Holy Books: The Making or Breaking of Religion?

[Biggreenfellow]

Okay, I've decided to make this thread in response to a discussion that took place in "The Accuracy of the Quran" thread. Note that I still feel this discussion should remain in the aforementioned thread, but since the mods, in their wisdom, have decided otherwise, I will not attempt to force the issue in that thread any longer.

Also note that it is not my intention to bash or otherwise insult people that adhere to a particular set of beliefs, merely to point out big inconsistencies and through that, attempt to open minds.

With that short introduction, let's kick it off with a simple question: What is the foundation of Christian, Jewish and Islamic religion? Is it not their respective Holy Scriptures? Do these books not claim to contain the Holy Word direct from the big man himself?

Then why do they contain so many errors? I must confess I know very little of the Talmud, so I will focus mainly on the Qur'an and Bible (both new and old testament for reasons I will mention later).

To name but a few of these errors in the Bible: the Bible is clear on it's view of how the world came to be, how long it took to create the earth and universe, in which order the earth was created, how humans were created in the image of God, but all these claims have been refuted by science. Evolution is proven beyond question, the age of the Earth has been determined to be much, much older then the Bible claims, etcetera, etcetera.

And then there comes the New Testament vs the Old Testament; what's the deal with that? Why does God say one thing, and then changes his mind radically? Doesn't that mean that nothing in the Bible is the Truth, only the temporary Truth until God changes his mind again? And who's to say he hasn't already, but Christians have ignored the signs?

The Qur'an also has these issues, and some others which have been addressed in the thread I mentioned in the introduction. I don't want to 'steal' Camille's thread, so I'll ask you to go to his thread and read it, and both comment on it there and here, if you desire to comment on this matter at all.

To conclude, both the Bible and the Qur'an are demonstrably fallible in certain parts. How can their respective followers have faith in the Word of God, for all intents and purposes the foundation of faith, if it contains flaws? How can you trust the rest of the book to be true?

Link to Camille's thread:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=418468

[xcorps]

The Bible is not the foundation of my faith. God is.

[Biggreenfellow]

The Bible is not the foundation of my faith. God is.

How do you know God if not through the Bible? If you're a Christian, you believe the Bible is the word of God, his law etc. etc. So this really isn't an answer as much as it is an evasion of the question.

[xcorps]

How do you know God if not through the Bible? If you're a Christian, you believe the Bible is the word of God, his law etc. etc. So this really isn't an answer as much as it is an evasion of the question.

It's not an evasion. My personal relationship with God is guided by scripture, but not defined by it. I know what God asks of me, and I know how to achieve it. When I can't achieve what God wants, I know how to ask for help and forgiveness. When I have achieved what God wants, I know what my reward will be.

It's very simple.

By the way.."his law"..what does that mean to you? Because there is only one law that I, as a Christian, am obligated to.

[SigniferOne]

The Bible is not the foundation of my faith. God is.

?? What's the difference?

So a person who makes the Bible the foundation of his faith is a fundamentalist who has to account for every day and take Genesis literally? Really?

You could say that the New Testament is the foundation of the religion, but it's not the foundation of faith.

Again, sorry, not to be critical, but what's the difference? You speak of "Him", and that is your faith I presume, but how do you know "Him" exactly? How do you know whether there's anything in Him to admire or to follow?

To name but a few of these errors in the Bible: the Bible is clear on it's view of how the world came to be, how long it took to create the earth and universe, in which order the earth was created, how humans were created in the image of God, but all these claims have been refuted by science.

Really, humans created in the image of God refuted by science? I think on the contrary it's clear more and more just how much more magnificent man is than all of creation, all of the animals, planets, and galaxies in the universe.

How the world came to be? You mean the fact that the Bible is the only book in all of human history that claims that our universe came out of nothing? That's what you mean by divergence of religion from science?

How long it took to create the universe? I'm not a fundamentalist, so basics will have a different answer for you, but to me this Biblical passage is quite compelling: "Don't you know that to God one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like one day?"

Evolution is proven beyond question

Again, I'm not a fundamentalist, and basics will have another answer for you, but to me the passage that was quite profound was the one where God makes man out of mud.

the age of the Earth has been determined to be much, much older then the Bible claims

Really? Where does it claim that? I'm excited, you found some new secret passage that no one has been aware of.

And then there comes the New Testament vs the Old Testament; what's the deal with that? Why does God say one thing, and then changes his mind radically?

Progressive revelation.

The Qur'an also has these issues

No, the Qur'an has basic elemental mistakes about what the Bible contains. I mean like, simple factual errors that Mohammed would've corrected if he just read the thing. But he only heard of Christianity from various schismatic little sects, which claimed e.g. that Mary was in the Trinity or something, so he inserted that into the Qur'an as a fully qualified revelation from God himself. That's an example of a fundamental, elemental problem in the Qur'an that does not exist in the NT.

[xcorps]

?? What's the difference?

So a person who makes the Bible the foundation of his faith is a fundamentalist who has to account for every day and take Genesis literally? Really?

Not really sure where you came up with the second question there. If you're referring to something I posted, you have taken it dramatically out of context and inserted meaning which I did not even contemplate, much less infer.

[SigniferOne]

Not really sure where you came up with the second question there. If you're referring to something I posted, you have taken it dramatically out of context and inserted meaning which I did not even contemplate, much less infer.

I didn't mean to be abrasive there, but the juxtaposition you made is... uncommon to say the least. I presume you wanted to distance yourself from the Bible because some claiming possession of it are fundamentalists? So you can have your faith, but whatever with that Bible and what it says over there in the corner? It needn't be given up so easily, especially as there are mighty reasons for the fundamentalists being essentially, elementally wrong.

Etc. I am glad that through selective reading you view has become the prevailing one, but it is still a selective one.

I'm disappointed Sphere, you're quoting verbatim, taking wholesale and eagerly claiming as your own, whole pages from websites entitled www.evilbible.com? (http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm) Really this is utterly beneath the level of discussion we've been having so far.

This website author's frothing comments (not uncommonly to be found on this forum as well) are answered easily, so easily that it's simplicity itself:

"not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished"

Really? Well yes, because the New Testament and Christ himself is the fulfillment of the Law! HE is the fulfillment!

These atheists are themselves the ones who don't understand one "iota" or one "dot" of the Bible. They quote a passage without really thinking about anything about it. Yes, the law will not pass... until it is accomplished!

That is why Christians do not have any commandments to keep the Mosaic dietary laws, or circumcision, and have not been for 2000 years; but I suppose this website's author, with his frothing vituperance, understands better.

[black-dragon]

"not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished"

Really? Well yes, because the New Testament and Christ himself is the fulfillment of the Law! HE is the fulfillment!

Because there will be no second coming of Christ, right? Ah, the benefits of vague nonsense are great, aren't they? It says what you want it to say.

[xcorps]

I didn't mean to be abrasive there, but the juxtaposition you made is... uncommon to say the least. I presume you wanted to distance yourself from the Bible because some claiming possession of it are fundamentalists? So you can have your faith, but whatever with that Bible and what it says over there in the corner? It needn't be given up so easily, especially as there are mighty reasons for the fundamentalists being essentially, elementally wrong.


-snip

I don't mind any abrasiveness. I mostly live the the mudpit, after all

I also don't have any axe to grind with fundamentalists. The lady who cuts my hair is radically fundamental. She is also kind, generous, humble, unassuming, nonjudgemental, and highly intelligent. I could only hope that someone would regard me as well.

I think perhaps my mistake with that post is that it wasn't properly explicated in the frames of the post. I should have expounded after the comment, instead of in replies.

[mrcrusty]

Just a question, it doesn't argue against your greater point, but where in the Bible does it claim to know the age of the planet?

Curious, is all.

[xcorps]

It doesn't. That's the work of radical fundamentalists who insist that each and every single year in human history is accounted for in the Old Testament, there is no history before human history because if there were, it would be in the Bible...

The division fallacy compounded by the appeal to authority and begging the question.

[basics]

" To name but a few of these errors in the Bible: the Bible is clear on it's view of how the world came to be, how long it took to create the earth and universe, in which order the earth was created, how humans were created in the image of God, but all these claims have been refuted by science. Evolution is proven beyond question, the age of the Earth has been determined to be much, much older then the Bible claims, etcetera, etcetera. "

Biggreenfellow,

Going by your name and your posting above I can see where the green comes from in that you have much to learn about the Scriptures. Don't take that as an insult because you are not alone in that respect as these threads are full to brimming of the same deficit. Evolution has indeed refuted plenty about creation, at least its followers have, but these are quite easily by careful explanation cast into the rubbish heap of history.

So let's begin about what is said regarding the result of the six day making of what we know. When Adam was made as a mature human the world and its extremities, the stars and all else were already in existence by a few days yet in a mature fashion as well. The sun did what the sun does just as the moon did what the moon does along with all else that can be seen out there.

Were we to put scientists with all their equipment on the planet at that time their findings would prove that by age creation was indeed mature. It was as I keep emphasising up and running. That is how Genesis tells of those days as God gave Moses the book to write in words that were not Moses', rather God Himself. Refutation only comes about because by the fall of man, men will not accept that God did all these things preferring the idea that chance is better than God.

The strange thing is that all things that live were created each to its own species yet we find man constantly seeking some sort of crossing of the species as proof that what is written to be as you affirm full of errors. Biggreenfellow if you can't get the beginning of the book right what chance that you won't on any other part? A Christian, that is one born again of God, cannot fail to believe that God indeed created all things just as He said.

And since Scripture can only be exposed through the Holy Ghost to them that read it then it is quite understandable that many only see it as the dead letter. So it is quite appropriate that many will see what they want to see even if these look like errors. But I say to you that for every so-called error someone out there who is born again will adequately reply to these accusations.

Indeed if I were to place importance to any part of the Bible above any other it would be the book to the Hebrews because it clears the decks about any nonsense spoken of the Old Testament being detrimental to the New. It was written to the very people that need evidence in signs and wonders, lost in a world of rules and regulations that blocked out the truth about Jesus Christ, the only Messias they are ever likely to get.

Know them and know that book then come back and make comment.

[Biggreenfellow]

It doesn't. That's the work of radical fundamentalists who insist that each and every single year in human history is accounted for in the Old Testament, there is no history before human history because if there were, it would be in the Bible...

The division fallacy compounded by the appeal to authority and begging the question.

Hmm fair enough, I suppose.. My other points still stand, though.

" To name but a few of these errors in the Bible: the Bible is clear on it's view of how the world came to be, how long it took to create the earth and universe, in which order the earth was created, how humans were created in the image of God, but all these claims have been refuted by science. Evolution is proven beyond question, the age of the Earth has been determined to be much, much older then the Bible claims, etcetera, etcetera. "

Biggreenfellow,

Going by your name and your posting above I can see where the green comes from in that you have much to learn about the Scriptures.

Ah yes, the Green bit; just to clarify, that has nothing to do with my political/religious/philosophical outlook on life; Bigfellow was taken as a username, and since green is my favourite colour... well... There we go

Don't take that as an insult because you are not alone in that respect as these threads are full to brimming of the same deficit. Evolution has indeed refuted plenty about creation, at least its followers have, but these are quite easily by careful explanation cast into the rubbish heap of history.

So let's begin about what is said regarding the result of the six day making of what we know. When Adam was made as a mature human the world and its extremities, the stars and all else were already in existence by a few days yet in a mature fashion as well. The sun did what the sun does just as the moon did what the moon does along with all else that can be seen out there.

Were we to put scientists with all their equipment on the planet at that time their findings would prove that by age creation was indeed mature. It was as I keep emphasising up and running. That is how Genesis tells of those days as God gave Moses the book to write in words that were not Moses', rather God Himself. Refutation only comes about because by the fall of man, men will not accept that God did all these things preferring the idea that chance is better than God.

The strange thing is that all things that live were created each to its own species yet we find man constantly seeking some sort of crossing of the species as proof that what is written to be as you affirm full of errors. Biggreenfellow if you can't get the beginning of the book right what chance that you won't on any other part? A Christian, that is one born again of God, cannot fail to believe that God indeed created all things just as He said.

And since Scripture can only be exposed through the Holy Ghost to them that read it then it is quite understandable that many only see it as the dead letter. So it is quite appropriate that many will see what they want to see even if these look like errors. But I say to you that for every so-called error someone out there who is born again will adequately reply to these accusations.

Indeed if I were to place importance to any part of the Bible above any other it would be the book to the Hebrews because it clears the decks about any nonsense spoken of the Old Testament being detrimental to the New. It was written to the very people that need evidence in signs and wonders, lost in a world of rules and regulations that blocked out the truth about Jesus Christ, the only Messias they are ever likely to get.

Know them and know that book then come back and make comment.

I'm not entirely sure I grasp the point you are trying to make here. It sounds like you are saying the errors only look like errors to those that do not believe? Isn't that a bit tautological?

Also, regarding your explanation of Adam and the creation of the earth etc.; you are saying that the earth was mature by the time Adam was mature, but also that that happened in a few days.. This has already been disproved by science. And how do you reconcile evolution with this notion?

Please tell me if I misunderstand anything you said.

EDIT:

It's not an evasion. My personal relationship with God is guided by scripture, but not defined by it. I know what God asks of me, and I know how to achieve it. When I can't achieve what God wants, I know how to ask for help and forgiveness. When I have achieved what God wants, I know what my reward will be.

It's very simple.

By the way.."his law"..what does that mean to you? Because there is only one law that I, as a Christian, am obligated to.

But how do you know what God asks for, how you can ask for help and forgiveness, if not through the Bible? The ten commandments (which is partially what I meant by 'God's law') , for example.

[basics]

" Also, regarding your explanation of Adam and the creation of the earth etc.; you are saying that the earth was mature by the time Adam was mature, but also that that happened in a few days.. This has already been disproved by science. And how do you reconcile evolution with this notion? "

Biggreenfellow,

My referring to you as being a bit green was only in reference to the Scriptures and like most others about creation in particular. When Adam was made all other things about creation were in existence, oh yes only by a few days but nonetheless in existence including being up and running.

Therefore if we happened to be there and looked up into the heavens, yes even with all the modern scientific tools at our hand, we could come to the same scientific findings more or less as we do today, why? Because God made them to be up and running by the very word of His mouth. In other words let it be and it was.

Now Genesis tells us these things simply by looking at what is said. Evolution is hogwash made by men who thought they could out-think God and with what can be found through the scientific world they have put two and two together making not quite four because they are still searching for that missing part.

So, please tell me where in all the world science has disproved creation? You know whenever I see these time charts showing the making of man it makes me chuckle that grown men have to come up with stuff like that but they can't help it, it is part of their nature to imagine things that would disprove the work of God.

People all over the world are starving yet millions of bucks are given to this breed for what purpose I ask? Do they feed anyone? Only with the imaginary evidence for something that cannot be proved and that is what they feed to the people and especially kids. If they were at least honest and said that we think this is what happened based on what we have found, but no, it is as solid as rock and we have to accept it.

Well, the good news is that we don't, preferring God's word on the subject and you know what, the fall of man came about by not believing God's word and the judgement will also be about not believing God's word so how will the Hawkins and the Dawkins of this world get out of that. I don't think that God will give much credence to their academic values when they stand before Him searching for answers that will get them off the hook.

[Gordon Freynman]

Now Genesis tells us these things simply by looking at what is said. Evolution is hogwash made by men who thought they could out-think God and with what can be found through the scientific world they have put two and two together making not quite four because they are still searching for that missing part.

Every time a creationist makes such a profoundly ignorant statement, a rational believer converts to atheism/agnosticism out of sheer embarrassment of being so closely associated with the creationist (which isn't very close in the first place given the extreme fundamentalism of creationists). Creationists should really just keep their opinions on these subjects to themselves, but I guess then we wouldn't get such entertaining discussions such as the one in the Ignorance vs. Evidence thread.

So, please tell me where in all the world science has disproved creation?

Virtually every field of science disproves young earth creationism. Also, the idea that "God created everything to appear old" is unsubstantiated and an unprovable claim, and thus offers no support what-so-ever to your position, so don't bother pulling that card in the future.

You know whenever I see these time charts showing the making of man it makes me chuckle that grown men have to come up with stuff like that but they can't help it, it is part of their nature to imagine things that would disprove the work of God.

My screen leaks iron when viewing this comment.

These charts that you shamefully laugh at are constructed based upon mountains of evidence, which I know must foreign concept to you. On the other hand we have your time-line, which is based on nothing more than a subjective interpretation of a collection of stories written by poorly educated people 2000 years ago who claimed to have been inspired by god. So, which of these two was imagined by grown men again?

Also, scientists are not out to disprove God, they are merely seeking to gain more knowledge on nature to advance our civilization and improve our quality of life. Your obvious scorn for all things rational and scientific is utterly reprehensible.

People all over the world are starving yet millions of bucks are given to this breed for what purpose I ask? Do they feed anyone?

Yes actually. Untold hours of research have gone into agriculture, which has resulted in much higher amounts of food produced every year. Billions of dollars already go to aid starving people, but most of that never gets used for its intended purpose anyways thanks to corruption and unstable governments, so your point is not only despicable, but meaningless as well.

Only with the imaginary evidence for something that cannot be proved and that is what they feed to the people and especially kids.

Again, the iron is just oozing out of my display right now, please stop.

I love the imaginary evidence of the universality of the genetic code showing how all organisms are related, and of the homologous bone structures exhibited by all animals from whales to birds, and of the fossil record, and of the observed instances of evolution. On the other hand we have the rock solid evidence of questionable, primitively educated eye witnesses and a single book written 2000 years ago which was allegedly inspired by the word of God, which is unsubstantiated and unprovable but who cares right?

If they were at least honest and said that we think this is what happened based on what we have found, but no, it is as solid as rock and we have to accept it.

The funny thing is is that the opposite is true. You are just conjuring up an alternate reality in your head that is skewed to the extreme by ungodly levels of bias and prejudice.

Well, the good news is that we don't, preferring God's word on the subject

Yes, obviously the intellectual prowess of the human brain that gives us such radical capabilities as critical thinking, should be ignored completely.

and you know what, the fall of man came about by not believing God's word and the judgement will also be about not believing God's word so how will the Hawkins and the Dawkins of this world get out of that. I don't think that God will give much credence to their academic values when they stand before Him searching for answers that will get them off the hook.

God can suck our balls as far as we're concerned. He's all knowing, he knew that we'd become atheists, so basically he made us to send us to hell. What an ass hole.

[Tacitursa]

The fact that most people don't know which books of the bible are intended to be poetry (Job), appocolyptical fiction (Daniel), historical accounts (Macabes) and eye witness accounts of first hand events (the gospels). But because most people are aware that some things in the bible are alegorical (It's better to lose an eye than lose the entire body to gehenea) , they just assume everything they don't like is allegorical.

Who decided what each book was intended for and when did they decide, Can you tell me that? Im betting it was long after the bible was already written.

[xcorps]

I didn't say that the Bible wasn't relevant or unimportant. I said that it wasn't the foundation of my faith.

how you can ask for help and forgiveness, if not through the Bible?

It's pretty simple. I pray, the way Christ teaches. Not through the Bible, but through Christ. I may look to the words of Christ or the Apostles to help me meditate on what I might comminicate to God, but I don't pray through the Bible.

The ten commandments

The Ten Commandments are as irrelevant to me as Leviticus.

There is only one commandment.

“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” And he said to him, ’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”

[Biggreenfellow]

I didn't say that the Bible wasn't relevant or unimportant. I said that it wasn't the foundation of my faith.

It's pretty simple. I pray, the way Christ teaches. Not through the Bible, but through Christ. I may look to the words of Christ or the Apostles to help me meditate on what I might comminicate to God, but I don't pray through the Bible.

You only quoted my question partly; how do you know how to ask for forgiveness? Everything religion 'knows', it knows because of the scripture. I didn't mean to say you pray through the bible, but your knowledge of the how's and why's of praying does come through the Bible.

The Ten Commandments are as irrelevant to me as Leviticus.

There is only one commandment.

“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” And he said to him, ’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”

Okay, so, in your case there are only two commandments; the point still stands.

[xcorps]

how do you know how to ask for forgiveness?

The New Testament is about the gift of reconciliation with God. That's why Christ was crucified.

"This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins"

You are making too much out of my comment that the Bible isn't the foundation of my faith. You are taking that statement as if I said the Bible wasn't important. The Bible is a guide to developing a relationship with God. The New Testament isn't full of rituals or rote prayer. (except The Lords Prayer, of course) It doesn't tell you what time or how often to practice any particular devotion. It tells you how to live, not how to prostrate.

[Biggreenfellow]

It tells you how to live

Isn't that the very basis?

The way I see it, the Bible tells you how you came to be (the creation of mankind, the universe etc), how you should live and that you should worship God. Seems like a foundation to me.