The bible used as evidence?

Post Reply New Topic

God created us. We did not create ourselves.

Scientific evidence has its place just as anything else. However, when it comes to who created mankind, mankind’s purpose, right and wrong, and the correct way God’s wants to be worship, there is no substitute for the Bible.

YES, science has brought great benefits to humanity. Despite this, though, we should view these provisions of science in a balanced way. Science is a human effort, and humans are imperfect. Hence, scientific progress has not always been an unmixed blessing.

A strange approach to sex ed.


Well, the issue is that any believer in any religion would say the same for their own scriptures.


Well, ok, but it could also be argued the scriptural interpretation is a human effort, or even that scriptural writings were human efforts. I mean, no matter what we do, it is hard to escape that whatever information we find is through our efforts, and that we are human. But, total skepticism hardly seems justified.

Well, I am not sure that what you have stated is sufficient to prove that the Bible is an authority to a person who didn't believe it was an authority.


Well, I think that most scientists believe that evolution is a theory that has essentially been proven. The issue is that historically we have a variety of different creatures fossilized throughout history, some basic relationship between these fossilized creatures, and a mechanism that can explain these variations. And not only that, but even most creationists accept some elements of Darwin. http://skepticblog.org/2009/12/08/young ... #more-5339 So.... really, it is hard to say that evolution is an unproved theory and/or speculation if he is that widely accepted.

The actions of those who say they follow the Bible often besmear the reputation of the book they claim to revere. So-called Christians have shed one another’s blood in the name of God. Yet, the Bible admonishes followers of Christ to “love one another.” Some clergymen fleece their flocks, wheedling hard-earned money from them—a far cry from the Scriptural instruction: “You received free, give free.”

Clearly, the Bible cannot be judged according to the words and actions of those who simply quote it or claim to live by it. And the bible provides, far more than just the future hopes. For the present, it provides practical and sound advice for having a successful family life, successful communication, marriage, working, etc.

You are correct.

However, Jehovah through his word the Bible removes this obstacle. He tells us through Peter that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. Prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by Holy Spirit.

Therefore, we do not have to worry about the human effort in the writing to the Bible or God’s thoughts being conveyed accurately. The Bible explains itself in most cases. In other cases, secular history helps to make its point.

So, Peter WROTE that the writings in the Bible are accurate, therefore, they are accurate? I don't think that avoids circularity, especially given that the Bible wasn't written all at once but written over time and then canonized later.

Additionally, if the Bible is clear, then how come there are so many denominations? We have a very broad number of Protestant denominations in addition to Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, both of which don't hold to Sola Scriptura.

You are correct. There are 66 books written by about 40 different people over a period of 1,600 years. Three languages were used by writers who lived in a number of lands. All the writers had different personalities, abilities, and backgrounds. But when the books they wrote were eventually gathered together, it turned out that, they made up just one great book following one basic theme from beginning to end.

No honest hearted person can fail to be impressed by the fact that the Bible, although a collection of different books, is one unified production. It is unified in that, from beginning to end, it promotes worship of just one God whose characteristics never change, and all its books develop one overriding theme. This overall harmony is powerful evidence that the Bible is, indeed, the Word of God.

Your second question is a very good one.

Man’s need to reach out to something higher and mightier when he is under stress appears to be both basic and universal. Anthropologists and historians tell us that from the beginning, man felt this need when mystified by the forces of nature, threatened by ferocious wild beasts and perplexed by death and the hereafter. This, coupled with fear of the unknown, brought about the birth of religion. In other words, it is in us to worship something or someone. No one gets a pass on this. You are going to put faith in something even if it is just yourselves.

According to this idea, ancient civilizations devised their own forms of worship, their own religions, independently. These were then influenced by the people’s way of life—their foods, their customs, even the climate and the geography of their land. The result is the diversity of religion we see today with their various sects.

Now, this is what history helps us to appreciate. And this is what science validates. But neither history nor science can explain: If all the different religions developed independently of one another, then how are we to account for the many fundamental similarities among them that cannot simply be attributed to natural human response?

The Bible outlines the way the many religions came into being in a manner that accounts for both their diversity and their similarity. The explanation begins at Genesis 11:1.

I must say that your claim about man needing a higher power excludes me from humanity is a bit unsettling. I am seriously beginning to wonder what species I may be.

Well, since you have a conscious (other species do not). You are human. So, that takes care of that question.

The larger question is:

Are you going to continue to decide for yourself right and wrong (like Adam) or are you going to submit to Jehovah’s righteous principles?

There is no middle of the road. Either way, it’s your choice (Jehovah will not force you.) However, don’t except his help if you choose to your own way.

Since you and even scientific observers are totally ignorant about what goes on in the mind of other species your statement that consciousness does not exist outside of humanity is a statement of such total ignorant arrogance that I find it completely abhorrent. My personal relationships with many other species gives me clear indication if not absolute knowledge that consciousness is very widespread indeed.

Although I am not particularly convinced of the existence of Adam I am very comfortable in deciding right and wrong for myself and, incidentally, find apples nutritious and tasty.

Well, except for the fact that all of these books went through a canonization process, and that many of these books were written or likely written with reference to other books in the Bible.

So, really, it doesn't take a lot of effort to have some notion of continuity if everyone is trying to make their writings fit in to the past writings.


Well, I am not sure what similarities you are talking about, so would you please elaborate.


I also don't think that the Tower of Babel story really explains the matter either, because the religions not only are different but substantively different. If changing the language was the only thing that happened, then we should expect all religions to be the same but have different wordings. However, in reality, I think that substantive differences in doctrine exist.

Eve (Havah) offered Adam the -fruit- of the tree of knowledge. According to rabbinic commentary this was a fig. It is interesting to note that the fig is a surrogate suggesting female pudenda. In short, Eve let Adam eat her out and thus did he gain knowledge of what was gooooood.

For your next course, read -The Song of Songs-. It is biblical porno.

ruveyn

I don't know why I should bother with rabbinical interpretations of fruit any more that any other theological gabble. Perhaps a cherry would be more appropriate.

Okay. Nice talking with you. By the way, the Bible does not say what kind of fruit Adam ate. Take care

I thought I'd throw my 2p in just for the sake of it. Someone who uses the bible or any other sacred book in a discussion I think is probably showing that they want to say they are not telling you something and expecting you to consider it because it is a wee personal idea they have thought up themselves, but want rather to direct the credit for the idea to a higher source that they would like you to respect more than them. It's a sort of humility as far as I can see.