Jump to content


Photo

Why Not Take The Bible Literally?


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#41 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 June 2009 - 02:23 PM

The fact that Bible is Divine and infalible is a statement based on FAITH.

View Post


No, it is a statement based on FACT, attested to by unimpeachable eye-witnesses who were there during the life, miracles, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The divinity of the Bible (the reason for its literal interpretation) is based, therefore, on FACT. Whether you choose to accept these facts or not, is of no consequence to the truth in them.

You may say what you say, and believe what you believe, but this doesn’t change any of the facts.

#42 Guest_Alcatraz_*

Guest_Alcatraz_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 June 2009 - 02:24 PM

Alcztraz,

One more thing. They changed the name of God so that it could not be traced to God's rejection Ishmael because of the mixed bloodline. Having a new god made it to where they could make up their own history and time-line, and seek revenge on all those whom either held the truth about what happened. Or were responsible through their bloodline for what happened.

This is why Islam teaches it's children to hate certain races of people, and certain people just for what they believe. It's a revenge for what has happened to Ishmael because Abraham did not have enough faith to wait upon God for what was promised unto him. So this is a type of holy war that dates back to Abraham. And because the people would rather hate than forgive, it will continue until the end of this world. And there is nothing anyone can do to stop it because this hate is indoctrinated into each generation.

View Post


That is the most xenophobic, bigoted nonsense I have ever had the misfortune to read.

Allah is not a name change for God. Al = The, Lah = One God, ergo, Allah = God.

It is the Arabic pronunciation of God, in much the same way that the Aramaic pronunciation was Yahwe.

And if you knew ANYTHING about Islam, you would know that Muslims revere the Torah, and Injeel (Gospels) as True Holy Books, and the The Qu'ran (Recitation) is the culmination of those earlier works, as (believed by Muslims) to have been recited directly to Muhammed, from God thru the Arch-Angel Jibriel (Gabriel).

That is what I was refering to when I mentioned the Qu'ran.

Also (and this is where you do enter into my field of Academic speciality), the reason that many Muslims have issues with the West has nothing to do with theology, but more to do with the politics surrounding the injustices surrounding the Wests tactile support of Israeli policies towards settlemement rights (or lack thereof for the Arab and Palestinian populations).

#43 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 June 2009 - 09:54 AM

Also (and this is where you do enter into my field of Academic speciality), the reason that many Muslims have issues with the West has nothing to do with theology, but more to do with the politics surrounding the injustices surrounding the Wests tactile support of Israeli policies towards settlemement rights (or lack thereof for the Arab and Palestinian populations).

View Post


That is incorrect Traz. There are massive theological differences, and only minor theological similarities. They (the Muslims) don’t believe in the total deity of Jesus, and the ministry of Jesus hinges on that deity.

And the injustices are well documented on both sides. If you want to get into the meat of that whole matter, you have to put aside the prejudices you harbor against the Jews, and accept the fact that the Palestinians are an Arabic tool used (as pawns) against the Israelite people and country. I’m sure if you were surrounded by your enemies, you’d do everything you could to secure your boarders as well.

#44 Guest_Alcatraz_*

Guest_Alcatraz_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 June 2009 - 10:07 AM

Just to clarify something Ron.

I harbour no ill-will to the Jewish people whatsover.

I just find it somewhat ironic that a people who were so mis-treated in such an evil way now hold simmilar apatheid policies that the National Socialist government of Germany and her allies held against the Jews.

Did you know that a Arab family (Palestinians ARE Arab) can be evicted from their land with no recompense solely to make room for a Jewish settlement of Russians, Romanians, British, or Americans, etc..

I have no doubt that after the horrors of 1932-1945 that the Jews needed and deserved a homeland which had been denied to them for 2,000 years, however, not at the expense of the indigenous population, and most certainly not by using a system of apartheid.

I know why the Christian right-wing desires a Jewish Nation; Revelations and all that, but the expanionism policies of the Jewish right-wing is the principle cause of Muslim resentment, as many Muslims equate the USA with the Christian right-wing (which is a whole other Theo-Sociological debate), and they see the USA (and the UK to a degree) as giving tactile support to that expansionist, apartheid policy.

#45 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 June 2009 - 12:34 PM

Just to clarify something Ron.

I harbour no ill-will to the Jewish people whatsover.

View Post


I would hope not Traz, but I have more clarifying to do here, and I have to go by your original statement that this is somehow Israel’s fault that Arab Nations surrounding her wants’ her gone, and is willing to keep the Palestinian people poor (so they will commit Jihadic murder) to garner world-wide support against her.

I just find it somewhat ironic that a people who were so mis-treated in such an evil way now hold simmilar apatheid policies that the National Socialist government of Germany and her allies held against the Jews.

View Post


It’s even more ironic that you’d swallow the anti-Zionist rhetoric and propaganda. If Israel didn’t have to worry about suicide murderers, and attack from all sides, I highly doubt this would even be an issue. But, as long as Arab states continue to funnel weapons and bombs into Palestinian occupied lands, just so poor and starving people (who could use the monetary support for food instead of being supplied with weapons. And who the wealthy Arab states keep poor), Israel will need to continue protecting herself.

Did you know that a Arab family (Palestinians ARE Arab) can be evicted from their land with no recompense solely to make room for a Jewish settlement of Russians, Romanians, British, or Americans, etc..

View Post


The Palestinian people are indeed Arab (that was never in dispute), but the majority of them were never citizens of the lands they now occupy until the rest of the Arab nations feared the Jews moving back into Israel before, during and after WWII. In fact, that land wasn’t even recognized as “Palestine” until after 70 A.D. You do know what happened in 70 A.D. don’t you?

During the time of Jesus the Jewish state was ruled by the Herods as puppet kings of the Romans. When the Jews revolted in 66 AD, the Romans destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem (70 AD). The Bar Kokba revolt between 132 and 135 AD was also suppressed, Jericho and Bethlehem were destroyed, and the Jews were barred from Jerusalem. The Roman Emperor Hadrian determined to wipe out the identity of Israel-Judah-Judea. Therefore, he took the name Palastina and imposed it on all the Land of Israel (it had never been known as “Palestine” prior to this time). At the same time, he changed the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina. The Romans killed many Jews and sold many more in slavery. Some of those who survived left the devastated country (and established Jewish communities throughout the Middle East) but there was never a complete abandonment of the Land of Israel. That is, there were always Jews and Jewish communities in Palestine, though the size and conditions of those communities fluctuated greatly.

Here's a few resources you can look into, but if you'd like, I can point yo to historical documentation as well:

http://christianacti...never_arab.html

http://www.therefine...o_palestine.htm

http://www.choike.or...ormes/1459.html

http://masada2000.org/questions.html



I have no doubt that after the horrors of 1932-1945 that the Jews needed and deserved a homeland which had been denied to them for 2,000 years, however, not at the expense of the indigenous population, and most certainly not by using a system of apartheid.

View Post


That has always been their homeland, and the vast majority of the people you are referring to as “indigenous population” are anything but that.

I know why the Christian right-wing desires a Jewish Nation; Revelations and all that, but the expanionism policies of the Jewish right-wing is the principle cause of Muslim resentment, as many Muslims equate the USA with the Christian right-wing (which is a whole other Theo-Sociological debate), and they see the USA (and the UK to a degree) as giving tactile support to that expansionist, apartheid policy.

View Post


I get the feeling that you won’t understand this, but at this point I don’t think you want to. But, it doesn’t matter what the “Christian Right” does. The “Christian Right” didn’t defeat an Arab army that massively out numbered it. And in as decisive a manner as was done. It was the Israeli Army.

So, no matter how you slice it and dice it, Israel had help that no “Christian Right” could provide. Therefore, it doesn’t matter what the “Christian Right” does or doesn’t do.

#46 Guest_Alcatraz_*

Guest_Alcatraz_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 June 2009 - 07:10 AM

Ron,

The reason why the Arab nations were hostile to Israel, and why they amassed troops near the disputed border with Israel was due to a speech made to the Knesset by David Ben-Gurion where he declared that, (due to Egypts loss of the Suez Conflict), that the 1949 Armistace with Egypt no longer existed. The following day Israel moved troops closer to Egyptian Border.

Ben-Gurion was a self-proclaimed Zionist, who admitted in later life that one of his prime roles as Prime Minister was to extend the borders of Israel.

In 1964 for example, Israel started, illegally drawing water from the Jordan river which lay outwith the terretorial borders of Israel, when the Jordanians and Syrians responded by building a damn at Mukhaiba, the IDF attacked and destroyed the diversion, outwith Israeli territory.

Israel is not the wounded party. The Arab/Palestinian population has as much right to live in, and off the land of their ancestors as a Jew of British or Polish decent.

This is where a policy of apartheid exists. A Jew of British decent has more right to build a house on the same land, than a Palestinian Arab whose family may have lived and worked the same piece of land for over 100 years.

#47 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 30 June 2009 - 10:53 PM

Not sure if this ones been covered yet. Has anyone brought up the issue of woman in the church?

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11-12)


Does this only apply within the church? Or should a woman never teach a man? And does 'man' here mean male in general, or does it only apply to adults (can woman still teach children for example?).

How far does "authority" in this sense stretch? For example, should I request a male doctor/nurse when I go to the hospital?

I know I've already learned a lot from Bex. I'd be pretty upset to find this went against the Bible.

Regards,

Arch.

#48 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 04 July 2009 - 09:55 AM

The reason why the Arab nations were hostile to Israel, and why they amassed troops near the disputed border with Israel was due to a speech made to the Knesset by David Ben-Gurion where he declared that, (due to Egypts loss of the Suez Conflict), that the 1949 Armistace with Egypt no longer existed. The following day Israel moved troops closer to Egyptian Border.

View Post


In the fall of 1948, the UN Security Council called on Israel and the Arab states to negotiate armistice agreements. Egypt aquessed, but only after Israel had routed the Egyptian army and pushed them to El Arish in the Sinai. During this time, the British were ready to defend Egypt under an Anglo-Egyptian treaty. But, rather than accept the humiliation of British assistance, the Egyptians decided to met the Israelis at Rhodes.

United Nations mediator Ralph Bunche brought both sides together at the conference table. He warned that any delegation that walked out of the negotiations would be blamed for their breakdown.

By the summer of 1949, armistice agreements had been negotiated between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. Iraq, which had also fought against Israel, refused to follow suit. Bunche succeeded at Rhodes because he insisted on direct bilateral talks between Israel and each Arab state.

Meanwhile, on December 11, 1948, the General Assembly adopted a resolution calling on the parties to negotiate peace and creating a Palestine Conciliation Commission (PCC), which consisted of the United States, France and Turkey. All Arab delegations voted against it.

After 1949, the Arabs insisted that Israel accept the borders in the 1947 partition resolution and repatriate the Palestinian refugees before they would negotiate an end to the war they had initiated. This was a novel approach that they would use after subsequent defeats: the doctrine of the limited-liability war. Under this theory, an aggressor may reject a compromise settlement and gamble on war to win everything in the comfortable knowledge that, even if he fails, he may insist on reinstating the status quo ante.

Egypt had maintained its state of belligerency with Israel after the armistice agreement was signed. The first manifestation of this was the closing of the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping. On August 9, 1949, the UN Mixed Armistice Commission upheld Israel's complaint that Egypt was illegally blocking the canal. UN negotiator Ralph Bunche declared: "There should be free movement for legitimate shipping and no vestiges of the wartime blockade should be allowed to remain, as they are inconsistent with both the letter and the spirit of the armistice agreements."
On September 1, 1951, the Security Council ordered Egypt to open the Canal to Israeli shipping. Egypt refused to comply.

The Egyptian Foreign Minister, Muhammad Salah al-Din, said early in 1954:
The Arab people will not be embarrassed to declare: We shall not be satisfied except by the final obliteration of Israel from the map of the Middle East (Al-Misri, April 12, 1954).

And as you know, The Suez crisis began as a result of the increasingly independent and assertive leadership role played by Egyptian prime minister (later president) Gamal Abdel Nasser. In September 1955 Nasser arranged to purchase large amounts of Soviet weaponry from Czechoslovakia, a Communist country; at the same time, he secured promises from the U.S. and British governments to help fund a huge construction project on the Nile River, the Aswan High Dam. In effect, attempting to play both ends against the middle to achieve his own notoriety and power. After John Foster Dulles (U.S. secretary of state) took notice of Nasser's simultaneous overtures toward an Eastern-bloc nation, he successfully maneuvered to block the funding of the Aswan dam project.

Nasser responded in July 1956 by nationalizing the Suez Canal, transferring ownership of the company that controlled the daily operations of the canal from its British and French owners to the Egyptian government. He declared that he would use the company's profits of $25 million per year as an alternative source of funding for the dam. Nasser defended this action by stating that the canal was Egyptian property, and he pledged to compensate the company's shareholders and to keep the waterway open to the shipping of all nations (though Israel remained excluded under an earlier Egyptian policy).

#49 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 November 2009 - 04:46 PM

If one looks at the First Council of Nicaea, there were clear 'political'  schisms when deciding which writings were canon and which were heresy.

Men made those decisions based on what they believed were in the best interests of the people at that time.

How do we KNOW that what was decided to be canon was legititmatly canon, and what was decreed to be heresy was not infact, at least potentially canon?

View Post


The Council of Nicaea didn't decide which writings were cannon Alcatraz. ALL of the books of the current New Testament were recognized as scripture before the middle of the second century by all believers (and the majority before the end of the first) . And the ones that didn't, weren't. It's that simple...

#50 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 06 February 2010 - 06:03 PM

My usage of the word KNOW has no hidden agenda. I'm simply asking a question.

How do we know whether what was decreed to be heresy was not infact canon or vice-versa?

The answer is, we don't.

Therefore the potential for manipulation is present, ergo so are potential flaws or even untruths.

If that possibilty exists, then how can one take the writing literally.

Is there not even the potential that the writings could have been mis-represented or tampered with?

I'm sure you would have to agree that the potential is there.

View Post

Trust? Did God really say.... (Gen3:1 Satan Talking)
Yes He did... Would God let His Word get corrupted? Is He not God enough to sustain it? History happened the way it happened, a prime reality. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Look at the context too...


Proverbs 3:5-8
Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
Pro 3:6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
Pro 3:7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
Pro 3:8 It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.
Symbolism

#51 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 07 February 2010 - 05:36 AM

Trust?  Did God really say....  (Gen3:1 Satan Talking)
Yes He did...  Would God let His Word  get corrupted?  Is He not God enough to sustain it? History happened the way it happened, a prime reality.  Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.  Look at the context too...
 

Proverbs 3:5-8
Pro 3:5  Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
Pro 3:6  In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
Pro 3:7  Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
Pro 3:8  It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.
Symbolism

View Post


Doesn't it kind of remind you of when Clinton was attempting to wriggle his way out of his lies and uttered the famous line "What does IS mean"? :lol:

#52 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Connecticut

Posted 11 February 2010 - 12:14 PM

No, it is a statement based on FACT, attested to by unimpeachable eye-witnesses who were there during the life, miracles, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The divinity of the Bible (the reason for its literal interpretation) is based, therefore, on FACT. Whether you choose to accept these facts or not, is of no consequence to the truth in them.

You may say what you say, and believe what you believe, but this doesn’t change any of the facts.

View Post


they are unimpeachable because they are dead. That is a fact.

#53 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 February 2010 - 05:05 AM

they are unimpeachable because they are dead.  That is a fact.

View Post


They are unimpeachable because they were unimpeachable while they were still alive. Fact! But, if you can provide historical evidence (from that time) that impugns their character, please provide it. Otherwise, you are just stating an uneducated and therefore a priori opinion.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users