Is the bible really god's inspired word?

by yalbmert99 28 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  yalbmert99

  http://www.watchtowerlies.com/watchtowerlies_148.htm

  The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society pretends that the bible "really is God’s inspired Word" -The Watchtower March 1, 2010 p. 4-7. But is it true? If god has inspired the bible, how come the bible doesn’t mention many important things? It doesn’t mention species evolution which is today an undeniable truth, nor cataclysms of the past such as the asteroid that destroyed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. No mention of the dinosaurs either. No mention of the other planets of our solar system, nor the fact that our sun is nothing but another star among many. No details about the formation or the death of stars. No mention of galaxies. No mention of the beginning or age of the universe. No mention of the existence of molecules, atoms, fundamental particles or fundamental forces of the universe. No mention of pathogenic viruses and bacteria as the cause of many diseases. Why god didn’t tell us how to make soap or antibiotics to fight pathogenic microorganisms? Also no mention of the causes of other diseases or the means to cure them. Jesus said that the mustard seed is “the tiniest of all the seeds that are on the earth” -Mark 4:31, which is false. There’s no evidence of any worldwide flood as mentioned in the book of Genesis. The story of Noah is ridiculous. How specimens of all the animals on the whole planet could enter in the ark? There wasn’t enough room and how could they reach the ark from the Australian and American continent while oceans separated them? Miracles never happened since they were impossible. To these things the Watchtower will answer that “the bible is not a science textbook”-The Watchtower April 1, 1998 p.15-16. But if the bible were truly inspired by god, he who is supposed to know everything, wouldn’t he make sure that the bible be scientifically accurate? Shouldn’t he reveal to us fundamental scientific truths that would have given us the proof that he really inspired it? On the contrary, the bible is a book that is scientifically wrong most of the time. The bible is not inspired by god, but it is inspired by the ignorance and folly of some men.
• 

  Christ Alone

  Oh dear. Is it time for one of these posts again? Someone leaves WT and then a post like this follows. Excuse me while I sit this one out.
• 

  Witness My Fury

  But 1st you've got to draw attention to yourself eh?

  Bible is in no way inspired. It's a book by commitee to suit the ends at the time it was compiled together under "apostate" christendom. Some books shouldn't even be in there at all, the OT is revisonist history written mostly around the period of assyrian and babylonian vassalage and exiles.

  There's two "histories" hammered together by the monotheistic revisionists hence the seeming contradictions all over the place.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  I won't search for them, but there are great youtubes that point out how Jesus could have brought some awesome message to mankind that would then prove he was the son of God and he could have delivered some awesome message that would later remove all doubt from the skeptics. It didn't happen like that, though.

  WT and others call the Bible scientifically accurate because it leaves so much out. It fails even there debatedly, but why wouldn't God offer something more about the sciences? (I already know the answers from believers, so have at it. "You want the truth, YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH.)

  Science has proven the impossibility of a worldwide flood, let alone the logistics of the ark. Science has demonstrated the impossibility of Adam and Eve only 6 or so thousand years ago. Science has shown us that no exodus took place, and that there was never a massive 12-tribe Kingdom under David.
• 

  cofty

  Apart from scientific inaccuracies, which believers like Christ Alone dismiss as trivial, its the morals of the bible that convince me it is not inspired.

  The bible is beneath me as an ethical guide and its beneath most modern people. We are much better than that.
• 

  glenster

  Science/knowledge is mainly useful for an argument against an orthodox/funda-
  mentalist literalist stance and may be used by a non-believer or a believer.
  Noting anything less than what we'd have in heavenly circumstances forever is
  useful against an all-beneficent God stance that a non-believer or believer
  might point out is wrong.

  Believers in the Bible don't all have the same opinions. They can be
  categorized as orthodox, conservative, liberal, or progressive/reform. I'd
  recommend progressive/reform as having superior ground rules, including regard
  for old texts. Among them. if faith in God is a hope for a possible God beyond
  the known things, keep up to speed about the known things. As they grow, the
  knowledge has to develope--no arguments against evolution, bigotry about
  homosexuals or feminism, etc.

  If those arise, you better get a different interpretation, translation, or
  figure it represents the culture of the time and not what God would know. As
  knowledge develops, faith in a God beyond the known things must develope
  accordingly.

  Since it's a belief in a possible God beyond the known things, understand
  faith in God (or whatever fantastic story about God intervening) as such like a
  subjective reaction to music beyond the objective math of it. Punishing people
  for apostasy creates the ethical/theological problem of arbitrary hurting/
  killing--sadism/murder. There should be separation of church and state. Nobody
  should be hurt or killed in punishment from a belief in God stance or state
  atheism purges of believers.

  Example: Herman Cain--prove to me homosexuality isn't a sin--the Bible says
  it is and that's enough for me. Besides Cain having an arbitrary conservative
  interpretation, the known things show a small % of people and animals are born
  that way. If you can only spread harm for God ethically with proof of God (as
  in "there He is parting the sea"), and spreading bigotry creates the harm of a
  stigma and discrimination (let alone Islamic hadiths that call for execution),
  Cain has the proof shoe on the wrong foot.

  I'd recommend believers/non-believers who wouldn't hurt or kill over such
  stuff, and have a healthy respect for learning about the known things, agree to
  dislike the believers/non-believers who would do differently. Message boards
  usually pit believers against non-believers, but if there's an overview of us/
  them I'd recommend to minimize harm, it's that.

  If we "need" to agree on the math of music and leave subjective reactions to
  the individual, it neither makes a case us "need"ing to like or not like the
  music.
• 

  yalbmert99

  Thanks for those supporting me! We don't need to bible to teach us good from wrong. We must listen to our conscience only. We don't need the bible to teach us the difference between true and false, we must accept scientific discoveries such as evolution of species.
• 

  leavingwt

  If only Jesus had performed a miracle that could be examined even today.
• 

  Disillusioned Lost-Lamb

  Two simple letters:

  N O
• 

  Phizzy

  Wot DLL said BIG NO !

  But, a question, what on earth made you think it was ? I am not being a smart-arese here. what I mean is, is it the same reason that I thought it was once ?

  That MEN had told me it was, and I had never really considered the evidence ?

  I spent two years of my life, two valuable years, trying to prove that it was, I could not do it.