Why is the Bible wrong? (page 4)

hooberus

Tower man, rem is hardly one to go to for an objective view of messianic prophecies. rem posted the following verses with these comments.
Matthew 1:21-23
21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, [3] because he will save his people from their sins."
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" [4] --which means, "God with us."
Jesus' name is not Immanuel. Nowhere is Jesus called Immanuel in the NT. Even the writer of Matthew is not calling Jesus Immanuel in this scripture.

hooberus

Alan F, I know that you don't believe in the Bible or a young earth. What do you believe then?

Do you believe in the whole evolutionary theory? I mean are you a F.A.R.M. Fish, Amphibians, Reptiles, Mammals? I don't think I've seen what you believe in other than an old earth.

Edited by - hooberus on 3 February 2003 12:16:54

plmkrzy

	The page cannot be displayed
There is a problem with the page you are trying to reach and it cannot be displayed.

gsx1138

I've always been a firm believer that there is a superior intelligence, anyway I hope so, but I have no proof of it, and no one has been able to prove whatsoever. We are all on our own as far as our belief system is concerned. Our realities are all different. So before you want to change someone's reality, make sure your own is correct, cause history has proven many realities wrong.

I think this is an excellent statement. It pretty much sums up how I feel about theists. I really don't care if someone wants to believe in Jesus or Buddha or Ganesh just so long as their motives in life are not to convince everyone else that this is how they should believe as well. The very nature of Christianity forces a person to do this very thing. However, I think you can make a descision not to preach to everyone. That being said, I think giving your opinion on a matter and preaching are two different things. But if you make bold statements then you should be ready for a bold response.

There is a Pagan coven up in my area that worships Faeries. They take it very seriously, even though I laughed when I first heard, but they do their own thing and could care less if anyone agrees with them or not. They keep to themselves when in ritual and are perfectly nice to everyone when they're not. I've not had any Pagans, atheists, buddhists, muslims, or hinduists to name a few come to my door trying to convince me that I need the believe what they believe. However, I've had 2 Baptists, 1 Mormon, and 1 Lutheran come to my door telling me the Bible is the word of God (haven't seen a JW in over 6 years).

rem

Alan,

Interesting information - I've not seen the idiom explanation before. Interestingly Leviticus 11:23 does not use the "walk on all fours" phrase but instead is translated "But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest." I've also heard it explained that the Hebrews may have thought locust had four walking legs and two jumping feet. Another explanation is that the writer could have been referring to four or more feet.

I agree, it's probably best just to leave those arguments be since there are much more glaring issues. I had just thought the four-legged insect issue was a quick and easy one, but there seems to be room for doubt there. I had my doubts about the bat one, but went against my better judgement.

Thanks for the info!

rem

hooberus

StinkyPantz said:

This primarily goes out to other agnostics and athiests. This week I got into two interesting conversations that I will admit that I was ill prepared for. One was with a JW friend of mine who wanted to know why I thought JW's were wrong. The other was with another friend of mine who considers herself Christian and wanted to know why I questioned the Bible. Well, I was wanting to know from other agnostics and athiests what specific parts of the Bible do you think proves it's falsehood? I want to be able to show her specific points from the Bible that just can't be right. My mind of course went blank while talking to her and I wanted to make a list for future reference. For example, I told her that the Ark's dimensions couldn't hold all of the millions of species of animals plus their food. Any other ideas?

StinkyPantz, you would probably have more success getting your friend out of the JWs if you concentrate on disproving the WT Society than on trying to disprove the Bible. The issues of faith in a religious organization vs, faith in the Bible are two separate things. Your argument "the Ark's dimensions couldn't hold all of the millions of species of animals plus their food" is based on faulty asssumptions. Why don't you perform more of an investigtion before you discount the scriptures, especially since your eternal destiny is important.

Edited by - hooberus on 3 February 2003 12:33:20

Edited by - hooberus on 3 February 2003 12:36:28

rem

hooberus,

I like how you selectively cut and paste my quotes. You have proven to be an intellectually dishonest apologist. I recall from that thread that you could not back up your assertion that I was wrong. I stand by my statement - Jesus is not called Immanuel in the NT by his contemporaries. The book of Matthew was written years after the alleged events. You have never provided any evidence that Jesus' contemporaries called him Immanuel. Here is the thread for all to see:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=44945&page=2&site=3

Here is my quote from that thread which you never rebutted:

The writer of Matthew did not directly call Jesus Immanuel. He juxtaposed the alleged prophecy against the account of Jesus' birth and let the reader make the inference, as you are clearly doing.
The problem is that even if the writer of Matthew did directly call Jesus Immanuel, it is immaterial because he provides absolutely no evidence that his contemporaries did (the 'they' in the scriptures). Remember, Matthew was written well after Jesus' death, so even if the writer of this book called Jesus Immanuel, it means nothing.

With the full context, Tower Man can make his own mind up over who is objective and who is not.

rem

Edited by - rem on 3 February 2003 12:41:19

peacefulpete

Forgive my choice of illustrations bt it is for the sake of emotional impact. Prove that the Goldilocks and the Three Bears story did not happen. It is not easy to do is it? If I site biological facts that bears don't talk, the believer in the story will confidentlycall it a miracle. And then tell me that the only reson I don't believe in miracles is because they require faith. To support the believer's position he might site examples observed in the wild when bears have lived in groups of three and he may provide studies of how bears will eat porridge if hungry and occupy abandoned houses. Then to seal his case he might provide psycological findings that prove young girls are fussy eaters! The point is. All stories have elements in them that relate to human realities, we would make no sense of a tale that spoke about unknown characters doing things we have no experience with. The reason we do not believe the Goldilocks story is because of the parts of the story that counter our experience. e.g. Bears talking etc. The only meaningful "proof" for the Goldilocks story then, must explain how the bears spoke in human toungue.

Bibe apologists have compiled thousands of facts that they are convinced support the Bible tales. This is in part possible because the stories were created around at least some historial realities. e.g.: Cities mentioned can often be shown to have existed. Most rulers likewise were real historical figures, some events can be shown thru science to have occured. All nations produced similar legends about their history and rulers, events and people that hitory can often confirm existed are colored with exaggeration and miracle. But it is not these elements of fact that critics of the Bible object to, rather it is the talking donkeys and the turning the Nile into blood, the dead coming to life. As these are counter to logic and human experience and strike a cautious mind as embellishment. The believer once again insists the problem is our faith.

Once again I feel a great opener to this discussion is to require a believer in the Bible to prove that legends like those surrounding King Sargon of Assyria, or the Goldilocks story for that matter, were not true history. Furthurmore a study of the Bible must include a study of the culture of Israel and it's neighbors because nothing grows in a vaccum. This study reveals how abundantly these cultures shared theologically and socially. The absence of any "prophecies" whose writing can be proven to predate it's fullfillment and/or proof that the fullfillment actually occured (the "prophecy" is not a prophecy at all or the fullfillment was a pious fiction) should end the discussion.

By the way we are not an "Atheist society" in fact religious revival has occured as recent polls show. As much as 93 percent believe in a God in the U.S This compared to 67 percent in 1972 poll. When asked why they most often assert it is for scientific reasons. This parallels the steady decline in science scholastic scores. The top 10 science magazines in the U.S. combined are read by less than one half of one percent of the population. We are in trouble as a nation. I just attended a lecture on this topic and left feeling very concerned as this lack of critical thinking skills opens the door for religious and political extremism. Sorry about the lack of formatting, I am unable to do it wit my web tv that I type on.

Edited by - peacefulpete on 4 February 2003 0:53:37

JT

The bible is all fine and dandy so long as you have faith...if you don't, well it is just fables and history and some rambling about beasts, heads, horns and whores. IMO of course ;)

YOu are so wrong my dear friend, it ain't "Whores" its "HOs"

smile

Why is the Bible wrong?

The page cannot be displayed

Share this