PixelPerfect, on 02 November 2009 - 08:40 PM, said:
Right, first question: why is the Bible so historically inaccurate? I'm sure the historical innacuracies have been pointed out to you. In case they haven't; tell me, I'll dredge some up for you.
I'm a more robust Orthodox Christian. In reply to your question, I would bring up two things to keep in consideration:
1) History is his_story. That means is that there is always interpretation, agenda, and bias when it comes to writing a story. For example: Were the Hyksos really trouble makers or is that how Egypt portrayed them? Did Abraham Lincoln truly abhor slavery or did he see abolition as more beneficial to taxes? These among many things. The Bible writers have their take on things, those they wrote about have their take on things, and we have our take on how their things went.
2) The Bible shows that not just one person wrote it and also (and primarily) that the tradition of Scripture memorization preserved that fact. The history of the Essenes as well as their parchments in the Dead Sea caves show that Scripture memorization and writing was strictly practiced back then just as much as it is today. That being said, the Bible was canonized primarily on tradition, and secondarily on doctrine. The historical accuracies had little say so in it, and with good reason, IMO. I'll address that next.
Quote
Wouldn't a perfect God make no mistakes in his record keeping? Especially considering that some of the records were not supposed to be documentable except through God
I think that you are in error by applying your reasoning to Biblical reasoning. Science, math, and many other academias don't leave room for faith. They work off of methods that are tested and proven. The Bible, however, is not a method. The Bible leaves room for faith. It leaves room for inaccuracies. And it leaves room for interpretation. This is for a good reason, I assure you. The Bible, if read from a methodic point of view, doesn't seem to hold a consistent pattern, other than being inconsistent. This can be shown where Jesus is called the Lion of the Tribe of Judah in Revelation 5:5, but then a Slain Lamb in Revelation 5:6. Also, in some places, Jesus says that He did not come to bring peace, but a sword, but then says, "My peace I give unto thee."
These remain as inconsistencies so long as the interpretation is not of the Holy Spirit. There is no method to the Holy Spirit, as Peter had showed Simon Magus. The Holy Spirit works according to God's will, and God's will can not be brought about any efforts other than His own.
So, method=bad. Faith=good. That is the simmered down explanation of why the Bible seems inconsistent to you. It's in your manner of interpretation. If you truly believe in God, you won't need the Bible to prove every inch of it to you. If you are looking to the Bible to prove God to you, then you are still missing out on one key and effective element of faith: Experience. Until you see and experience other believers, it will just look like words to you.
Quote
Second question:
Hundreds of bible prophecies have failed to come true, why?
The bible is ripe with prophecies that never got fullfilled.
Again, I'll get some for you, if you want.
Many Christians believe in the 'Already, not yet' explanation. (God already fulfilled them when He spoke them according to His eternality, but we have yet to see them in our time.) What that means is that we believe that, since God came through on His promise in saving us through Jesus, He will come through on His other promises when He sees fit. Again, it requires faith. Faith is the evidence. If you don't have it, you won't find evidence.
Quote
Final question:
What's with the bibles' constant obsesion with animals that never existed?
The bible like unicorns, even says God was stronger than one.
And dragons...
What's your obsession with the Bible's mention of them?
The Bible used terrible animals to provide a point about Himself, being the Creator of these things. Back then, men didn't dare challenge a 'dragon', yet they dared to challenge God, who made the dragon. That would be the case when God mentioned to Job the greatness of Leviathon. Also, God mentioned how great the Behemoth was to Job. Evidently, when looking for an accusation against God, Job would have had no place to speak. The Behemoth in all its power and might did not even dare to challenge God. How much more right does a weak man?
Quote
Please, answer these questions for me.
As is most cases, I'm skeptical that I've provided what you wanted to hear. But I told you exactly what I believe. Take care!
This post has been edited by Bluefinger: 05 November 2009 - 02:19 AM
Sign In
Register
Help
Board Index
Top
MultiQuote
RAW Berris... Dare you enter?
