Nice snippy tone there, chief. Yes I read your question and responded in kind. I'm pretty sure that I've either read it or had it read to me at some point. I was merely stating that contrary to popular belief Jesus spoke VERY few times in the New Testament.

Now, if you'd like to point me to the specific verse and I assure you that I will read it, if only to make sure that we are on the same page.

Actually, that's the "I've wasted my time presenting this evidence before and have neither the time nor the patience to go over that ground again in this forum." Even Jesus & Paul knew when to give up & walk away.

If anyone is truly interested in the mounds of evidence that support the Bible & Christianity, I'd be happy to point them in the right direction.[/quote]

Hmmm. I'm interested, but first I think it would be wise to define things. First, is this evidence that I am supposed to read something that I can try and debunk, or is it something that I would simply have to accept? When you say support the Bible and Christianity, in what sense exactly? I mean, I know that they are both real things that have roots in fact. I have stated such, I've said that there many things in the Bible that we know from corroborating sources did happen.

If you are suggesting that you have proof that the Bible is the true word of God and Christianity is the only true religion, then I don't see how that would be remotely possible.


Edit - If you are going to post some links for me to read, please don't waste my time with anything from the Discovery Institute or the like; go with a neutral, unbiased source.

Your memory and/or understanding is faulty; Orthodox Christianity (to distinguish from cults and other fringe Christian groups) is based on the entire Scripture, both OT and NT.

How the Testaments relate to each other is a subj of much debate. Some Christians stress the discontinuity between the OT and NT; others stress the continuity between the two. But all Orthodox Christians agree the canon consists of 66 books, not just 27.

Another point of contention is the function of the OT law in the New Covenant. Some Christians believe Christ abrogated the OT law; others believe He fulfilled it. Some believe in the continuity of the Decalogue in the New Covenant; others believe it was done away with. Some believe in the tripartite division of the law; others reject this concept. And it goes on and on.....

Why so much confusion? Lots of reasons; mainly poor exegesis and flawed heremeneutics.

Until this thread, I thought I was the only person on this list that had formal training on this subj.

This happens for two main reasons:

1. Many people that claim to be Christians aren't true Christians at all.
2. Others are true Christians that have a very limited understanding of what the Bible teaches about this or anything else.

Obviously, slavery isn't justified, and never has been. Scripture never teaches that it is. In fact, kidnapping people to enslave them was a capital crime in the OT.

Interesting discussion. I could answer all the questions I've seen on this list, but I'd need to get you into a classroom to do it. Your questions are deep theologically, and would take considerable time to develop the necessary background to aid in understanding.

You simply cannot cherry-pick verses out of context and expect to come to the right answer. The Bible is simple enough for anyone to understand it, yet the most complex book ever written.

It's taken me 7 years of college and grad school, reading hundreds of books, and listening to thousands of lectures to get to the level of understanding I currently hold. And I have a long, long, long way to go. I've barely scratched the surface.

I think it is funny that you think that it actually takes formal training to even begin studying the Bible.

Was that really the intentions of Christ or the writers, to have a book so convoluted and difficult to grasp the real meaning that our current, much more educated civilization need to go to grad school specifically geared towards Bible studies to even be able to understand it? I mean, this is the guidance provided us to keep our souls from eternal hell!!!

Based on the classes I took on it, it seems like the story goes more like this. The Bible is full of so much evil, retarded, nonsense that it takes many years of indoctrination before you actually start to believe that misinterpreting these stories 5 times over to arrive at a conclusion that is more in line with today's thinking.

I am amazed that people would actually think that the Bible is the best a GOD can do to inform his dominions about his plan, his teachings, and all the retarded and vile acts he has endorsed and done in the past.

What did people have to make of the Bible 300 years before our time? Were these books supposed to just hibernate and not be read seriously until we developed our minds into what they are today?

I don't really think sitting though 6+ years of intense indoctrination would be a good thing for anything really. Especially when it concerns interpretations.

No offense to the years of research you've done, retiredbiker, but I have to agree with IWantMy2Dollars here. I've spent years sitting through bible courses, just for the hell of it since I don't believe in any of it, but even I couldn't see dedicating years of my life to hard research and studying of the Bible just to find a specific interpretation of it that makes sense. With that much time and effort, you could prove that Family Guy is a holy video-scripture to be worshipped and praised (not that I don't already ).

Then again, the Bible was made by man, but "inspired" by God. This was the explanation a pastor gave me once for why the message is so mucked up and needs to be studied. Man is the filter for God's message and it makes it really hard to comprehend exactly what God wanted for us, since man is so flawed. So we must dedicate our lives to the study of the Bible so that we may live up to its word to the best of our abilities and be accepted into Heaven on the other side. If you ask me, that's a pretty good way to convince people to do more than just read it once and put it down. More authors should do that with their work. "This book needs to be studied to understand my full message, so keep reading through it, even after the first run-through".

Leviticus 44-47

44As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.

The writing is there, the only classroom needed would be for one to learn the correct way to circumvent what's written and accept the newest and best version of the truth. As society changes, so does the Word, complications arise when trying to explain away all the contradictions. If it really takes a scholar to understand the simplest principles, then what good is it to the layman Christian? Assuming I were trying to find faith, the Bible would seem to be the last place to look.

My good friends $2 and coby touch on important issues here



Coby - your pastor's explanation is simply wrong; it doesn't explain the difficulties $2 mentions.

While I agree the Bible appears convoluted, it isn't. Not at all. Then why does it appear so? There's a number of reasons for this, I'll mention the main ones.

1. It's an ancient book, or more correctly, collection of books. Like any other ancient literature, this presents challenges. Challenges of grammar, syntax, language, historical setting, culture, etc. It was written in three different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek - there are reasons for this too). To make it even more challenging, NT Greek is not the same as Greek today - it's Koine Greek...a bit different.

2. It's a very large book. The challenges posed by this are obvious.

So, let me see if I understand your post correctly.

I'm wrong, but portions of those who consider themselves Christians agree with my statement.

Does that mean I'm wrong, or that I took a position you disagree with personally?

I agree.

Another aspect of the Bible is the fact that when people study it, or assume that they understand it better than the next person, that gives them much more personal satisfaction. Much more, that say, understanding Shakespeare. Afterall, if one can understand the Bible, and believe that it is the true word of the Creator of the universe, then: they understand how to live better than you, they can interpret the word better that you, they are closer to God that you, they can be a moral authority over you.

Even people on this board, all who claim to be learned in Christianity and the Bible can't agree on basic principles and which books to follow. The only thing they can agree upon is that it's real, and those who don't believe are wrong and will suffer in the afterlife.

Thats interesting, i remember when i was in boy scouts they had different services like wiccan and atheist, etc. I guess You'r just a really that much older then me to go through that experience...lol.

That's hilarious and definitely tickled my gut enough to poot some gas.
I have dabbled in other religions here and there on the occasional visit to Barnes n Nobles. Most of my exposure was Christian religions due to majority of friends and people around were Christian. I remember the crusades. Its just intriguing that people find other people that are different from themselves somewhat appalling even though they are of the same planetary species. Me personally i find the indifferent interesting and fuel to my curiosity to understand and dissect what is at hand. I guess in a way this journey thus far and experience i have gained allows me to adapt and blend within any human social environment without suspicion.

Watch the penn & teller episode then.

I'm only 25... Even though I don't feel young and spry anymore, I'm sure many people on these forums would agree that I'm still a young'un.

And yes, Penn & Teller did a wonderful job pointing out some of the evil behind the scenes with the Boy Scouts of America. Hell, they were even able to prove that recycling was bullsh*t. Except for aluminum cans, apparently - keep recycling those!

So on the topic of Penn & Teller, I'm watching their 7th season and they had an episode about the 2012 Doomsday predictions. They covered everything from solar flares to alien invasion to brown dwarf stars crashing into the planet and destroying all life (which included a cameo from a real "brown dwarf star" - Gary Coleman ). I actually got a sense of satisfaction watching this episode because it had a finite date - Dec 12, 2012 - in which the prophetic apocalypse would take place. I knew that, even though a lot of the guys they interviewed are fanatics about their beliefs, they would be proven wrong in only 2 years.

Man, I wish all aspects of religion had finite dates. It's impossible to disprove something that "will happen one day". Especially things that you can only experience after you're dead and never coming back. It's pretty much the perfect crime.

This is a classic case of eisegesis; ie, you're reading into the text. A very common error. If I understand correctly, you believe this text somehow proves slavery is justified by the Bible; it's not, and this text doesn't prove otherwise, nor does any other Biblical text. What Leviticus 25 does do is create a series of laws governing an institution (slavery) that already existed. If you understood the background, cultural context, original audience, author, authorial intent, date written, etc. of Leviticus, you'd understand what I'm talking about.

Class is dismissed. There is simply no way in this venue to get my point across. It's putting the cart way, way before the horse. I found some of my notes from the last time I taught introductory hermeneutics the other day. I'll post them to my blog. If anyone is interested, PM me.

I understand the cultural context. Slavery was legal and a fact of most peoples' lives. To be honest, most civilizations would not have been built or evolved as quickly without it.

My point is; if God didn't allow it, then the book should reflect his views. The fallacy is to think that an allpowerful being would need to gradually enforce what is and isn't moral, or give tacit consent to what already exists. He didn't do that when saying "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God". Now, knowing that there were numerous other pagan gods at the time, why then make it a commandment to stop worshipping them. They already existed. He could have lain out a set of rules for their worship, but no - he said specifically "You will not do this".

If God told the Bible's authors to write that slavery was wrong and they didn't, then they are false prophets, and if he didn't then he believes that it IS moral or at the very least that having people worship Him was more important that freeing all people from slavery. A jealous god indeed.

I'm sorry Biker. I know you're a professor and probably have 30 years of classes and degrees to back up what you say, but couldn't it also be that that time spent reinforces prior beliefs and that you've spent that time finding ways to look past what I consider obvious?

If you truly need that much time and devotion to begin to understand the Bible, then the rest of us are either stupid or going to hell, or both.