A few questions for believers (page 5)

galaxie

Many theist believers talk about people not being perfect therefore by implication imperfect,

By what criteria is this belief to be judged?

To have imperfection there has to be a perfect standard as a benchmark comparison.

If it is the case that such a perfect standard exists, surely it has to be held to evidential scrutiny , basing it on myth and ancient legend and to a vast extent blind faith is ludicrous.

This idea that believers in this context have regarding not being perfect is a sure way of undermining human confidence from the get go, especially young minds.

I always recall the line of the hymn we used to sing as children in sunday school entitled ' jesus loves me ' which told us in no uncertain terms; "we are WEAK but he is strong ".

Not a very good confidence booster for a young mind followed by more inculcation of being sinful, not worthy unkess you bow the knee before this supernatural non..sense.

I am now very content I have a free thinking mind and not shackled to this theistic superstitious snare.

Heaven

The Lord Yahweh has revealed his Word in the Old Testament. However, archaeologists, and scholars have noticed that there are pretty lies there. So, we can't trust in the Lord Yahweh, because if he exists, he is a liar.

And a warrior/man of war. (Exodus 15:3)

keyser soze

If there are errors in Josephus writings' does it follow that everything in it is therefore made up?

It follows that its reliability should be questioned. It follows that if there are errors, it can't be divinely inspired. When it comes to the bible, how does one determine what is inspired and what isn't? Does one pick and choose based on their belief system? I find the fall back position of many Christians to be "Ignore the nasty stuff in the Old Testament, and only trust the nice stuff about Jesus". This seems like a convenient copout to me.

Atheists do use this argument a lot but do not seem to be willing to do the research for themselves to find the truth of the matter .

It seems a little presumptuous to assert that only Christians are willing to put in the necessary work to determine the bible's authenticity; as if atheism were something entered into without thought or effort.

It's a moot point anyway, at least as far as this thread is concerned. I wasn't attempting to spark a debate on whether or not the bible is inspired, though I have my own opinion on the matter. It was directed at people who proclaim a faith in Christ, while claiming that faith doesn't come from a book. From where does validation of their faith come, if not the bible?

Heaven

how does God reveal himself,

It's called schizophrenia.

jhine

sorry, keyser soze didn't mean to sound presumptuous , I just know that when I have looked into some , at least, of the inconsistencies I have found logical explanations .

Jan

jhine

Laika , I have looked into this and found that one of the problems is a wrong translation of Gen 2 :19 . the word for formed is yatsar in Gen 1 and Gen 2 . In both passages in some Bibles it is translated into the perfect tense . However this word can be translated into the pluperfect tense ( no me neither ) . In this case it would read that God HAD FORMED these creatures . So Gen 2:19 should read

" Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air . "

This rendering eliminates any problem with the chronology because it refers to what God had already done earlier in the creation week .Gen 1:1-2:3 provides us with a chronological account of what God did on each of the six days of the during the creation week . Gen 2;4-25 zooms to day six and shows the events on that day .

Many believe that Gen 2:5-6 refers to the third day of the creation week because of the plants mentioned . However these two specific plant categories mentioed in verses 5&6 ie shrub of the field and plant of the field are very different from the plants created on day three , fruit trees , grass , plants yielding seed . The shrubs of the field were plants with thorns , which only came after man had sinned . The plant of the field refers to cultivated plants . These were not in existance on the third day , because man had not yet been created and obviously had not fallen yet to bring about thorns .

I know that the atheists reading this are not going to suddenly believe even if every seeming inconsistancy is explained (very often from wrong translation ) but what surprises me is the reference in the OP to Christians who do not take the trouble to do some research into these things .I got this information just by Googling GEnesis 1 and 2 and lots of sites dealing with this popped up . The one I clicked on recommended the book Nothing But The Truth by Brian Edwards which explains the issues of translation and inerrancy in detail (according to the site )

Jan

race andros

This is the kind of post that interests me most but I will respond privately because I find this site dark and sleepy. I know exactly the kind of comments that will be posted, 'tin foil/conspircy,' blah blah bll shite, or just empty opining, too many, sadly, not 'able to entertain a thought while holding another,' and ignorance does not prove anything absolutely. I do not mean to insult but the denial and delusion remain here with many, albeit on varying levels

Fernando

@keyser soze

According to Romans, none is more or less worthy of receiving revelation.

Personally I believe revelation can and should be commonplace.

How much information would you share with (reveal to) someone who ignored you and your message?

The same with our creator.

When we give time, energy, and money to religion we not only ignore, but also offend our creator.

His message is not religion.

As some interpret Karl Barth: "the revelation of God is the abolition of religion" and "religion is unbelief".

Our creator's message/plan/map has several names: the gospel, the good message, the good news, the evangel, the sacred secret, glad tidings, bissar (Hebrew), injil/injeel (Arabic/Urdu), Evangelium (Latin), and Euagellion/Evangelion (Greek).

Pursuit of this message/plan/map (instead of religion) is game changing, and the door to (commonplace) revelation.

Best wishes on life's journey.

Fernando

Hairtrigger

Marked.thanks.

A few questions for believers

Share this