plays, the Canterbury Tales, Beowulf, and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. That is pretty close to how the Bible is, in a literary sense, and that makes interpretation tricky. I should probably learn more about it, my knowledge is not as good as it should be.

Not really, being as other people speak in it as well.

Yes, but just because it's infallible doesn't mean it doesn't require interpretation. The Word of God may be infallible, but human language is not.

So where it says that Judas died by hanging and elsewhere that he died by having his guts explode, its just because humans have no word for what really happened to him?

The Bible wasn't written, or even dictated, by God. Nevertheless, I believe it was inspired by Him and in that way is infallible.
The problem with the book is the diversity of its content. Imagine you compiled Gibbon's history, Shakespeare's plays, the Canterbury Tales, Beowulf, and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. That is pretty close to how the Bible is, in a literary sense, and that makes interpretation tricky. I should probably learn more about it, my knowledge is not as good as it should be.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was inspired by competition between Cadbury and Roundtree. If you expect the inside of either of those factories to look like Willie Wonka's you're in for a big disappointment.

It depends what you mean by "infallible."
If you mean "there is a certain way to interpret the Bible such that everything in it is true," then my answer is yes.
If you mean "anything that anyone can support with a vague Bible passage must be true," then my answer is no.
Depends on what your definition of "is" is.

:p

Imagine you compiled Gibbon's history, Shakespeare's plays, the Canterbury Tales, Beowulf, and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. So the Apocrypha has people fucking while flying around, in a T-shaped fashion?

So where it says that Judas died by hanging and elsewhere that he died by having his guts explode, its just because humans have no word for what really happened to him?

Perhaps his guts burst from his body, wrapped themselves around his neck and a nearby tree branch and then contracted like a bungee cord, yanking him off his feet where he died.

If I had seen that, I think I might develop a sudden difficulty with language too. My response would be: "AAAIIIIIEEE!!!!!" followed by a prolonged run. *nod*

I'm going to say yes, because the purpose of the Bible is to be a religious text, and a religious one only. Anyone attempting to draw out things like history or science from it is going to encounter some serious problems since the Bible was not meant to provide such answers.

It depends what you mean by "infallible."
If you mean "there is a certain way to interpret the Bible such that everything in it is true," then my answer is yes.
If you mean "anything that anyone can support with a vague Bible passage must be true," then my answer is no.

Fair enough

Why do you have so many questions for Christians?
Why not? In other words I'm just curious.

Anyways, here is my explanation of my views of the Bible.

OT- The Laws, customs, traditions, and history of the Jewish race. There is also the songs of praise, the words of wisdom, and the prophecies regarding the coming messiah, and the judgement of Israel by God.

NT- Gospels are not an exact commentary on the life and teachings of Jesus, but rather accounts from various apostles, or close confidants of apostles, regarding the life of Jesus. And I am perfectly fine with how some of the things don't line up. Because if all the accounts lined up perfectly, that shows me that there was collusion between the parties.

The Acts is a historical account of the first church.

The epistles are not necessarily doctrine that we have to obey, but rather they need to be taken in context of the church they were given to. They are advice to churches in living a christ-like life, and help handle any problems that come about.

Revelation isn't necesarily an exact account of the end times, but rather it is a message of good over coming evil, given to the early christian community, to give them hope during some very tough and rough times.

:cool:

If that's a Vicki Pollard quote, hat's off to you.

:( Sorry, put your hat back on :(

My answer to the OP:

Yes, as far as it is translated correctly.

Perhaps his guts burst from his body, wrapped themselves around his neck and a nearby tree branch and then contracted like a bungee cord, yanking him off his feet where he died.

If I had seen that, I think I might develop a sudden difficulty with language too. My response would be: "AAAIIIIIEEE!!!!!" followed by a prolonged run. *nod*

LOL

no.

Bible=lots of people's views.
God=debatable existance.
Christianity= relies on the above.
Conclusion=bible is no use.

Do you believe the bible to be the inerrant, infallible word of god?

Poll coming :D
Hmmm... man's interpretation of the bible (both translating it to other languages as well as interpretating God's influence) is not Inerrant and is definately not infallible but the inspirations and lessions hidden within it are.

Hmmm... man's interpretation of the bible (both translating it to other languages as well as interpretating God's influence) is not Inerrant and is definately not infallible but the inspirations and lessions hidden within it are.

If man's interpretation is not infallible, how can we know *which* of the 'inspirations and lessons' one could draw from the Bible are infallible? There's not shortage of possible interpretations. How do we fallible human beings tell the difference?

Given the above, what use is an infallible lesson if we can't actually tell what it is? Why would God (who is presumably infallible himself) create a holy book which can be interpreted many ways, and then make only one of those interpretations correct? Why the obfuscation?

EDIT: I ask only for interest's sake, I recognise that this is mildly off-topic. Personally, I was raised to believe the Bible is infallible, but lost that belief along with the rest of my faith.

If man's interpretation is not infallible, how can we know *which* of the 'inspirations and lessons' one could draw from the Bible are infallible? There's not shortage of possible interpretations. How do we fallible human beings tell the difference?

Given the above, what use is an infallible lesson if we can't actually tell what it is? Why would God (who is presumably infallible himself) create a holy book which can be interpreted many ways, and then make only one of those interpretations correct? Why the obfuscation?

EDIT: I ask only for interest's sake, I recognise that this is mildly off-topic. Personally, I was raised to believe the Bible is infallible, but lost that belief along with the rest of my faith.

Prayer. ;)

The best way to read the Bible and to get the word of God is to read it AND pray.

Hmmm... man's interpretation of the bible (both translating it to other languages as well as interpretating God's influence) is not Inerrant and is definately not infallible but the inspirations and lessions hidden within it are.

Prayer. ;)

The best way to read the Bible and to get the word of God is to read it AND pray.

Again, we come to the question of human fallibility. Imagine two Christians, both of whom have read a Bible passage AND prayed about it. They still give different interpretations. How do we tell which is correct?

More to the point, how does any Christian tell the difference between their own subconscious desires/influences and the revelations of the Holy Spirit(tm)? I certainly couldn't, and I did not lack fervour in my younger days.

Again, we come to the question of human fallibility. Imagine two Christians, both of whom have read a Bible passage AND prayed about it. They still give different interpretations. How do we tell which is correct? left, right, straight. which path is the correct one?

the only one who can answer that is the one(s) traveling that path. the one sitting on the side of the road can only guess.

More to the point, how does any Christian tell the difference between their own subconscious desires/influences and the revelations of the Holy Spirit(tm)? I certainly couldn't, and I did not lack fervour in my younger days.

There is no question when the Holy Spirit guides you.

I know these sounds like typical fundie/Zen answers, but like many things in faith, it must be experienced to be understood and believed in.

left, right, straight. which path is the correct one?

the only one who can answer that is the one(s) traveling that path. the one sitting on the side of the road can only guess.



There is no question when the Holy Spirit guides you.

I know these sounds like typical fundie/Zen answers, but like many things in faith, it must be experienced to be understood and believed in.

They also contradict the modern idea of scriptural inerrancy. When your average fundamentalist Christian says 'The Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God', they do not mean 'Everyone can have an equally valid interpretation that is inerrant *for them*'. They usually mean there is one universally correct interpretation, and that every other interpretation is incorrect.

I apologise if I'm attributing a position to you that you do not hold. Tell me if that's the case. But if by 'the inspirations and lessons are inerrant' you really mean 'everyone can derive something useful from it', I really don't see how the Bible is different from any other philosophical text.

So where it says that Judas died by hanging and elsewhere that he died by having his guts explode, its just because humans have no word for what really happened to him?

How about this one: He hanged himself from a tree. His corpse fell from the tree, and on impact with the ground split open and his bowels tumbled out. As partially decomposed bodies do when you drop them.

I'm not saying that's definately what was meant, but it does work.

In answer to the question: The bible is the divinely inspired word of God. It only has one meaning on anything, and the guidance of the spirit is required for proper understanding (actually, I believe the new testament states that at one point), and where people disagree that's down to misinterpretation. An understanding of the times does help in that regards, which is why a good bible handbook is invaluable to anyone that's seriously trying to study the scriptures, for religious or secular reasons.

At least that's how I see it.

I believe the bible* is the infallible, inerrant word of God...

* in its original languages

Ah yes, the Bible. With all its contradictions, and flawed ideas, as well as good morals and stories. Yes, fun times.

So the Apocrypha has people fucking while flying around, in a T-shaped fashion?

I don't remember that in any of the books I listed.
But to answer your question: no, but just barely.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was inspired by competition between Cadbury and Roundtree. If you expect the inside of either of those factories to look like Willie Wonka's you're in for a big disappointment.

That analogy is flawed, as neither Cadbury nor Roundtree is divine. (The Cadbury Eggs come very close, though.)
Bible aside, I'm curious about your claim. I've never heard that the book was inspired by the real companies, especially since most of the book doesn't concern the competition between Wonka and his competitors.

Yes, but just because it's infallible doesn't mean it doesn't require interpretation. The Word of God may be infallible, but human language is not.

Concurrance with all parts of your post is granted by me... to you.

(In case that is unintelligible, I agree with all of your post)

Do you believe the bible to be the inerrant, infallible word of God?

Poll coming :D

Fixed. (i.e. capitalization of "God")

And I voted yes, but I don't believe just ANY Bible. I specifically believe the Authorized King James Bible (not NEW King James or any other version) to be the infallible, inerrant word of God.

I believe the bible* is the infallible, inerrant word of God...

* in its original languages

In its original languages? You're saying God preserved His words in the Hebrew, Chaldean, and Greek languages, but is not capable of doing so in the ENGLISH language?

I beg to differ. Oh pleasepleaseletmedifferIwanttodifferI'vebeenwaitingallmylifetodifferohpleasepleaseletmediffer

God, being all-powerful, is perfectly capable of preserving His words for us in English just as well as Hebrew, Greek, Chaldean, Aramaic, Latin, Spanish, or any other language. And I believe He HAS done so in the Authorized King James Bible.

Ah yes, the Bible. With all its contradictions, and flawed ideas, as well as good morals and stories. Yes, fun times.

Contradictions? Flawed ideas? Point one of each out to me.

I'm catholic and I personally don't believe that the bible is the exact, perfect words of God. The writtings in the bible are stories inspired by god/jesus/prophets that are there to act as a guide for christians.

However it is foolish to take the bible word for word. It has been translated far too many times and for such a long period that it is impossible to tell how it was orginally.

And I don't think the stories were ever meant to be taken literally either. Really it is impossible to read the bible literally, example; according to the bible the world is only some 4,000 years old (and this is clearly not the case).

and where people disagree that's down to misinterpretation.

I wouldn't go that far with it. It comes down to a matter of different interpretations which are really just over semantics- the core of each sect of Christianity remains the same (The Golden Rule).

Besides, to judge which interpretation is right is to go against the Word of Jesus:

"Do not judge or you too will be judged" (Matthew 7:1)

And I believe He HAS done so in the Authorized King James Bible.

Why the Authorized King James Bible? If you acknowledge that other versions of the Bible are inerrant (different languages *are* different versions, plus it's not like there's only one version in other languages), then why can't the other English translations (including all Modern English translations) also be inerrant? Besides, the King James Version includes parts of the Bible that are not included by other Christian Churches (including the very early Christian Church), who spoke in languages other than English- does that mean those versions of the Bible (being in other languages) are also inerrant (despite being different)?

I'm catholic and I personally don't believe that the bible is the exact, perfect words of God. The writtings in the bible are stories inspired by god/jesus/prophets that are there to act as a guide for christians.

However it is foolish to take the bible word for word. It has been translated far too many times and for such a long period that it is impossible to tell how it was orginally.

And I don't think the stories were ever meant to be taken literally either. Really it is impossible to read the bible literally, example; according to the bible the world is only some 4,000 years old (and this is clearly not the case).

I agree. If you read the Bible, it's plainly obvious it's not meant to serve in any other purpose other than that of a religious guidebook, as it is faulty in science (I mention the "bat is a bird" verse) and in history (Omri is the first king of Israel, not David). The Message- to worship the LORD- is consistent throughout (albeit how is open to interpretation). Therefore, it can't be extrapolated to serve as any other authority, since it was not designed to be accurate in anything other than religion.

I do have one minor quibble with your post though, as it's often misunderstood:

according to the bible the world is only some 4,000 years old (and this is clearly not the case).

The Bible never actually says that- we get the "6,000-year-old Earth" (actually, not 4,000) from 17th century Archbishop of Armagh James Ussher, who undertook a study attempting to figure out how old the Earth was and consulted with the Bible to figure it out. However, the Bible offers no firm date itself.

Do you believe the bible to be the inerrant, infallible word of god?

Poll coming :D

God I hope not.





:D

Contradictions? Flawed ideas? Point one of each out to me.

Contradictions?

Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."

versus:

James 1:13 "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."


Or - my favourite:

Proverbs 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him".

versus:

Proverbs 26:5 "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit".


Flawed ideas? How about causing cattle to throw patterned young by putting patterned sticks in their troughs?

How about bats being birds?

I wouldn't go that far with it. It comes down to a matter of different interpretations which are really just over semantics- the core of each sect of Christianity remains the same (The Golden Rule).

I beg to differ on this one: the core of Christianity is quite definately not the golden rule, was never intended to be and to suggest it is suggests a grave misunderstanding of the scriptures from the prophets onwards.

The core of Christianity is man's sinful condition, Christ's death on the cross to offer salvation to those who repent of their evil ways. It pretty much gets stated over and over throughout the NT.

Besides, to judge which interpretation is right is to go against the Word of Jesus:

"Do not judge or you too will be judged" (Matthew 7:1)


That was talking about being Judgemental in regards to the law. It was aimed at legalists and in this particularl points isn't really appropriate.


Why the Authorized King James Bible? If you acknowledge that other versions of the Bible are inerrant (different languages *are* different versions, plus it's not like there's only one version in other languages), then why can't the other English translations (including all Modern English translations) also be inerrant? Besides, the King James Version includes parts of the Bible that are not included by other Christian Churches (including the very early Christian Church), who spoke in languages other than English- does that mean those versions of the Bible (being in other languages) are also inerrant (despite being different)?


Oh! Oh! I know this one! It's because it was the first English translation, and thus they put so much work into it it has to be totally accurate. There's a load of stuff about passages saying the bible must not be changed, and different translations change the KJV wording iirc. KJV-only types can be hilarious!

Even tho it wasn't the first English translation and contains many flaws...


I agree. If you read the Bible, it's plainly obvious it's not meant to serve in any other purpose other than that of a religious guidebook, as it is faulty in science (I mention the "bat is a bird" verse) and in history (Omri is the first king of Israel, not David). The Message- to worship the LORD- is consistent throughout (albeit how is open to interpretation). Therefore, it can't be extrapolated to serve as any other authority, since it was not designed to be accurate in anything other than religion.


Actually the bible says Saul, not David was the first king of Israel.
And the thing is, there's a strong argument that it _does_ contain a lot of scientific evidence. It states that the Earth is round - which is why Columbus set off to prove it, talks about a lot of astrological fact such as the Earth floating in space and orbiting the sun, cites the existence of atoms ("everything is made of components so small you can't see them" iirc), there's actually quite a lot in there.

I beg to differ on this one: the core of Christianity is quite definately not the golden rule, was never intended to be and to suggest it is suggests a grave misunderstanding of the scriptures from the prophets onwards.

The core of Christianity is man's sinful condition, Christ's death on the cross to offer salvation to those who repent of their evil ways. It pretty much gets stated over and over throughout the NT.

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12)

Sounds pretty central to me. I know there's other tenets that are firmly entrenched in Christianity but no other one is as highly regarded, even if it's not repeated anywhere else.

Regardless, what you say- "The core of Christianity is man's sinful condition, Christ's death on the cross to offer salvation to those who repent of their evil ways. It pretty much gets stated over and over throughout the NT"- is believed by *all* Christian sects, not just one of them, so we're nowhere closer to determining which sect is the "right" one. Like I said, the central tenets are all the same- the differences are just in semantics.

That was talking about being Judgemental in regards to the law. It was aimed at legalists and in this particularl points isn't really appropriate.

Let's assume for a second your interpretation is correct- it's *still* not a place for anyone to declare their version of Christianity correct. If Jesus is going to look down on those who are judgemental regarding Jewish Law, He is definitely going to look down on those who are judgemental regarding Christian Law (as it is "legalists" who altered the interpretation as they saw fit), especially if their lives are not lived upright.

Now, on to a direct, unadultered reading of Scripture:

"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

(Matthew 6:28-34, 7:1-12)

That's the entire passage surrounding the quote "Do not judge or you too will be judged". I don't see anywhere where Jesus specifically refers to "The Law". Some points in there, yes, *imply* those who are strict regarding Jewish Law but on a straight reading of it, nowhere does Jesus say anything except- unequivocally- "it is not important who you believe is right if everything you do is wrong". The Message clearly tells the reader "do not pass judgement on others unless you want them to do the same to you" and clearly emphasizes that it's not important to be "right" but to be "good". Therefore, none of the Christian Churches should concern themselves with "being right" but rather in "doing good deeds" as that is ultimately what is important.

Actually the bible says Saul, not David was the first king of Israel.
And the thing is, there's a strong argument that it _does_ contain a lot of scientific evidence. It states that the Earth is round - which is why Columbus set off to prove it, talks about a lot of astrological fact such as the Earth floating in space and orbiting the sun, cites the existence of atoms ("everything is made of components so small you can't see them" iirc), there's actually quite a lot in there.

Okay, so I erred in the order...regardless, the Bible is wrong in saying Saul is the first king of Israel. In the archaeological record, "House of Omri" and "Land of Omri" is used as a synonym for "Israel", indicating the founder of the kingdom. Doesn't preclude the possibility that Saul, David or Solomon couldn't have been leaders of Israel before then but if they were, they weren't kings. Not only that, of the three, only David appears in sources- on the Tel Dan Stele- and that's in reference to another kingdom independent of Israel (the Stele tells of a king with a Yahwistic name "of the House of David"). So it appears- albeit it's just speculation- that David's kingdom (probably Judah) was a breakaway of Israel, and the later traditions of the "United Kingdom" were added in later to create an idea of a "Golden Age" that may never have really happened.

As for science, it's not hard for an ancient to infer that the Earth is round (just look over the horizon), and Christopher Columbus "falling off the Earth's edge" is an urban legend- Ferdinand and Isabella laughed at him since Columbus thought he could get to Asia in just a month of sailing. I'd also have to see a quote to really believe that, since the Flat Earth people insist that the Bible also says the Earth is flat. Same thing for the atom because it's not hard to infer there's something so small we just can't see it (think of how dust gets into our eyes unexpectedly), but I do wish to see a quote for this- I don't think the Biblical writer is documenting proof of the atom, it's merely speculating the idea of tiny particles (different from actually proving the existence of the atom, which is a "specific" grouping of "specific" particles). I also fail to see where one can read the Bible and figure out how our blood flows, why we've got four fingers instead of five (don't count the thumb, please), a listing of every animal on Earth (and how they function), why volcanoes erupt and the inner workings of the Sun, among other questions. Not to mention the whole "bat is a bird" thing, which is patently incorrect. No, the Bible cannot be used for science, since it's going to leave a lot of questions unanswered.

If the Bible, in essence, a book about how you should hate everyone who doesn't agree with you, is the word of God.... He doesn't seem like the nicest of chaps.

They also contradict the modern idea of scriptural inerrancy. When your average fundamentalist Christian says 'The Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God', they do not mean 'Everyone can have an equally valid interpretation that is inerrant *for them*'. They usually mean there is one universally correct interpretation, and that every other interpretation is incorrect. which is why I shake my head when I think about "bible literalists."

I apologise if I'm attributing a position to you that you do not hold. Tell me if that's the case. But if by 'the inspirations and lessons are inerrant' you really mean 'everyone can derive something useful from it', I really don't see how the Bible is different from any other philosophical text.
>.>
<.<
Everyone can derive something useful from the Bible. those wanting to find errors will find errors. those wanting to find hate can find hate. those wanting to find love and forgiveness will find love and forgiveness.

the problem is finding the lessions and messages God wants you to learn. hence the addition of prayer.

In other words I'm just curious.
http://images.tvrage.net/screencaps/27/5266/524112.jpg
Yes, i'm actually watching it RIGHT NOW. :p

www.fstdt.com


An educational trip to (Christian) fundamentalism and the fallcies of literal interpretation of bible.


Entertaining to non-believers.


Enlightening to believers....I hope.

edit:
Let's not forget the sceptic's annotated bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/) either :-)

If the Bible, in essence, a book about how you should hate everyone who doesn't agree with you, is the word of God.... He doesn't seem like the nicest of chaps.Boy howdy.

The Bible IS the Word of God.

Contrary to popular belief, it is not intended to nor should it be entirely interpreted literally. Some of it is metaphoric.

The best way to interpret it of course is with the guide of the Holy Spirit.

which is why I shake my head when I think about "bible literalists."
How about shaking it a bit harder?
http://www.kgan.com/template/inews_wire/wires.national/2e80b687-www.kgan.com.shtml

The Bible IS the Word of God.Whatever. This has been pretty well covered.
For example:
http://bible.cc/isaiah/45-7.htm
...but you surely knew that one.

Contrary to popular belief, it is not intended to nor should it be entirely interpreted literally. Some of it is metaphoric.Can you be more specific about the "fact" and "fantasy", per verse, perhaps?

The best way to interpret it of course is with the guide of the Holy Spirit.Like whiskey?

The Bible IS the Word of God.

Contrary to popular belief, it is not intended to nor should it be entirely interpreted literally. Some of it is metaphoric.

The best way to interpret it of course is with the guide of the Holy Spirit.

As an example, how would you interpret these biblical points (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html)? Metaphorically or literally?

For example (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:23,24;&version=9;) (Deut 22:23,24):
23: If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24: Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

Metaphorical? Literal? Obsolete Word of God?


edit:
The Ash-es of the Bible?

http://www.cracked.com/article_15699_9-most-badass-bible-verses.html

As an example, how would you interpret these biblical points (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html)? Metaphorically or literally?

For example (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:23,24;&version=9;) (Deut 22:23,24):
23: If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24: Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

Metaphorical? Literal? Obsolete Word of God?

Well, Deuteronomy is an OT book. it's also Law, and Christ, having fulfilled the Law with his life, death and resurrection... So, it's literal OT Old Covenant law.

Christians are under the New Covenant, which was sealed by Christ's death and resurrection. The terms of the New Covenant are basically "live in a Christlike manner, be baptised, and partake in communion.

Much of the Old Law was for Israel the literal body of Law.

One of the great lessons to be learned from the OT is that man never succeeds in fulfilling the Law! Hence the animal sacrifice provisions. in the OT (which do not apply to Christians because Christ's life stands in the place of ours at the time of judgement.

Of course, you also have to want to hear what God has to say.

Well, Deuteronomy is an OT book. it's also Law, and Christ, having fulfilled the Law with his life, death and resurrection... So, it's literal OT Old Covenant law.

Christians are under the New Covenant, which was sealed by Christ's death and resurrection. The terms of the New Covenant are basically "live in a Christlike manner, be baptised, and partake in communion.

Much of the Old Law was for Israel the literal body of Law.

One of the great lessons to be learned from the OT is that man never succeeds in fulfilling the Law! Hence the animal sacrifice provisions. in the OT (which do not apply to Christians because Christ's life stands in the place of ours at the time of judgement.

Of course, you also have to want to hear what God has to say.

Deuteronomy 13:1-5 "If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn [you] away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee".


Deuteronomy 18:21-2 "And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."

Deuteronomy 4:1-2 "Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do [them], that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

The New Covenant is blasphemy. Deuteronomy clearly says that the word shall not be added to nor diminished. There can be no 'fulfillment' of the Law. What Jesus did was change the law, forbidden - AND the mark of a false prophet. On top of that, he made signs and wonders, and made prophecies that did not come true.

There is no 'New Covenant'. Jesus was a false prophet, and Jehovah God commands you to put his evil away from you.

Well, Deuteronomy is an OT book. it's also Law, and Christ, having fulfilled the Law with his life, death and resurrection... So, it's literal OT Old Covenant law.

So, it was at one time OK to stone a rape victim if she didn't scream loud enough according to benevolent, omnipotent and just God?

Exactly in which verses of the NT is this law refuted? Does it say somewhere that 'Deuteronomy is no longer relevant'?

Deuteronomy 13:1-5 "If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn [you] away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee".


Deuteronomy 18:21-2 "And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."

Deuteronomy 4:1-2 "Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do [them], that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

The New Covenant is blasphemy. Deuteronomy clearly says that the word shall not be added to nor diminished. There can be no 'fulfillment' of the Law. What Jesus did was change the law, forbidden - AND the mark of a false prophet. On top of that, he made signs and wonders, and made prophecies that did not come true.

There is no 'New Covenant'. Jesus was a false prophet, and Jehovah God commands you to put his evil away from you.

FTW, yo!

Well, Deuteronomy is an OT book. it's also Law, and Christ, having fulfilled the Law with his life, death and resurrection... So, it's literal OT Old Covenant law.
So, it was at one time OK to stone a rape victim if she didn't scream loud enough according to benevolent, omnipotent and just God?

Exactly in which verses of the NT is this law refuted? Does it say somewhere that 'Deuteronomy is no longer relevant'?

What about these verses:

1 Timothy 2:11-15 (KJV) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202:11-15;&version=9;)

11. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.


Is this literal? Metaphorical? Are women equal to men? Are they truly only saved through being sober, charitable, holy and by bearing a child?

Of course, you also have to want to hear what God has to say.

So you'll understand when we say that it appears that y'all have really, REALLY selective hearing. And selective further in interpreting who is really "god".

The bible should be listed under the fiction section...but no, it gets its own section called religion. Luckily this section is nowhere near the areas i visit.

Well, Deuteronomy is an OT book. it's also Law, and Christ, having fulfilled the Law with his life, death and resurrection... So, it's literal OT Old Covenant law.

"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." (Matthew 5:17)

Jesus didn't say He came to abolish the Law but to fulfill (uphold) them. Thus, one can't use "Jesus" as a justification for not following the Mosaic Law.

"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." (Matthew 5:18)

So the Law is still binding, as "Heaven and Earth" have not disappeared. Furthermore, why include the Old Testament within the Christian Bible if it does not apply to them? It's also not like Jesus told His followers not to follow it (Matthew 5:19), and the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17) are still applicable in Christian Churches today- why, then, cherry-pick what you believe? Shouldn't *all* of it apply, if you accept a literal reading of the Bible?

If it was to be the exact infallible words of God it would not have been called "Bible," which means library, as in a library of earthly texts about heavenly matters. Beyond this, there is also the words of advice from Jesus with regards to prophecies (roughly paraphrased): "You will know whether a prophecy is true by it's fruits." which of course corresponds to "The trees that grow bad fruit will be chopped up and fed to the fire."

(Shoves Mike Huckabee in to chopping machine.):p j/k

"You will know whether a prophecy is true by it's fruits." which of course corresponds to "The trees that grow bad fruit will be chopped up and fed to the fire."

(Shoves Mike Huckabee in to chopping machine.):p j/kLike a cursed fig tree or something? :p