Bible Topic Thread (merged)

#576
#576
KentheOrange said:
Look at the different religions of the world that are based on the bible. I think my interpretation is a very small can of worms relative to the cans already open.
Click to expand...

Accepting whether the bible is the literal word of God is the cornerstone of several religions. Otherwise you accept it as symbolic, and not literal.

For many people the bible is literal and cannot contain errors. However most of these people reject the existence of dinosaurs, carbon dating, etc. Because they are not supported by the bible.

I'm not arguing I'm just asking the questions.
 
#577
#577
CSpindizzy said:
I'm asking the guy who made the claims to back them up. He's held others to that standard so I ask him to abide by his own.
Click to expand...

The last thing I'm going to do is defend realut, but one thing I learned from my three+ years dating a catholic is that for the most part they have been taught their religion much in the same manner as brainwashing. While that is also true in other religions I have reviewed, catholics are the only ones I am aware of that have been discouraged from studying the bible and to get their knowledge from the teachings of the priest and even told where to attend church.

Is it right? Wrong? Not for me to say. My responsibility to me is to be comfortable with my faith and relationship with God.

I am certainly not one to say that there is only one road to heaven. That is the reason I think debates over the "correct" religion is somewhat senseless.
 
#578
#578
I have never been discouraged from reading the Bible. Quite the opposite. At my highschool, you could either choose to take a modern foreign language, or take Latin for two years and Greek for two years. Choosing the latter, we spent the better half of a year studying the scripture in those languages.
 
#579
#579
The difference is that most Catholics who are learned in their faith, cannot defend it in one or two scripture verses. We have the scripture, however, we also have the writings of Augustine, Ambrose, Aquinas, Moore, Chesterson, etc.
 
#580
#580
If there is one thing that has come out of this topic on my own accord is a deeper desire to delve into the Bible and back up my beliefs with an understanding of the words in the book. While some of the discussion has been heated and tense, I can say that I think each of us or most of us have been challenged to go do some research. If anything, many have actually had to go dig up some references to our beliefs. I'm only asking that someone who espouses such a devout view to do the same, especially since he has been the chief one holding others to this standard. If he cannot then it becomes harder to take what he says any further than face value.
 
#581
#581
therealUT said:
The difference is that most Catholics who are learned in their faith, cannot defend it in one or two scripture verses. We have the scripture, however, we also have the writings of Augustine, Ambrose, Aquinas, Moore, Chesterson, etc.
Click to expand...

So the Bible is not enough. You have to keep taking deductions made throughout history as a basis of belief? I am not asking for Scripture. I have only repeatedly asked for where the Catholic Church states they believe the same as you. I am sure you can find something from a singular voice. Surely with all of those men referenced above, someone can unify them all into one belief.
 
#582
#582
CSpindizzy said:
So the Bible is not enough. You have to keep taking deductions made throughout history as a basis of belief? I am not asking for Scripture. I have only repeatedly asked for where the Catholic Church states they believe the same as you. I am sure you can find something from a singular voice. Surely with all of those men referenced above, someone can unify them all into one belief.
Click to expand...

If you don't accept the Bible to be literal it difficult to argue about specific scriptures. How can the bible be literal when you have hundreds of fossils which date back millions of years when the Bible places the earth to be about 6000 yrs old? If the Bible is the unerring, literal word of God how can that be?

At some point, you accept the Bible as symbolic and not literal or you reject the fossil record and carbon dating. Taken the bible literally the earth would be around 6000 years old. That is not supported by fossils records and carbon dating. There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists who have researched the fossil record. How could that many people be conspiring all against the Bible?
 
#583
#583
Well not sure why this was directed to me but there is much symbolism in the Bible. Read Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelation. Actually read much of what Christ said. Symbolism is quite a solid basis in what is in the Bible. Mere mortal man cannot even begin to comprehend Creation or anything else God has and will continue to do. Are you making some case of an "all or nothing" thought?
 
#584
#584
CSpindizzy said:
Well not sure why this was directed to me but there is much symbolism in the Bible. Read Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelation. Actually read much of what Christ said. Symbolism is quite a solid basis in what is in the Bible. Mere mortal man cannot even begin to comprehend Creation or anything else God has and will continue to do. Are you making some case of an "all or nothing" thought?
Click to expand...

I guess the point is the bible isn't literal, the Earth wasn't created in 6 days. If you accept that, then does differences in specific verses make that much difference? When the whole bible has to be taken symbolicly?
 
#585
#585
No not everything in the Bible is to be taken literal. If that were the case, we could expect a dragon with horns to influence the tribulation. There is a difference in symbolic references and literal statements. Are you arguing that if there are symbolic references used in the Bible then NOTHING can be taken literally?
 
#586
#586
CSpindizzy said:
No not everything in the Bible is to be taken literal. If that were the case, we could expect a dragon with horns to influence the tribulation. There is a difference in symbolic references and literal statements. Are you arguing that if there are symbolic references used in the Bible then NOTHING can be taken literally?
Click to expand...

The idea that the earth is older then the bible and that it was not created in 6 days is relatively new. People from the 18th and 19th century never believed that. Take the Scopes monkey trial for instance. But everyone has known the book of revelations was symbolic.

The book of Revelations has always been clearly symbolic. But the book of Genesis was taken literally for thousands of years.

People accepted the creation in Genesis as symbolic only because they didnt want to say the bible was in error.
 
#587
#587
I also included other things besides Revelation to say there is much symbolism in the Bible. Actually the notion that the earth is older than what the Bible says is not new. There have been many cultures and religions that have differed in their view of Creation and the tiemtable it claims.

Fact: the Bible includes solid fact and symbolism throughout the pages. Confirmation of many aspects of the Bible have been made by Josephus and many archaeologists throughout history. So there have been both symbolic items proven as well as literal. What exactly are you arguing?
 
#588
#588
CSpindizzy said:
I also included other things besides Revelation to say there is much symbolism in the Bible. Actually the notion that the earth is older than what the Bible says is not new. There have been many cultures and religions that have differed in their view of Creation and the tiemtable it claims.

Fact: the Bible includes solid fact and symbolism throughout the pages. Confirmation of many aspects of the Bible have been made by Josephus and many archaeologists throughout history. So there have been both symbolic items proven as well as literal. What exactly are you arguing?
Click to expand...

How do you know what is literal and what is symbolic?

For thousands of years people believed the earth was created in 6 days and the earth was roughly 6000 yrs old. Now the creation story is viewed as symbolic because of the evidence it might be in error. But no where in the bible is it suggested that the creation story was symbolic.

How do you know for instance that miracles really happened or they are not symbolic too? Some people believe Jesus never fed a multitude but that was symbolic for spreading the word, and that it never actually happened.
 
#589
#589
oklavol said:
I guess the point is the bible isn't literal, the Earth wasn't created in 6 days. If you accept that, then does differences in specific verses make that much difference? When the whole bible has to be taken symbolicly?
Click to expand...

I believe literal vs. symbolism is much easier to follow if you separate them by new & old testament. It is easy for me to believe that the old testament has much symbolism while the new testament does not, except as parables, of course.

The bible and science are not as far apart as some would believe. The flood is easily explained if a vapor cloud surrounding the earth is broken in some manner and would also explain the appearance of the first rainbow. More direct exposure to the sun would also go a long way toward explaining shorter life spans than those referenced.

I haven't had a decent answer from a literal believer of the old testament on how Cain was able (no pun intended) to go find a wife that was not his sister.
 
#590
#590
therealUT said:
Ever last word that Jesus uttered was not recorded. If Jesus knew that his Apostles were learned in the Septuagint, and purgatory is thoroughly covered in it, then why would he need to repeat it?
Click to expand...

That is a very convenient arguement. Jesus quoted scripture many times but none of it was from the Septuagint or the other books. If Jews were well versed in the Torah why would He talk about it or quote scriptures from it?

There has to be so many dots that have to be connected for your arguements to come together and none of it is from the OT or NT. Look at what you said, "If Jesus knew" you are making arguements for Jesus not based on the Bible.
 
#593
#593
Again, salvation is about what happened with the New Covenant and has nothing to do with the books that preceded the New Covenant. They might have foretold events of the New Testament, but are no longer even remotely tied to salvation, so anything they might have to say on the subject is rendered moot, as is Leviticus.
 
#596
#596
JZVOL said:
He(Peter) was married and had a God-given right to be married. Matthew 8:14-15, 1 Cor. 9:5. Peter would not even have qualified to be the Pope today for he was obviously married. Not only that but Peter did not forbid any of the other apostles from marrying. It was their God-given right to do so if they wished. Yet today, the Catholic Church forbids not only the Pope from marrying but their priests.

MAT 8:14 ¶ When Jesus came into Peter's home, He saw his mother-in-law lying sick in bed with a fever.
MAT 8:15 He touched her hand, and the fever left her; and she got up and waited on Him.

1CO 9:5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

3. He refused all exalted human titles. Matthew 23:1-12. How could we ever believe that in light of this statement by Jesus, Peter would then gladly accept the title of Pope, Father or any other human title. These are for the praise of men not for the glorifying of God!
Click to expand...
trut, since you are back I thought I would present this again since I posted it when your were on a leave of absence. Thoughts?

Peter was obviously married at one point in his life.
 
#597
#597
BigPapaVol said:
Again, salvation is about what happened with the New Covenant and has nothing to do with the books that preceded the New Covenant. They might have foretold events of the New Testament, but are no longer even remotely tied to salvation, so anything they might have to say on the subject is rendered moot, as is Leviticus.
Click to expand...

If you accept that the bible is largely symbolic then for example, baptism, is it symbolic or is it required?

One one hand, people want to take the bible literally, and on the other dismiss the whole story of Biblican creation as being symbolic. There seems to be a lack of consistency.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top