Read Discussion
Reply to All

1

SURVEY: IS the BIBLE RELIABLE?

Forums: Spirituality And Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Why is it you want everyone else to tell you their stats and yet, you yourself have failed to comply with your own request?

Answer that.

0 Replies

Re: SURVEY: IS the BIBLE RELIABLE?

dilbert wrote:

cor2nguy wrote:
Care to participate in a philosophy class survey?

1) How do we know the bible really came from god?

How does one know anything at all?

Answer that question and it will go a long way towards answering the rest.

-- dilbert

Experience, Interaction

0 Replies

Re: SURVEY: IS the BIBLE RELIABLE?

Mindonfire wrote:

dilbert wrote:
cor2nguy wrote:
Care to participate in a philosophy class survey?

1) How do we know the bible really came from god?

How does one know anything at all?

Answer that question and it will go a long way towards answering the rest.

-- dilbert

Experience, Interaction

It has to be more than simply experience and interaction, doesn't it?

I can experience hot or cold as I walk outside of my house, but does that mean I <B>know</B> what the temperature is?

Don't you think there has to be more to knowing things than simply experience and interaction?

-- dilbert

0 Replies

Re: SURVEY: IS the BIBLE RELIABLE?

dilbert wrote:

It has to be more than simply experience and interaction, doesn't it?

I can experience hot or cold as I walk outside of my house, but does that mean I <B>know</B> what the temperature is?

Don't you think there has to be more to knowing things than simply experience and interaction?

-- dilbert

Indeed - it is interaction, experience, data retention, and the ability to inter-relationally process retained data in order to synthesize broader understanding ... and perhaps more importantly, the ability to pass on that broader understanding and the processes behind it, which after all is how we got ourselves from clans to civilization.

0 Replies

If everything in the world came from God, then of course the Bible also came from God.

0 Replies

Whole lotta IF goin' on there.

0 Replies

Iasion wrote:

Greetings,

Please, my name is Iasion.

Sorry.

Iasion wrote:

neologist wrote:
Welcome to the forum, las.
You have much to say; but have offered little proof.
Carry on.

Well,
see my post above for why Timothy is considered a forgery.

As Timber so astutely pointed out, Marcion's canon suited Marcion's theology. The most universally accepted early catalogue is the one discovered by L. A. Muratori in the Ambrosian Library, Milan, Italy, and published by him in 1740. It contains the NT almost exactly as it is today.

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

If everything in the world came from God, then of course the Bible also came from God.

Are you including war and crime and sickness and death?

0 Replies

Greetings,

neologist wrote:

The most universally accepted early catalogue is the one discovered by L. A. Muratori in the Ambrosian Library, Milan, Italy, and published by him in 1740. It contains the NT almost exactly as it is today.

Pardon?
What does "most universally accepted" mean?

The MC is DIFFERENT to our modern canon.

How can it be "almost universally accepted" if it is DIFFERENT to our modern canon?

I am not aware of a SINGLE church that uses a bible just like the MC canon - are you?

So who exactly do you think accepts the MC canon?

You gloss over the differences with "almost exactly as it is today".

How about you list the actual differences, and explain them.

Iasion

0 Replies

Iasion, you read into that which plainly has been written much that is not there. neologist did not say that the Muratorian Fragment was "the same as" any current NT canon, he said it was "almost" as the NT today is found, which statement as written factually is correct. Further, and of primary importance here, he said "The most universally accepted early catalogue", which statement as written factually is correct as well. The Muratorian Fragment, by predominant, if not overwhelming, academic consensus, is considered to be the most authoritative representation of the earliest formally accepted canon of the NT.
'

0 Replies

Thanks, Timber. It's easy to get bogged down in the game of musical manuscripts; and the very effort is an invitation to esoteric over intellectualization. I stand by my oft stated proposition that a loving God would not require a Mensa IQ or a PHD in order to understand the scriptures.

Moreover, if there is indeed such a loving God having the power associated with the name "He who causes to become", then certainly he would be able to protect and deliver his message through the ages that it might be available to all people.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

I stand by my oft stated proposition that a loving God would not require a Mensa IQ or a PHD in order to understand the scriptures.

Frank Apisa wrote:

In the mythology that is your religion, your god is not a loving god -- your god is a goddam raving, sadistic lunatic.

I agree with Frank.

If the scriptures were easily understood, then there should not be disagreement on something so basic as the existence of Hell.

0 Replies

Doesn't change my proposition. It is simply a straw man put up to discredit it.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Miller wrote:
If everything in the world came from God, then of course the Bible also came from God.
Are you including war and crime and sickness and death?

So, are there things that come from a god having the power associated with the name "He who causes to become" that don't come from such a god?

0 Replies

Cool Avatar.

I think we've been on this street before.

But since I haven't strayed from my belief in free will, I would have to answer that such things neither come from God nor are they part of his plan.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Cool Avatar.

Thanks

nologist wrote:

I think we've been on this street before.

But since I haven't strayed from my belief in free will, I would have to answer that such things neither come from God nor are they part of his plan.

So then, if there are things that come from entities besides that god, then those other entities also have the power associated with the name "'he' who causes to become."

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Doesn't change my proposition. It is simply a straw man put up to discredit it.

Quote:

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

I quoted your proposition. You asserted a loving God and easily understood scriptures. Please show how I distorted or misrepresented your position.

0 Replies

You have represented the consequence of a god, not of love, but of hate and lies. Regardless of what you assume to be my belief in the matter, my proposition was not that a God of love did, in fact, exist. It was merely an asseveration about how a God of love would present himself to humans.

As for whether or not the God of the Bible is a God of love, I am willing to take on that argument separately. But that was not the intent of my post.

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

neologist wrote:
Cool Avatar.

Thanks

nologist wrote:
I think we've been on this street before.

But since I haven't strayed from my belief in free will, I would have to answer that such things neither come from God nor are they part of his plan.

So then, if there are things that come from entities besides that god, then those other entities also have the power associated with the name "'he' who causes to become."

The only difference between the free will that we possess and the free will of the creator is that we are subject to our physical limitations and he is subject to none.

So we all have power to one degree or another.

If you examine the first 3 chapters of Genesis, you may see how one of God's creations used his power in an attempt to thwart God's purpose. That he appears to have succeeded in no way means that God will not prevail.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

You have represented the consequence of a god, not of love, but of hate and lies. Regardless of what you assume to be my belief in the matter, my proposition was not that a God of love did, in fact, exist. It was merely an asseveration about how a God of love would present himself to humans.

As for whether or not the God of the Bible is a God of love, I am willing to take on that argument separately. But that was not the intent of my post.

Taken in context, that is what you implied.

0 Replies

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice

Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence

Spirituality - Question by Miller

Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae

give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus

Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus

Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus

One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus

God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus

The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli

Family files lawsuit against school over Jesus - Discussion by Baldimo

Read Discussion
Reply to All

Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.6 seconds on 05/15/2024 at 06:05:22

▲ ▼