Recently I had a discussion with PA, wherein he said he and many christians believe the bible to be inerrant. In order to hold faith in that one must realize the definition, the context, of inerrancy relative to biblical standards.
To say that the bible is inerrant is to affirm it is without error. That everything represented in the bible is scientifically factual, historically accurate, and irrefutably true. This means everything from humans being created from the dust/dirt, of the Earth. Noah and the great flood, etc... Are absolutely irrefutably scientifically possible. Even that god inspired or spoke, the scriptures to life. That jesus lived, performed miracles, was executed and arose from the dead in 3 days. That the Earth was created in 6 days, etc...


Inerrant: (adjective)
Incapable of erring; infallible.
Containing no errors.








The Bible: What It is
The Bible[a] is really a collection of many books. In fact, the modern Bible, not including the group of books known as the Apocrypha, actually comprises of sixty-six books. The lengths of these books vary from Isaiah, which comes close in length to a modern short novel, to the Third Epistle of John, with only 294 words.
The books in the Bible are divided into two main sections; known respectively as The Old Testament and The New Testament. Christians view the Old Testament as an account of the old covenant between God and the Hebrews. The Old Testament was also supposed to contain references and prophecies to the coming of Jesus Christ. The New Testament presents, through Jesus, a new covenant, this time between God and all mankind.

In some Bibles there exist a third section, known as the Apocrypha. These books are those which canonicity as the word of God is disputed in various churches. The Roman Catholic Church accepts some of these books as canonical and places them together with the books of the Old Testament.

The Bible is, thus, a collection of many different types of books. Not all the books carry the same message. For instance, Nehemiah, calls for the preservation of racial purity by the prohibition of inter-racial marriages, while Ruth has for its heroine a Moabite woman who married a Jew. As another example, the book of Proverbs extols living the good life which it says is God's reward for righteous living while Ecclesiastes says life is meaningless and prosperity is accidental.

The New Testament stands in an uneasy contrast with the Old. The Old Testament says that the Jews are the chosen people of God. This God may sometimes abandon them as a punishment for their unfaithfulness but the severance was always only temporary. Yet in the New Testament we are shown that the Jews are completely severed from God and are in fact responsible for the murder of his Son.



The Inerrant Bible?
The Bible is an interesting and valuable collection of Middle Eastern myths, history and literature . To the Christians, however, the Bible is much more than that. It is God's word to man. As God's word to man Christian theologians had in the past viewed the Bible as an inerrant work. This is only reasonable, for the one guarantee that the Bible is God's word must be that it cannot contain any errors whatsoever. With the development of human knowledge, especially in the sciences, this view of Biblical inerrancy is being shared by fewer and fewer theologians.
However, there is still a substantial group of theologians, the fundamentalists, who accept, or shall I say, assert, the strict inerrancy of the Bible. Note that the dogma of the inerrant Bible is not that only some parts of the Bible are true. It asserts that the Bible is completely and absolutely without any error. It is also the general observation of this author that most lay Christians, be they from fundamentalist churches or otherwise, hold what is an essentially fundamentalist view of the Bible: that it is inerrant.

Before starting our analysis, there are two ideas that must be clear in our mind. First we have to understand the logic behind our claim that that the Bible is not inerrant. Second we have to understand the difference between the concept of probability and possibility and why it is relevant for our analysis to follow.

We see that the Bible contains many mistakes and inaccuracies. The Bible

contains internal contradictions.
contains numerical contradictions.
contains failed prophecies.
Apart from these simple errors, the Bible also contains numerous scientific errors. These include errors in:
the physical sciences
the biological sciences
mathematics.
Thus far from being inerrant, the Bible is we can see, is filled with contradictions, mistakes and scientific errors common to other cultures of that era.


Biblical Myths
Perhaps the most well known of all biblical myths, and certainly the one most stubbornly defended by fundamentalists, is the creation myth. In fact, creationism (as it is called by believers-they also normally add the adjective "scientific" in front), is a "hot" topic among fundamentalist circles. Yet creationism, and the corresponding creation myths in Genesis, is demonstrably false. The creation myths (note the plural) in the Bible:
have internal difficulties
give the wrong age for the universe
could not satisfactorily account for the origin of species.
In fact we can show that the creation myths in the Bible are not even original to it but were derived from earlier Babylonian myths.

While we are on the subject of myths, we must note that the flood myth, which many believe were somehow geologically proven is demonstrably false. Furthermore, it has been conclusively shown by archaeologists that the Biblical flood myth was derived from The Epic of Gilgamesh, an ancient Babylonian myth. In fact the very name Noah is derived from the name of a Babylonian rain goddess.

Other myths include the myth of Cain and Abel and the myth of the Tower of Babel. We can safely conclude that the first eleven chapters of genesis is pure mythology.


The Demise of Biblical Archaeology
Indeed , there is now so much contrary evidence against the historical accuracy of the Bible that the term "biblical archaeology" has now been discarded in professional archeology! [The preferred term now being Syro-Palestinian archaeology [1]] The whole paradigm of archaeology in the Near East has shifted away from thinking of the Bible as a reliable archaeological field guide to that of a collection of ancient fairy tales and legends.
The BBC journalist Matthew Sturgis account in his book It Ain't Necessarily So (2001) summarizes the current situation nicely:

A new generation of archaeologists has emerged...they are challenging the intellectual assumptions of their predecessors...During the years since World War II it has become harder and harder to escape this sense of doubt. The expected discoveries of specific biblical artifacts and buildings were simply not being made...Discrepancies between the biblical account and the ever increasing archaeological record become more noticeable and harder to ignore...Rather than using the Old Testament as a field guide, the current crop of archaeologists is increasingly putting the Bible aside...The very term biblical archaeology has become tainted, and is now rejected by many academics...The old quest to confirm the historical truths of the events in the Bible has been replaced by a new agenda: to build a full and detailed picture of life in the ancient Near East. If the Bible is consulted at all, it is approached with varying degrees of skepticism. The onus of proof has shifted: the text [of the Bible] is now considered historically unreliable until proven otherwise. [2]


Over the last decade, quote a number of books have been published outlining this state of affairs.

T.W. Davis, “Shifting Sands: The Rise and Fall of Biblical Archaeology”, Oxford 2004
I. Finkelstein, “The Bible Unearthed”, Free Press 2001
A.D. Marcus, “The View from Nebo”, Little, Brown & Co 2000
M. Sturgis, “It Ain’t Necessarily So”, Headline 2001
T.L. Thompson, “The Mythic Past”, Basic Books 1999
T.L. Thompson, “The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives”, Trinity 2002
Basically the main thesis of these books can be summarized as follows: much of what passed as history (such Abraham and the “patriarchal narrative”, Moses and the exodus and the conquest of Canaan) is now considered, based on the mass of available archaeological evidence, to be largely mythical. The Israeli archaeologist, I. Finkelstein (see his book above) goes even further; he asserts that historical evidence is lacking for even the united kingdom of David and Solomon! Indeed today some of the major events and characters of the Old Testament are no longer considered historical!
Abraham and the patriarchal narratives
Moses and Exodus
Joshua and the conquest of Canaan.
While it is true that David and Solomon existed, the archaeological evidence shows that the kingdom of David and Solomon were nowhere near how they are described in the Bible. Indeed Jerusalem during the time of David and Solomon was little more than a village with less than 5,000 people!

There are clear fictive elements in other Biblical books as well.

The books of Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah contain contradictions, elements of numerology and anachronisms.
The books of Ruth, Esther, Job and Jonah are works of pure fiction.
The book of Daniel is fraudulent fiction masquerading as a prophetic work.

Uncertain Authorship
The books of the Bible are books of testimony. Unlike treatises on mathematics and logic, where the correctness of the argument can be inferred from the written sources themselves, testimonials invariable involve a person or persons telling you something actually happened. Thus the integrity of the person giving the testimonial is of utmost importance. For that integrity is what makes us trust what he or she says. The Bible makes testimonies about things that are, by any reckoning, out of the ordinary. There are testimonials about the appearances of God to some of his prophets, about tremendous miracles such as the parting of the Red Sea and even about a man walking on water! Surely on such incredible testimonies, the integrity of the person telling the stories must be scrutinized very very closely. Remember the old maxim: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. As a corollary to that, we should demand that the incredible stories demand impeccable integrity on behalf of the storyteller to be believed.
The first step towards examining the integrity of a person is, of course, to know his or her identity. It is therefore not surprising that Jewish and Christian traditions ascribed the authorships of the books in the Old Testaments to well known Jewish kings and prophets: the very characters mentioned in the Bible. To Moses, certainly the most important figure in Judaism, was attributed the authorship of the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. In a similar trend, Joshua, Moses' successor, was supposed to have penned the book that has his name as the title. Other important figures in Jewish history, such as David and Solomon, also have books attributed to them.

There is a similar trend in the New Testament. Most books in the New Testament had their authorship attributed to the disciples of Jesus, or at least their immediate followers. For examples the two letters of Peter were supposed to have been written by the apostle himself, while the gospel of Mark was presumed to have been written by one of Peter's followers.

These attribution of authorship were accepted, almost without question, by Christians for close to two millennia. In the 19th century, with the use of the methods critical historical research to the books of the Bible, these traditional beliefs were slowly but relentlessly eroded. The research has reached a point where almost all the books in the Bible are no longer held to be written by the people tradition thought them to be. This valid discovery, however, is very rarely communicated to the lay public. When it is conveyed at all, it is normally preceded with attempt on behalf of the scholars to cushion the "blow" on the reader. As a result, to this day most lay Christians and (of course) all fundamentalists hold firm to these traditional attribution of authorship.

Let us look at the problem of authorship:

Although Jewish and Christian traditions attribute the authorship of the Pentateuch to Moses, this attribution can easily be shown to be false.
Traditional attributions are also false for Joshua and Samuel.
At least some of the so-called Psalm of David could easily be shown to be of later composition.
In fact we know precious little about the author of many of the books in the Old Testament.
The gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
The two epistles attributed to the apostle Peter were definitely not written by him
Many of the epistles attributed to Paul were not written by the apostle.
Almost all the other NT books had dubious attribution of authorship.


Haphazard Canonization and Textual Difficulties
Many Christians have a very vague idea about how this collection was achieved. Even then it is probably filled with belief that the method of collection was miraculously inspired. When Christians speak of the "canon of the Bible" they mean the list of books that are to be considered as sacred writings or the word of God to the exclusion of all other books. There is no middle ground, no gray area. Either a book is inspired by God or it is not. There is no book that is "partially" inspired. The uninitiated would naturally and common sensically expect these "inspired" books to be somehow so different from those rejected that it would be an easy matter to separate them. Surely a work written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit would be clearly distinct from the works of mere mortals. The truth of the matter, as history shows, is very different.
We will proceed to show that the method of collection was haphazard and by no means carried out with the unanimous consent of early Christendom. Let us looks first at the Old Testament:


The Jewish OT canon, finalized at the end of the first century CE, was based on, among other things, the mistaken attribution of authorship, political considerations and haphazard selections of the "authoritative" textual versions.
The Christian OT canon, is similarly confused. With the various denominations unable to agree on even which books are inspired!
Some canonical New Testament books even refer to books not in the Old Testament Canon as though they are authoritative scripture.
The history of the New Testament canonization and textual transmission shows a process that is equally haphazard:

The history of the transmission of New Testament manuscripts shows that the text became more and more corrupted as time goes on culminating with the faulty text used as the basis for the King James version.
Some of passages beloved by Christians, such as the Johanine Comma, the Pericopae Adulterae and the passages describing Jesus' resurrection in the earliest gospel have been shown by textual criticism to be spurious!.
Indeed we see that the often made claim by fundamentalists that the more than five thousand extant manuscripts of the New Testament point to something special is nothing but an empty boast.
The canonization process was a hodgepodge of mistaken authorship attribution, faulty logic and the politics of heresy.

Due to all these difficulties, it is important to know that not all Bible translations are of equal standard of scholarship. Some, especially the ones from fundamentalist publications, have theological axes to grind in their translations: smoothing over some of the difficulties above and getting rid of some of the (to them) more offensive passages of the Bible.

On Morality and Word Spinning
Some believers have argued that while it is may be so that the Bible is not completely true and is a largely a human concoction, it is still a valuable storehouse of moral teachings. This too, is patently false, upon close examination. We see that:
God commands atrocities, the type which rivals the worst atrocities of Hitler and Stalin.
The Bible is essentially misogynistic.
It condones slavery.
The teachings of Jesus where they are original, are not good moral guides. Where they are good or positive, they are not original.
It can be shown that much of the harm Christianity has visited on the world has been due mainly to these Bible passages.
That leaves us with the liberal theologians. They try to explain away the contradictions, mistakes and moral flaws of the Bible with theological word-spinning.



Conclusions
What can we conclude from our study of the Bible?
It is filled with scientific errors, contradictions and numerous other errors.
Many of its myths are not even original, but were derived from earlier middle eastern myths.
The authors are largely anonymous.
The canonization process is largely haphazard and accidental.
It does not serve as a good moral guide and in fact had been largely responsible for the atrocities committed by believers.
In short, the Bible is not a "good Book".





Further reading: The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

the Evangelical Theological Society Position on the affirmation of Professors, Clark Pinnock and John Sanders

The Bible was written by man... is man capable of being wholly objective and entirely accurate to the minutest detail? I haven't met a human being that is, and I doubt one has ever existed. So how could the Bible ever be considered a complete work of fact without flaws?

everyone who wrote the books of the Bible wrote everything in it to the best of their ability, their education level, their ability to articulate words of understanding. i believe this. now if i don't understand because of culture differences, translation differences, then that makes the whole Bible errant and of no ualue to me as a Christian? it is still the best plan i have read for my life. i have tried many others, soul travel, astrology, gnostic, saturday balogna eating, even atheism. nothing else has been even close. so i am going to take my "errent" Bible and go home and study myself into a magnificent life of deception.
see y"all later.

randomhit10

I guess you and i differ on ideas of "innerancy". You see it in the sense of the Bible being literally true in everything it states, which of course it isn't. There is poetry, song, wisdom proverbs, narrative, history, parable, allegory, and more that I can't think of off the top of my head that all comprise this text we know today as "the Bible". If you pick up a newspaper and on page 1 you have a news report on the war in Iraq, and on page 23 you have the "Artist's Corner" or some such, in which there is a printed poem from Robert Frost, would you take both articles as literally true-to-life portrayals? Of course not. You'd know that the poem is indeed a poem and includes poetic device's.

The same is true of the Bible, except people find it a lot harder to spot these differences in a text like the Bible. Taking certain parts of the Bible as poetry/metaphor and some as literal is not a case of arbitrary designation, but a decision made after close scrutiny of the text.

Of course, I may be wrong in my assertions, but these are my beliefs none-the-less.

Regards, PA

except PA, your Bible is touted as being, if not THE word of god, at least inspired by.

In your newspaper analogy, one can discern the factual news reporting ( biased or not, your choice), from the adverts, the sports, the comics, and the fluff pieces. Not so with the bible, especially when its own followers can disagree on which parts are "true", which are allegorical, and which are mythological.

^That is why those who purport to follow the BIble need to study it, to see the sentence structure and the poetic devices, to note the historical context and more to decide how a passage relates to people today. Too often, amongst both Christians and non-Christians, people make the easy jump - "the Bible says this, so therefore we are to do this". It's the easy way out and it ignores all the various forms of context.

How do we know that a section in the newspaper is an advertisement unless we've already been made aware of what advertisements look like. If someone 4000 years in the future picks up an ancient newspaper and reads an advertisement, what are they going to make of it?

The matter of complete contextual study of the Bible is a lot deeper than many people realise. You can spend literally hours working on the background information on a single line of text.

Though i do believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, I also believe that no single person is able to learn all the truths of the Bible. Humans are fallible, which leads to all the differences of opinions. People state that you can make the Bible say whatever you want it to say, which is true to an extent, but it is also true that when you do proper contextual study, the list of possibilities in meaning drop dramatically.

For someone that noted the erroneous use of the words, "accept" and "except" , I find your statement contradictory to your attention to proper grammar. You are certainly free to take issue with the term "inerrancy" however, that would be contrary to the context of it's use, in matters of the affirmation of the faithful, that the bible is the inerrant word of god. Not to mention, the literal definition of, "Inerrant" "Inerrancy". It would also conflict with the bible itself, that makes the claim numerous times throughout it's 64 Books.
Proverbs 30:5-6
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.



2 Timothy 3:16-18
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.


1 Thessalonians 2:13
2 Peter 1:20-21


~edit for omitted text fix~

You misundrstand, GW. You see inerrant as synonymous with "completely literal", or at least intertwined with it (if I misunderstand you in this, I apologize). A passage need not be literal (poetry, for example, or parable even) for it to be inerrant. You are arguing in your opening post that unless every part of the Bible adhere's literally to other knowledge then it is not inerrant. It is a false argument in my opinion, but one you are free to have, of course.

Thank you for permitting me my freedom. You have no argument with me, but rather with the faith you seem to apologize for as being misunderstood, when it's rites and traditions affirm the inerrancy of the bible. It's scripture affirms the inerrancy of the bible and , until recently was a position afforded many Theologians, as they defended the faith and affirmed the inerrancy of the text. You yourself have said you believe the bible to be inerrant. And while you to are free to interpret that word as you see fit, it is not in keeping with the definition so as to make that personal opinion relevant to the fact of the matter. Or perhaps you are forgetting "Fundamentalist christianity", which affirms the bible is inerrant. I.E. Literally and irrefutably true, absolute and the eternal word of god.

That is one of the most thoughtful comments I've seen on the Bible lately. You make several good points

I see the Bible as the faith-story of a people. There are other faith-stories of other peoples. None of them is to be used as a science or history book, for they are all based on a much earlier oral tradition. They are stories children were told on holidays and told to explain some truth or experience. Terms like inerrancy and objectivity and accuracy do not apply here, imo.

Peace,

RadicalGnostic

I agree. That is an excellent observation, Shadow. I would also agree that terms like inerrancy, objectivity and accuracy do not apply, in relation to the content of the bible. It has been labeled, historical fiction, in fact. However, that does not preclude many from taking it as the literal divinely inspired "words" of god. So much so that many live their lives according to it's directives, claim laws and government were framed around it's tenets and, in extreme cases, seek to secede from the United States, in order to form a more perfect union of religionists that subscribe to the claim it is inerrant and thus, wish to create a bible based fellowship and **Theocratic community, unto themselves. For that, it need be taken very seriously when we encounter people that do believe , by the book.


"Our Christian republic has declined into a pagan democracy," says Cory Burnell, president of ChristianExodus.org, a non-profit corporation based in Tyler, Texas. "There are some issues people just can't take anymore, and [same-sex marriage] might finally wake up the complacent Christians." ... Burnell says South Carolina has been selected as the target location. ... "All these atrocities continue in spite of the fact that we now have the 'right' people in places of power. Indeed, the occupant of the White House is a professing Christian. The U.S. attorney general is believed to be a devout Christian. 'Conservatives' control both Houses of Congress, and Republican presidents appointed seven of the nine Supreme Court justices." If all goes according to plan, Burnell is hoping to have a constitutional convention by 2014, with a president of the new nation – still to be known as South Carolina – elected in 2016, which is also a presidential election year in the U.S. He says the nation would be founded on Christian principles, and the people writing its constitution would have to hash out details to safeguard it as a Christian republic.

To anyone religious, the bible is true to them, this we all have to understand. Last time I was on line, I was told that for those that have studied the bible, but still believe it to be true, have filtered it to suit the christians. What I mean is, taken a closer look at all that does not add up and all that sounds really harsh, has been taken out and a NEW (yup NEW) meaning to the term or word, just enough that the bible does NOT look that bad. It helps to defend the bible

There to is the observation there are any number of translations of the bible. "The Way" bible, caused a huge uproar when it first came out because it dared deviate from the usual parlance or language, of scripture. But it became hugely populate because it spoke in a way that enticed (as was intended) a younger generation to read.

Then there was printed "Jesus Freaks dc talk" volumes I and 2. Books containing dozens of accounts about christian martyrdom. Compiled and marketed for teenagers specifically. So as to introduce them to the history of the ultimate sacrifice, for the ultimate bible truth. Then there are translations such as: The new living translation, contemporary English version, Young's literal translation, etc... (versions found @ Biblegateway.com). So that, when one says, "The bible says", they could be interpreting any number of versions of any one verse. All so as to communicate in a way that everyone sees fitting and relates to, so as to believe what they read in a manner they can accept.
It makes one wonder what would god say, after saying his word is eternal and unchanging!? But I guess it might be observed that the councils that convened and decided what , of gods inspired word, there would to be allowed to be bound into what is todays bible, already answered that one.

The Bible was written primarily by the Jewish society in the 7th and 6th century, FOR the Jewish society. That means that it includes a number of historical things that are described fairly accurately, but also that are half-truths, or nonsensical. One good example is the 'Exodus' story. People from what is called 'Canaan' DID come down to live in the Egyptian Nile Delta area thousands of years ago in drought periods, since the Nile was fairly regular, and the Nile Delta back then was far larger in size. This changed around the 13th century BCE. However, the story of a massive group of people wandering around in the desert for 40 years is clearly false; there is no evidence of the form of campsites and the like. The point is that the story is a kind of mythological 'beginning' story that probably had a tiny kernel of truth in it.

Gw, pa and Joey and the others participating in this discussion it is very interesting and each comes off versed , a great read..GW you sure are an excellent debator in my opinion......I wanted to add that yes indeed the bible is considered historical fiction, as a matter of fact some of the storys have been included in my sons curriculum along with history but it is now stated that it is not to be taken as literal truth. its now called historical fiction......

just as has been pointed out..its also considerd literature which is simply storys nothing inerrant in literature, they just conveyed the culture or the traditons or the understandings of the times a great read on this is ezra pound. the abc's of reading its a wealth of the nature of literature and what it is and isn't..... .Including the writings of homer or the poetry of LI PO, Propersisu, or Sappho. Chaucer etc .etc........how things are changing, how excitng for the futhure.... ....this is the new curriculim the charters are moving away from history is 100 percent infallabe....

Public school politics today are why I'm a big fan of home schooling and those education centers outside the public school domain.


I would have been pleased if the school district I attended offered literature of Sappho, Chaucer , Homer, etc... As it was , when I attended high school , it was at the cusp of the new school, where what was formerly mandatory was relegated to an elective. So one could fore go American history, literature, etc... if they chose to. As long as they had credit in all the formalities like math, science, English, so as to acquire a grand total of 18 credits by graduation. Consequently, if one wasn't fond of school, they could schedule a veritable cake walk to pass the time , for four years and then, only after graduation, would they often times realize that cake walk cost them a great deal of standing, when they entered college.

I love the writings of Sappho, Plato, Chaucer, Homer. The observations of aestheticism via Schopenhauer, etc... I wonder if, today, the public school students in my area would even know those names.

As you know i home school with a charter as my mentor, and this is my second year the first was on my own , well not really i have alot of teacher freinds and I asked for help and one of those friends is a literature PHD, he plainly told me to teach from literature only, nopt ot waste my time on anything else. how does a child possibly become a ggod writer without the vocabulary or exposure to what is truly great and my sons 2nd grade was reading only the poets and authors i mentioned, If one wants to know the rhyming couplets in there perfection isn't the Raven by Poe one of the best, my son delighted in such reading, after coming from the standard readers jane fell down the hill stuff....I have found a curriculum that says a child should only be reading the classics and literature to become a fully versed child....It is the wave of the future though., such as oraganic grammar etc......his music curriculium is centered around classical music only..... Imagine a child who knows of the classical composers not only by name but piece, this too is unheard of in the public schools or the great artists they rarely get art of any value that is...

Old Testament

How do we know the Bible has been kept in tact for over 2,000 years of copying? Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, our earliest Hebrew copy of the Old Testament was the Masoretic text, dating around 800 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls date to the time of Jesus and were copied by the Qumran community, a Jewish sect living around the Dead Sea. We also have the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament dating in the second century B.C. When we compare these texts which have an 800-1000 years gap between them we are amazed that 95% of the texts are identical with only minor variations and a few discrepancies

New Testament

In considering the New Testament we have tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament in part or in whole, dating from the second century A.D. to the late fifteenth century, when the printing press was invented. These manuscripts have been found in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, and Italy, making collusion unlikely. The oldest manuscript, the John Rylands manuscript, has been dated to 125 A.D. and was found in Egypt, some distance from where the New Testament was originally composed in Asia Minor). Many early Christian papyri, discovered in 1935, have been dated to 150 A.D., and include the four gospels. The Papyrus Bodmer II, discovered in 1956, has been dated to 200 A.D., and contains 14 chapters and portions of the last seven chapters of the gospel of John. The Chester Beatty biblical papyri, discovered in 1931, has been dated to 200-250 A.D. and contains the Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, and Revelation. The number of manuscripts is extensive compared to other ancient historical writings, such as Caesar's "Gallic Wars" (10 Greek manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), the "Annals" of Tacitus (2 manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), Livy (20 manuscripts, the earliest 350 years after the original), and Plato (7 manuscripts).


Manuscript Evidence for Ancient Writings

author written Earliest Copy Time Span #Mss.

Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,000 yrs 10
Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,200 yrs 7
Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,300 yrs 8
Tacitus 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1,000 yrs 20
Suetonius 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs 8
Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643
New Testament 40-100 A.D. 125 A.D. 25-50 yrs 24,000

Thousands of early Christian writings and lexionaries (first and second century) cite verses from the New Testament. In fact, it is nearly possible to put together the entire New Testament just from early Christian writings. For example, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (dated 95 A.D.) cites verses from the Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. The letters of Ignatius (dated 115 A.D.) were written to several churches in Asia Minor and cites verses from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. These letters indicate that the entire New Testament was written in the first century A.D. In addition, there is internal evidence for a first century date for the writing of the New Testament. The book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul in prison, awaiting trial (Acts 28:30-31 (1)). It is likely that Luke wrote Acts during this time, before Paul finally appeared before Nero. This would be about 62-63 A.D., meaning that Acts and Luke were written within thirty years of ministry and death of Jesus. Another internal evidence is that there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Although Matthew, Mark and Luke record Jesus' prophecy that the temple and city would be destroyed within that generation (Matthew 24:1-2 (2),Mark 13:1-2 (3), Luke 21:5-9,20-24,32(4)), no New Testament book refers to this event as having happened. If they had been written after 70 A.D., it is likely that letters written after 70 A.D. would have mentioned the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy. As stated by Nelson Glueck, former president of the Jewish Theological Seminary in the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, and renowned Jewish archaeologist, "In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written between the forties and eighties of the first century A.D."

With all of the massive manuscript evidence you would think there would be massive discrepancies - just the opposite is true. New Testament manuscripts agree in 99.5% of the text (compared to only 95% for the Iliad). Most of the discrepancies are in spelling and word order. A few words have been changed or added. There are two passages that are disputed but no discrepancy is of any doctrinal significance (i.e., none would alter basic Christian doctrine). Most Bibles include the options as footnotes when there are discrepancies. How could there be such accuracy over a period of 1,400 years of copying? Two reasons: The scribes that did the copying had meticulous methods for checking their copies for errors. 2) The Holy Spirit made sure we would have an accurate copy of God's word so we would not be deceived. The Mormons, theological liberals as well as other cults and false religions such as Islam that claim the Bible has been tampered with are completely proven false by the extensive, historical manuscript evidence.


Rich Reem

Source



~hairston630

I've personally always looked to this passage as the Bible itself saying that Scriptures are man's interpretation and the "WORD" of God is found from within oneself:

John 5:37-40
You have neither heard the Father's voice nor seen his form.
But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe.
You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life and these are they which testify of Me; .
But you are not willing to come to me that you may have life.

Here Jesus makes a clear distinction between the word of God, and the Scriptures.
Jesus speaks of His word abiding in you:

Rom 10:8
The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart.

Those are two of MANY passages that suggest that Scriptures are words heard by man and recorded by man, but that God's word can only be found from within.

37] And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
[38] And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
[39] Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
[40] And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life


This specific part of the scripture was aimed at the Jews. I speak this info humbly, for i dont intend to belittle someone. They (the jews) were persecuting him because he had healed a man on the sabbath. Christ was explaining when he said "And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent (jesus), him ye believe not". Jesus was explaining to the Jews (which studied old testament scriptures) that He is the way, truth, and the light and that He had been sent by the Father. Jesus is described as "the word", the walking word of God. When he mentions "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me" he is talking about the old testament. Multiple books in the old testament describe the coming of christ through prophecy in the future (this is what the jews were missing). The jews read this and were unaware that it was describing the coming christ and in their eyes, by following the old testament laws, they were already on the path of righteousness (which is why Christ mentioned "search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life....."), but the opposite was true. Christ was and is the only link to the father through the Holy spirit and if they were denying his divinity (which they were) then they do not have eternal life, which is why he said in verse 40 "and ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." They were rejecting Christ's offer of salvation and were believing that through their works they would be saved which is not true. Grace is a free gift which christ offers and he doesnt require you to change your life to get right with him, thats His job and Hes willing to help anyone that will invite him in. Sorry for my grammar (i know its not that great), but i wanted to share that with you.

miss wells a few of us feel the jesus construct was repeating the message the eastern mystics and philosophys had been saying anyways...

Hairston630 - Firstly, welcome to UM, and enjoy your stay

Secondly, I'd just like to ask that you get acquainted with the Forum Rules (link) a little bit before you continue. In particular, rule 11.



Whenever you quote any source, for copyright reasons you need to provide the source, otherwise people may think you are trying to pass it off as your own work (unfortunately an author's name alone, tagged at the bottom of the post is insufficient). I've added in the source to your post for you, considering it's only your first day here, but in future, you'll need to do this yourself.

Thanks for your cooperation, and again, welcome to the forums.

Regards, PA

Or he came up with the same ideas of the eastern mystics on his own or he was true messiah, or he took his ideas from eastern mystics. It really doesn't matter which to me in all honesty. I guess the topic was Biblical Inerrancy, and I'm pointing out that many Christians believe that the bible is the absolute and final word of God but there are several Chrisitan sects that believe that the bible is the word of Man, interpreting the words of God (and man is less than perfect). But the final Word of God is within everyone. There's really no saying which is right and which is wrong, I simply prefer the latter because once you do acknowlege that the Bible was written by imperfect man, in my opinion it makes scripture clear as to its intent.

If you don't want to interpret the Bible literally, Good luck with that!
If you do want to interpret the Bible literally, Good luck with that!
If you don't care to deal with it at all, Good luck with that!



hairston630:

While I'm sure your intent was good, debating scripture and its meaning is something I don't do--it leads to a never ending cycle of anger and frustration, which I wholeheartedly believe was NOT God's intention. I may from time to time point out something in the Scriptures that have meant someting to me, but I don't do so with the intention of it being up for debate because it gets neither of us anywhere (other than ticked off). I apologize if my post led you to believe otherwise.

Peace,

Forgive my grammar. I put his name (which is the writer) under the article then i finished it with mine to try and NOT make it look like I did the writing. I meant for that articles credit to go to rich reem which is the author of the article. Sorry for any confusion that I may cause, i didnt intend that on purpose.

Psalm 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.


Imagine if the bible was inerrant and every command, every admonishing to please god with our behavior, was applicable today. I've read people say the bible has to be read in context. The period in which the words are spoken, has to be taken into consideration to understand the context of the directives, imparted there. But if that's true, how do words thousands of years old have a chance of being read in the context of the 21st century!?

If the word is unchanging, infallible, and as such is required to be obeyed to please god, how can we, this modern society of diverse personalities, object to the child abuse of selling one's daughter into slavery? Exodus 21:7, would say that's permissible, by god. Or, why would it be a prosecutable offense if one murdered their neighbor for daring to work on the sabbath? Exodus 35:2, makes it an obligation to keep the sabbath holy!? And, forget those BBQ's, because touching the skin of a pig, that is an unclean animal, shall make me unclean. And let's not forget how Super Bowl Sunday would be missed. You know, because of that old pigskin tradition thing, being a sin? Lev 11:6-8 tells me so.

These are excerpts from a letter forwarded to Dr.Laura, so you may recognize them that way. But they're still relevant points, in defining what it really means when one subscribes to the fundamental commandments of any faith. What we call zealot muslims , terrorists detonating themselves in the name of allah, is called a sacred sacrifice, elsewhere. Context! Yes, it certainly is all about that and we see how it feels, when it tries to fit old law into new freedoms and rights of peace in community. What's not to love about someone that takes it literally when their myth compels them to kill you and yours!?

If the word is unchanging, infallible, and as such is required to be obeyed to please god, how can we, this modern society of diverse personalities, object to the child abuse of selling one's daughter into slavery? Exodus 21:7, would say that's permissible, by god.

Quite simply, slavery does not exist anymore (in the sense that it did in ancient times, at least). So who'd sell a daughter into slavery, and if they did, I can almost guarantee that the purpose is not one approved by God.

Or, why would it be a prosecutable offense if one murdered their neighbor for daring to work on the sabbath? Exodus 35:2, makes it an obligation to keep the sabbath holy!?

There are many ways to look at this. There is of course Jesus' edict to "Judge not lest ye be judged". There's Jesus' other edict to "Love your neighbour". You could also argue that according to Hebrews 4, the Sabbath has been fulfilled and no longer means resting on a Saturday. You could argue from the position that Paul takes when he writes in Romans 13 that we are to obey the earthly rulers and rules of our society, which has no such rule about the Sabbath but do have rules about taking someone's life. In similar vein, you could argue that tribal law is insular and for the ancient Hebrews had effect, but since the focus of the Bible shifted in the New Testament, away from the Hebrews and onto the larger world, then this insular law may not necessarily be applicable.

And, forget those BBQ's, because touching the skin of a pig, that is an unclean animal, shall make me unclean.

Mark 7 records an account whereby Jesus declared that Levitical law fulfilled - it's not what goes into a man that makes him unclean, but what comes out of him that makes him unclean. For from within can come all forms of evil.

And let's not forget how Super Bowl Sunday would be missed. You know, because of that old pigskin tradition thing, being a sin? Lev 11:6-8 tells me so.


Similar to the above, and for all intents and purposes, the answer is the same. I was just surprised that pig-skin was still used to make footballs in NFL/Gridiron. Most other football codes I know have moved on to synthetic materials.

-------------------------------------

Edit: I just had a look at that link. I guessed that would be the article you were referring to, but I just noticed that this article was addressed to an orthodox Jew. I'm uncertain that they would respond in the same manner that I did, because they don't really accord the New Testament any value. For myself as a Christian, all of God's law must be looked at in the context of Jesus' death and resurrection. Of course, I'm not going to get every little thing right. i may very well misinterpret one particular law (who knows, maybe I shouldn't eat pig after all). But that's human nature, we won't always ahve everything right (we're not perfect), but I don't think God's going to smite me for eating a ham sammich, in light of the greater themes of the Bible - Grace, forgiveness of sins.

well said

Passages from the Christian Scriptures which Sanction Slavery Slavery exists today, across many regions and within many religious sects. So if it was permissible in the old testament, sanctioned in the new, which god would not permit slavery today? If the new testament is one that is to be followed today, because, as some would claim, the grace of jesus fulfilled much of what was said in the old!? It's the "Almost"guarantee that opens the door, to realize there are many gods that still approve slavery today. Even the one outside the new testament. Twenty-First Century Slavery: Pakistan's Brutal Bonded Labor System Lingers On.


Colossians 3:22 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God;


Colossians 4:1 Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.



I always wonder when many ways happen to distinguish themselves from the one.

Exodus 20:8-11 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Many apologists discount the veracity of the old testament having sway after the coming of the christos and the covenant of the new. If this is to be believed, then indeed the secular activists campaign to remove the 10 commandments from government properties has a virtue. Because that would mean the Mosaic law no longer applies either. So why indeed display them as if they matter now?! One can not have it both ways. They can not claim the new testament predominates the christian message of jesus, when jesus came to fulfill the prophecies, but did not claim the old testament wisdom was void. As god himself, it would be impossible if one is to take "Him" at his word, in the beginning: 2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (Unless of course that doesn't apply anymore?)


Which Day is The Sabbath of the New Testament?





Footballs are made of synthetics now. I think the reference was an analogy of the old way. When the skin of a pig was the ball of the game.

The Pig and You

Deuteronomy 28:58-60:
'If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD; Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance. Moreover He will bring upon thee all the diseases of Egypt, which thou wast afraid of; and they shall cleave unto thee.'

I John 14:15 If ye love Me, keep My commandments.

I have half a mind to start a thread about Home and Unschooling. I also did not send my child to any formal schools (with the exception of a few weeks over the course of 12 years) -- I'd love to hear about how your experience is going and what the challenges and rewards have been. I'm kind of done with my experience since mine is a 19 year old senior at university... but I still find it fascinating especially since I was given all kinds of grief about the educational choices I made for my kid. Now that she's grown, almost out of college people keep telling me "I got lucky" that she didn't end up a failure.

Anyway, I almost in some ways grieve for those that try to take the Bible literally and make their best efforts to try and mold it into something that it was never intended to be (a history book, a geology, a science book, a math book...) IMHO, it's a book of inspiration, it was written by men, it's various books and gossiples were chosen by men... it should be used to clarify or assist you in understanding your own personal prayers and meditations on God. But if you insist on looking at it as literal, with no contridictions, be my guest, I wish you luck on your quest.

Peace friends,

I think what makes it difficult for some to understand about the bible, is that for as many as say it is historical fiction, allegory and parables, meant to apply timely wisdom for eternity, assist in one's meditation on god, etc... is that the bible is then used by those that would claim it holds right and title to be the ineffable , infallible word of god, by which all other faiths are to be judged and found wanting. Hence fundamentalist and evangelical sects believe the word is eternal and unchanging, literal as god's words.

So, if it is gods words, if 2 Timothy chapter 3 and verses 16 and 17 are to be believed, which is it exactly? Historical fiction, man made inspirations that speak of campaigns undertaken by the chosen, to affect genocide, decimate cultures, enslave women and children, by holy decree, what then can it be said to inspire? Today, in this 21st century the bible is used as an excuse to further suppress equal rights and freedoms for one community of Americans, because the legislature is suppose to defer to the heavenly proclamation that gays are an abomination!

But if everything is made of god, in it's image and likeness, how is any one that call themselves godly to be believed themselves, when they judge someone unfit in god's eyes, to be equal as a human being? Judge not lest ye be judged. What a damnable offense that god chose to make the sin of homosexuality, so once again his imperfect children would face another hurdle unto grace. Or, they may achieve such, if they are gay but accept jesus and live the rest of their lives as a lie, so as to be saved from how god made them. But that's a choice to, a choice to either love as a heterosexual and thereby live a lie (certainly that must be a sin. To dishonor the lifetime god gave, lying about the sweetest gift , that which jesus felt so much for all the world, he gave his life to save it. Love), or live as they were made to be, (If it's a choice for gays, it's a choice for straights.) and by god (word) be damned!

I wonder how something so divisive, so evil, so full of hate mongering and so offensive to peace and love, as is this written by depraved man that sees god in the image of a devil, how that can ever be untouchable, unworthy of critique and yet accepted as divinely inspired. It that made all can never be jealous of itself. Therefore, "I am a jealous god", is mans word. Jealously doesn't show how much you love someone, it proves how insecure you are. God, that infinite power, can never be insecure. Especially can it not be made so by sinful man. That it condemns for being exactly as they were made to be. So what is it really. Most believers will at least entertain the notion that the bible is written by men claiming to be inspired. But if it's to be the book by which nations are conquered, people are subjugated, and that which proclaims in god we trust, it has to be either all that it's said to be, or nothing of the kind at all.
People say the bible is fraught with contradictions. It is! Absolutely. So if god inspired, but man compiled, why can't it be taken apart and studied, so that man has to face reality , aside from faith, when they first choose to believe the book that tells them what it means to worship what it describes as worthy, called god?

anybody know where the insufferable, anal and rather dull "bible type-o" thread is?.....B




halhandshufffle:slayer jihad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv3TudB5J10

I get the distinct feeling that you ignored everything I wrote and just requoted the original Bible passage. Did you even read Mark 7? Or Hebrews 4? Do you know what they say? Jesus came to fulfill the law, and these passages show how those Old Testament laws have been fulfilled. Ignoring what I wrote and simply requoting the same passage again isn't going to make your point any clearer

Oh I think your point is made quite well. Thank you. I would wonder if you read any of the links in my reply. Perhaps ignoring those wont make your point any more valid either.

Thanks, I'm glad I was clear and succinct. I thought I was going crazy there for a while

And I did read your links, actually. As a moderator, one of my responsibilities is to check links to see whether they are appropriate for this forum (a natural by-product of this being I have to read all links that are put into posts).

a. Your first link - I have never said that the Bible does not support slavery. I was only saying that in the modern-day climate of the western world, slavery is impractical. I don't believe I am breaking God's law by NOT owning slaves, though i would be breaking the law of man if I did own slaves in the western world (the Bible tells us to submit to earthly authorities, and the laws of the land).

b. Second link - I'm not really sure what the state of slavery in Pakistan has to do with this. Even assuming slavery were acceptable in the modern-world, the methods of the Pakistani are obviously not (characterized by the term "brutal" in your article link). The Bible says that slaves should show honour and respect to their masters, and that masters should honour and respect their slaves. The Pakistani's "brutal" slavery regime obviously fails to honour that most basic of laws to respect each other. If masters/slaves honoured, respected, and I believe the Bible even at one point says "love your slaves", how could such abuse and brutal treatment occur?

c. Third link - I've never denied that Saturday is not the Sabbath day, according to scripture. Saturday is the Sabbath. Believe it or not, when Christians meet on Sundays, they are not meeting on the Sabbath (though occassionally some think that they are). We just happen to meet together on a Sunday to encourage one another. I was stating in my last post though that the entire concept of the Sabbath has been fulfilled to no longer refer to a specific day of the week (as it did in the Old Testament), but as Hebrews 4 describes, we now have constant "Sabbath Rest" with Jesus, and so a specific day of rest on a Saturday is no longer necessary, for we are always in a Sabbath Rest. However, it is a good idea to have a day set aside in the week to rest. Whether that be Saturday or not is irrelevant (with the amount of work that I do on Sunday in practicing music for church, setting up the chairs, moving the equipment, Sunday is definitely NOT my day of Rest).

d. Final link - I understand that there are aspects to pig-meat that may not entirely be savoury. However, modern-day cleaning techniques have made pig a lot cleaner than it once was. For the record, I quoted Mark 7 to back my position up that no food is unclean. Some do use passages such as the parable/vision in Acts (as the article suggests), but that was a parable on racisim, in my opinion, and not a reflection on food-laws. Mark 7 is a much more concise passage. This is not to say that it may not be more healthy to leave pig or prawn out of the diet. In this respect, the laws of Leviticus 11 show a remarkable knowledge of healthy eating, considering all the other nations ate those foods, but the Israelites realised that it was unhealthy to do so.

any book that pushs sexual slavery as well as slavery has far from being a book written and inspired by God.

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 )


When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

HEY I WANT A CANADIAN SLAVE !! they are such nice people , soft spoken and good beer with a love of hockey which is big here in Michigan.

The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

*************


Here God approves rape ! well he has to marry his captive to rape her and if not satisfied with her can let her go. how gallant of him.

DT 21:10-13 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites are allowed to take "beautiful women" from the enemy camp to be their captive wives. If, after sexual relations, the husband has "no delight" in his wife, he can simply let her go.


lastly , here clearly the words of jesus are made up.

In Mark 8:35 Jesus said: "...but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s the same shall save it." How could Jesus have said this when there was no gospel when he lived? The gospel did not appear until after his death.

The only paradigm that can be said about the bible--if you believe it is true--is that the bible is the inspired word of God. Humans wrote the bible, and humans are not perfect, because humans can't be perfect since the fall of man, and sin and blah, blah, blah... I'd just like to point out that by taking a small segment or sentence of scipture to prove a point you can literally mold the words to say whatever you want; so if you want to get a point across with scripture give the whole passage and highlight for those who don't know the passage in it's entirety, because interpretation goes a long ways for those reading it. Look at denominations today, most of them all read the same bible and yet they all have their own rules and beliefs they find are right, just some proof that christianity today is nothing more than a human ritual, which virtually can be done without God in most cases. Humorous and Gross at the same time if you ask me.

It's refreshing to read you on these forums. Thank you so much for your insight.

as i quote from the book of barek:3:16
Do not judge thee, oh hairy legged heethuns, for thou wield the mighty pen...
they say the pen is mightier than the sword...
and I say F the pen....... cuz you can die by the sword!

Amen!


I can see up her sun-dress.....GROSS!


die by the sword:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlqBmFofuO4

I have a problem with anything that claims to be innerant or all knowing.

It seems to me that this is more or less an invitation to misuse. If the book (Be it the bible, the Koran or what not) is considered the beginning and end of knowledge it quite simply can be used to justify anything.

We have seen many times on this site how Biblical quotes can be twisted to suit any purpose, and while ParanoidAndroid my scream Context till he is blue in the face, the fact is that it is much easier to ignore the context, not to mention that the true context of such ancient scriptures can never be fully known.

Many times a strict reading of various holy texts have resulted in wars and attrocities but I wonder how many might have been avoided had God decided to add a postscript saying *Please note this is NOT the be all and end all of knowledge. People who disagree with this are NOT evil or stupid or less*

Just a thought I have had on occaision though I wish I could express it more strongly


AtlantisRises

And yet, after having read the Bible from one end to the other a few times, and studying it for a few years, I have yet to find a single passage where God actually approves of slavery... and that's funny because many of you are actually saying exactly that!!!

Please be my guest and give the passage where God is saying, "Hey guys, slavery is a good thing!!"

Slavery in the Bible

Well, from my reading of the bible, there is no where in it that says "God commands you have slaves", but it does intruct those who own slaves, how they may be treated.

Although, if the bible is the inspirted words of god, writ by men, you would think that the maker would say something AGAINST the owning of other human beings. By not saying it is wrong, the bible is endorsing the trade of human slaves.

Of course, this IS the same book where god would take sides in war to insure the victory of his chosen ones. The same god who reportedly slew the first born of the egyptians. So, I guess it isn't all that surprising.

I cant sleep ......oh there is plenty of amazing reading in here so i guess i might as well start pick this crap apart......ZZZZZZZZ
problem solved...B

Barek,

You've been given several warnings regarding your inappropriate comments, read the IM heading your way.

PA, see now you know why I haven't read the bible......It complicates matters.....It's best to just know that God is All-knowing and Loving and Forgiving
(that's the most important of his qualities).. All the rest is just conjecture, rumours, innuendo with a bit of salt and pepper thrown in, for good measure....

Well the bible isn't meant to be just taken at face value, you have to figure it out for yourself. So saying that reading the bible is silly because it gets complicated, is silly in itslef, because it is complicated, and it's supposed ot be. If you didn;t have to look into and study the mucky parts of the bible, then you would just pick it up once, and say well that was swell, and keep living your life without any thought of God or his Character again. Which is why atheists are so much better at reading the bible than Christians, because most of them read it the way it is supposed to be read (even though they are doing it to disprove).

Did I say reading the bible was silly ? Let me check....*checks previous post* No, I never said that.....I said reading it 'complicates matters'......Meaning that people's interpretation is totally different, even amongst Christians !! So many times I come across Christians on this forum arguing about whose meaning is more accurate and as you said, atheists also interpret it differently.....Hence, 'complicates matters'....

Now, I say why bother ? I can still 'think of God and his character' without having read a single word.....I can go to church every Sunday and worship the Lord and feel within myself that I'm a good Christian in my own special way........

You're right, sorry I misquoted you on that one.

If you only focus on God and his character though, what about your life in cohabitation with the lives around yours?

Because the bible seems to have some things to say about the way a Christian is supposed to treat people, is it then that you decide to treat others the way you decide you should?

See that's the thing, I don't need the bible to teach me how to treat people....My parents did a wonderful job of that themselves....It's common sense in my view that as long as you treat people with respect and dignity, then that's ok...I apply the saying, 'Treat others as you would have them treat you' and you can't go wrong. What's so hard about that?

I go about life with a smile on my face and always try to help out people ( whether at work, family) whenever I can.....These are the same principles I'm teaching my kids....And all without having read the bible !!