by Chap 40 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
demar,
Hey most of you people who don't believe the bible have a problem with your will. Its not that you can't believe its that you won't believe. Before you downtalk something why not check the evidence. Pick up a bible and read
Oh, I didn't realize that it was that simple. I guess, I had better start reading.
pseudo
Chap,
I'm with Francois on this one...what is the point that you are trying to make? Just say it. You'll get beat up by some, for sure....but some won't....dj
pseudo wrote:
The few remaining questions such as, “how did we get here?” and “what is our purpose?” are very significant, but they pale in comparison to the multitude of questions that arise when one attempts to undertake a exhaustive study of the origin of the Bible.
Does having a lot of questions about the origins of the Bible justify throwing it out completely? If I choose only the parts I like about the Bible to follow, I may be in trouble because I could be required to follow the whole thing.
As for why we have all these questions; the answer is sin, or rebellion against God. If there was no such thing as lying, and God spoke to an individual(s), things would a lot clearer and less (no) faith would be required to believe because we would be able trust everyone. Things being the way they are, the question is who can we trust?
the synoptic gospels raise enough issues to make anybody question their inspiration.
I don't know what issues you have with the synoptic gospels but there is no contradiction on the crucial points. There are differences (not contradictions) in minor details based on the vantage points of the writers. If there were no differences in the gospels, wouldn't we claim "collusion"?
I put my trust in Jesus Christ who claimed to be "the truth".
Luke 11:51
From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
The murder of Zacharias was recorded in 2nd Chronicles 24: 20-22. 2nd Chronicles is the last book in the Hebrew Bible. Of course the murder of Abel was recorded in Genesis, the first book in the Bible. There were apocryphal books written that Jesus must have known about but he didn't include them in this statement. Jesus spoke of "the flood" as a literal event. I believe that Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, David, and others were mentioned by name as writers of scripture.
Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Jesus did cause a lot of controversy but he never said that the scriptures they had were in any means incorrect.
Does having a lot of questions about the origins of the Bible justify throwing it out completely? If I choose only the parts I like about the Bible to follow, I may be in trouble because I could be required to follow the whole thing.
Why would you think that without evidence? Do you also try to follow what's written in the Koran just in case you're required to, or did you somehow come to the conclusion that the Bible is the inspired word of God? If the latter, it would be interesting to know how and why you came to that conclusion.
As for why we have all these questions; the answer is sin, or rebellion against God. If there was no such thing as lying, and God spoke to an individual(s), things would a lot clearer and less (no) faith would be required to believe because we would be able trust everyone.
Isn't it begging the question to say that "rebellion against [your] God" is the reason people aren't sure if there is a god, or what he wants? But I agree. If your god clearly identified himself rather than speaking cryptically through so many different mouthpieces, things would be much much clearer.
Things being the way they are, the question is who can we trust?
Good question. Were we talking about anything other than the Bible I'm sure you'd agree that we need to examine the evidence and test any claims made before believing them. If someone has a history of providing reliable accurate information I would be more likely to trust them (but extraordinary claims still require extraordinary evidence, no matter what their source).
I put my trust in Jesus Christ who claimed to be "the truth".
We know that! The question is why. Why out of all the miracle-performing philosophy-espousing deities and demigods did you pick Jesus? Surely not just because someone wrote that he claimed to be the truth. Why do you think "the truth" is a person rather than conformity to fact?
The murder of Zacharias was recorded in 2nd Chronicles 24: 20-22. 2nd Chronicles is the last book in the Hebrew Bible. Of course the murder of Abel was recorded in Genesis, the first book in the Bible. There were apocryphal books written that Jesus must have known about but he didn't include them in this statement. Jesus spoke of "the flood" as a literal event. I believe that Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, David, and others were mentioned by name as writers of scripture.
So what you're saying is - Jesus was Jewish? What's your point?
Jesus did cause a lot of controversy but he never said that the scriptures they had were in any means incorrect.Again, what's your point? You're using one character in your holy book who you've decided is "the truth" to "prove" that the rest of the book is true. Not a very convincing argument?
Chap,
Does having a lot of questions about the origins of the Bible justify throwing it out completely? If I choose only the parts I like about the Bible to follow, I may be in trouble because I could be required to follow the whole thing.
There are really only two possibilities. Either the Bible is Divinely inspired or it is a work of Man. It becomes obvious after studying just a few books of the Bible that it is just a work of Man.
If it can be shown that the book of Genesis was not divinely inspired, then this will cast considerable doubt on remaining books of the Bible. Jesus himself quotes from the book of Genesis referring to people such as Abraham. So, if the book of Genesis is just a work of Man (containing Myths and various absurdities and impossibilities), then Jesus could not have possibly been the so-called “Son of God”. The entire authority of the Bible crumbles once this is established.
Setting aside for the moment, the questions of “how and why we are here?” consider the following anomalies from the book of Genesis.
As for why we have all these questions; the answer is sin, or rebellion against God. If there was no such thing as lying, and God spoke to an individual(s), things would a lot clearer and less (no) faith would be required to believe because we would be able trust everyone. Things being the way they are, the question is who can we trust?
The word of God should at least stand up to the test of scrutiny. I really cannot see any difference in it and the hundreds of other writings produced by the Jews and Christians. It seems that a caring God would provide some means to get around this problem. Members of other religions are just as confident as Christians are that their writings are inspired. Belief or Faith will not guarantee that your religion is correct.
I don't know what issues you have with the synoptic gospels but there is no contradiction on the crucial points. There are differences (not contradictions) in minor details based on the vantage points of the writers. If there were no differences in the gospels, wouldn't we claim "collusion"?
I put my trust in Jesus Christ who claimed to be "the truth".
Luke 11:51
As you’ve brought out “there is no contradiction on the crucial points”, I tend to agree. But, this is somewhat related to the issues that I have.
It is believed that Matthew and Luke used Mark while writing their gospels. Matthew and Luke follow the same general outline as Mark. Where they do contradict, never do Matthew and Luke agree together to contradict Mark. This along with the many places where there are word for word copies of the same phrases indicates that this is the most likely way the synoptic gospels were created.
So the fact that they do not contradict on the crucial points, further implies that Matthew and Luke were copyist and were not inspired, unless you consider a Xerox machine to be inspired.
From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
The murder of Zacharias was recorded in 2nd Chronicles 24: 20-22. 2nd Chronicles is the last book in the Hebrew Bible. Of course the murder of Abel was recorded in Genesis, the first book in the Bible. There were apocryphal books written that Jesus must have known about but he didn't include them in this statement. Jesus spoke of "the flood" as a literal event. I believe that Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, David, and others were mentioned by name as writers of scripture.
Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.Jesus did cause a lot of controversy but he never said that the scriptures they had were in any means incorrect.
I’m not real sure what your point is, but I will say that it seems that you are using circular logic to establish the cannon of the Bible.
pseudo
Psuedo,
If we do not set aside how we are here, the so called absurdities would not be absurd. Either nothing became something all by itself or something always existed. I see no other possibilities and either one of these is more absurd than any you mentioned. I do not remember Job saying that his wife was his sister.
It is pretty much accepted as fact that the Hebrews borrowed much of their Myth and Legend from the surrounding civilizations. Similar Creation accounts and Flood stories dating before the Biblical accounts exist.
If God created Adam and Eve and he told them how he did it, wouldn't it make sense that they would pass this information on to their children; same thing with Noah and the flood. So there was legend mixed in with truth in the time of Moses. God told Moses what was true. If there was nothing like what Moses wrote down in other cultures, wouldn't we say "where is the secular account?"
funkyderek said,
Why out of all the miracle-performing philosophy-espousing deities and demigods did you pick Jesus? Surely not just because someone wrote that he claimed to be the truth. Why do you think "the truth" is a person rather than conformity to fact?
Can you name another person who claimed to be God, the creator of the universe? By claiming to be "the truth," and by other claims he made, Jesus declared himself to be God. When Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." (John 14:6) was he comforming to fact or was he claiming to be all of reality?
John 10:30-33
I and my Father are one. [31] Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. [32] Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? [33] The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
God instituted his sacrificial laws to point to their Messiah. They were rebellious so they didn't see what should have been obvious to them. I will expand on this another time.
Re: Is the baby being thrown out with the bath water?
I looked and looked and looked – No baby - But the bath water stunk to high heaven. So I flushed it down the toilet where it belongs
Chap,
If we do not set aside how we are here, the so called absurdities would not be absurd. Either nothing became something all by itself or something always existed. I see no other possibilities and either one of these is more absurd than any you mentioned. I do not remember Job saying that his wife was his sister.
Your statement above also suggests that God is absurd. Either he came from nothing or he always existed?
I believe that this should really be handled as a separate issue. I don’t have the answers to such questions, but I can examine the so-called inspired word of God and determine if it is significantly different than other ancient beliefs. In my opinion, it fails miserably. I’m more comfortable admitting that I don’t know where we came from, than believing stories with talking animals.
Sorry about the reference to Job. I meant to say Isaac. I should have been a little more careful while proofreading. Here are the references to this:
10 And there was a famine in the land: and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was sore in the land. 11 And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon: 12 and it will come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they will say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive. 13 Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister; that it may be well with me for thy sake, and that my soul may live because of thee. Gen 12:10-13 (ASV) 2 And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister. And Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah. Gen 20:2 (ASV) 9 And Abimelech called Isaac, and said, Behold, of a surety she is thy wife. And how saidst thou, She is my sister? And Isaac said unto him, Because I said, Lest I die because of her. Gen 26:9 (ASV)
If God created Adam and Eve and he told them how he did it, wouldn't it make sense that they would pass this information on to their children; same thing with Noah and the flood. So there was legend mixed in with truth in the time of Moses. God told Moses what was true. If there was nothing like what Moses wrote down in other cultures, wouldn't we say "where is the secular account?"
If a God could intervene in history, why wouldn’t he insure that the information he passed on to his creation would remain significantly superior to the other myths and legends of Man? Why has he stopped intervening in the affairs of Man? Science continues to produce answers, which reveal a universe that does not require a God, while this so-called ancient God does nothing to confirm his existence.
I would still like to believe in a God and that the Bible is God’s word, but now that I’ve explored the alternate theories that account for its origin, I will always notice the cracks behind the facade. At some levels I believe that Mankind has outgrown the Bible. It has been dissected beyond repair. At the same time, Mankind has not outgrown his need to pursue his spiritual nature.
I guess it all boils down to this simple question. How do you determine whether a text is inspired?
pseudo
When someone talks to God, it's called prayer. When God talks to them, it's called schizophrenia
ROFLMA now that is funny
If we look at the history of the Jewish people, is it the same as what the Bible predicted? For example, if the Jewish people no longer existed, we could throw the God of the Bible out as being the true God because God made an everlasting covenant with the Jews. I don't think any cities in the Book of Mormon have been found. I am not as familiar with the Koran as I am with the Bible but I think the Koran predicts mostly blessing for its followers which is in contrast of what the Bible predicts for the Jews.
Deut. 11:26-28 (All Bible quotes King James Version)
Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; [27] A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you this day: [28] And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known.
Deut. 28:64-67 And the Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone. [65] And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest: but the Lord shall give thee there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind: [66] And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life: [67] In the morning thou shalt say, Would God it were even! and at even thou shalt say, Would God it were morning! for the fear of thine heart wherewith thou shalt fear, and for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see.
This last passage seems to be what happened after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and more recently in Nazi Germany. Why the harsh punnishment? The only logical reason would be that in supermajority part, they continued to deny Jesus Christ as their Messiah.
I believe that God instituted the laws for his people to prepare them for the coming of Jesus Christ. There was a reason God made Abraham put Isaac on the alter. There was also a reason for all the bloodshed of the animals for sin offerings. Isaac was supposed to be Abraham's only son, the son of the promise. Do you see the parallel between Abraham and Isaac, and God the Father and Jesus Christ?
Jesus Christ was the sacrifice for sins once and for all and The Law was the foreshadowing of the Messiah. If the Israelites loved God more and followed His Law, it would seem to reason that the severity of Christ's suffering would have been reduced. There would have also been less fake writings for us to stumble over. I think that while Jesus was on earth, he was the embodiment of Israel. The Jews rejected God for most of their history so they were made to reject Jesus.
Have you ever wondered what would have happened if things were different and Israel tried the best they could to obey God's commandments? I think that the prophets would have been told to write differently and Israel would have been the world superpower. Since Israel was the center of the world at the time (by design I think), their religion would have been dominant and pure.
History shows that it took less than 500 years to get from 1st century living to what we have today. I can argue that America was blessed because from its beginning, although not perfect, the people tried to follow God's plan. Look at some of the founding fathers' writings and you will see that God is mentioned many times. Did we get to where we are today because we were smarter than before or more moral. Maybe we were smarter because we were more moral.
I see no reason for the 1st century world to not have the same things we have if Israel kept God's commandments instead of prostrating the Temple for instance. Maybe the people would have had to give Jesus a few stripes and a lethal injection. Then they could have watched Jesus' resurrection on TV and Jesus would have became the in fact ruler of the world by the people's choice.
Adam and Eve decided they knew better than God. God made a plan of salvation available to everyone. As to the question why did God not write things that were unmistakably His? I think he did but anything can be counterfeited. The question is why do people say they have visions from God when they haven't?
