Why believe in the Bible?

by simplesally 18 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  SYN

  So I'm doing name-calling? Urm. I said "Do I DETECT elitism". Notice that the format of the sentence is a question, not a statement. Therefore no name-calling occurred, I was merely thinking out loud. I could be wrong. Or I could be right. Pick one.

  Oh, and your post was pretty hard to understand, especially the last sentence...

  Did you also totally miss the part at the beginning where I said "no offense intended"? Far from being a big flame against LarsGuy (who, like anyone else, has the right to his own religion/opinion/whatever), my post was just a bit of a sarcastic jab, really. The main thing was, he said a few things that simply riled me up a bit...the tone of LarsGuy's post is "If you are not one of us, you can never be one of us".

  UGH. This is the sort of attitude that phases me whenever I hear it from religious types.

  Maybe you should stop reading my "elementary third grade comments", eh? Because my "elementary" comments are at least spell-checked before I post them, baby! In fact, I had a pretty hard time understanding your post.

  Don't you just hate it when people jump on you after you defend your lack of faith?

  "If men were like their personal ads, they wouldn't need personal ads."
• 

  hannibal

  SYN,
  If you cant understand your own post, how can

  I excpect you to understand mine? You said "do i

  detect elitism?" followed by "YOU SOUND JUST LIKE

  ONE OF THE PEOPLE ON THE GOVERNING BODY"

  That IS name calling.

  And...

  I guess by saying "no offense intended" totally

  negates all things said in such post.

  My only point was in reply to your post was that YOU

  were doing everything you accused him of doing.

  SYN, you are an ass!Your a coloring book with out crayons.

  oooooooo........ But "no offense intended"
• 

  Carmel

  Sorry Larsguy,

  But the return of the Jews to Palistine did not begin in 1947. The most significant event in recent history with regard to the "return of the Jews" was the signing of the Edict of Toleration by the Turks in 1844. Due to sever treatment of Muslims who converted to Christianity, the world community pressured the Turks into agreeing to "lighten up" and in so doing, it allowed the Jews to openly migrate back to Palistine with little negative consequences. (Turkey controled the Holy Land at that time, but was "liberated" by the allied forces during WW1). Without this migration of Jews for a hundred years, the UN would never have succeeded in declaring Israel a state opening the door for much greater migration of the diaspora.

  cheers,

  carmel
• 

  Carmel

  Its ironic Simplesally, that I had to vacate Christianity and dubdumb to gain an appreciation for the bible. I too went through the agony of seeing all the apparent contradictions between the angry violent "Jehovah" of the OT and the peaceful and loving character, Jesus. It wasn't until the Judeo-Christian-Muslim view of history was tempored with the realization of a process of religious evolution that I was able to see that the depiction of Jehovah (god I hate using that term) is a direct reflection of the stage of spiritual evolution of humanity. In this regard, I can see how Chrisna and Buddah and Zoroaster all had their part to play in the evolving depiction of the creator.

  Some times you need to step outside the house to recognize the details of the structure and how it fits into the landscape.

  carmel
• 

  Xander

  Well, firstly, Josh Mcdowell's work is pretty marginal in support of the bible.

  Try:
  The Jury Is In: The Ruling on McDowell's "Evidence"
  http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/index.shtml
  (which is a section by section analysis of the problems in the book)

  and:
  http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/index.shtml
  (for a couple more concise summary of the issues)

  A good quote from the above articles:
  We can see that he has used publications of the Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, almost exclusively throughout the book....The reasons are not hard to find. Most of McDowell's points about Jesus (and about other matters in the book, but I must leave that to others) are simply not supported by modern scholarship.

  As to MY opinion?

  If the bible WAS inspired, then we are in trouble - because god obviously doesn't know the first thing about how the human body works, anything of natural history prior to human civilization (or, indeed, have correct information about how life got here), has double-faced standards, is arrogant beyond words and at the same time has self-esteem problems, and has some serious anger management issues to top it off.

  Xander F
  (Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America - Ohio order)

  A fanatic is one who, upon losing sight of his goals, redoubles his efforts.
  --George Santayana
• 

  SYN

  Sheesh, well that @ least is an original stab, "a colouring book without crayons". I've never been called THAT before

  "If men were like their personal ads, they wouldn't need personal ads."
• 

  SYN

  Xander: Agreed. Jesus, at least, sounded like an OK sorta guy, someone I could get along with, but JEHOVAH! (Or "God"! Depending on your current set of beliefs!) That guy is PSYCHO!

  "If men were like their personal ads, they wouldn't need personal ads."
• 

  maynard

  Two other books that I found helpful on this subject are;
  The Case For Christ, by Lee Strobel, and
  When Critics Ask , by Norman Geisler & Thomas Howe.

  The first deals with The life and teachings of Jesus and why we can depend on the bible.
  The second deals with “supposed” bible contradictions.
  Blessings
  Maynard
• 

  Larsguy

  To Carmel regarding:

  But the return of the Jews to Palistine did not begin in 1947. The most significant event in recent history with regard to the "return of the Jews" was the signing of the Edict of Toleration by the Turks in 1844. Due to sever treatment of Muslims who converted to Christianity....

  Sorry, my point should have been more specifically the "end of the gentile times" and the "trampling of Jerusalem" would be perceived to have ended when the Jews themselves regained control over the native homeland. That didn't happen until 1947. The Jews set up the "State of Israel" several months later. 1844 might have been the beginning of the return but the "official" end of the gentiles controlling Israel ended in 1947. Certainly you can understand the significance here.

  At any rate, Biblically, 1947 is focussed on because it is the 50th jubilee since 455BCE, a Jubilee being the time for the return of land and freedom from servitude, so it had special significance this year. Jubilees occur every 49 years in the first year of the 49-year year period, thus being the 50th when counting the previous "week of years".

  Anyway, I don't mind if you focus on 1844 as "another interpretation"; problem is, you have to coordinate it with other Biblical chronology. The 1335 days has to coordinate with the mid-70th week. The 70th week closest to 1947 or 1844 is 1989 to 1996 with mid-week from 1992-1993. So given the choice of 1844 or 1947 as to which event fits 45 years earlier than 1992-1993, I'm afraid 1844 is a bit of a stretch. 1947 seems to the right date and thus correct interpretation as far as I can tell.

  :>