Another point of potential incongruity here; if angels have no free will (I’ve heard that before) how could any angel rebel? They would be “hardwired” to not do so.
I read an article recently (sorry, can’t remember where, except it was online) that suggested that “Lucifer” was not the name of an angel but a king who put on airs. The piece quoted above certainly doesn’t state incontrovertibly that he was an angel.
Because I believe this - 2 Timothy 3:16 states that “All scripture is inspired by God….” In 2 Peter 1:20-21, Peter reminds the reader to “know this first of all, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, … but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” The Bible itself tells us that it is God who is the author of His book.
I believe the bible is God’s word and I don’t believe he would mis-guide his creation.
I really don’t know what the “official position” of my church is. They believe the bible is truth so I guess they believe all of it is true. I don’t follow the “whatever my church believes I must believe” mentality though.
Now I have a question for you. Have you ever studied who wrote the bible, how long it took, or anything about the historical manuscripts? Do you believe the bible has historical value?
Well, it’s not quite Cecil, but these questions have been addressed by the Straight Dope Staff:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html
And links therein. Their analysis sounds a great deal like what I learned back when I took courses on this sort of thing.
I suspect you are most interested in the historicity of the New Testament. I’ve always looked at it this way. It’s generally agreed that the first Gospel, Mark, was written somewhere around 65 AD, give or take five years. Christ was crucified 30 years earlier. The Watergate scandal occurred approximately 30 years ago from now. Do we have universal agreement on what happened there, even with modern technology that was lacking in Biblical times (such as television, printing press, radio, etc)? Would you feel confident choosing a book written tomorrow about Watergate and saying, “This is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”? What if the book had a sentence where it proclaimed itself to be the truth, a la Timothy’s letter?
Late Night Quixy
Actually no, I meant the Old Testament. Though the New Testament has historical value as well.
Not that I care about Watergate and it having any effect on any part of my life whatsoever(compared to the importance of the bible) , but if there were ancient documents found with matching facts in the Watergate book, I would not give it a second thought on doubting the validity of it. If the writers of the Watergate book said they were there and experienced what they wrote, then I probably would believe them too. If the Watergate book had some huge importance to my life I would read it, study it, and decide for myself if it’s the truth.
But, you see that’s the point: the writers of the Gospels weren’t there: they wrote their accounts 70 years after Jesus was crucified.
You say you believe in the Bible’s truth: are you reading it carefully?
If you believe God created the world acording to Genesis, whcih version do you mean? Genesis 1:1–2:3 or Genesis 2:4-2:25? In the first account, God creates plants, the sun and moon, animals and people both man and woman at the same time. In the second account, God makes plants, a man, animals, then a woman. Which one do you believe and how can they both be right?
Going to the New Testament, why does Matthew give 29 generations from David to Jesus, but Luke gives 43 generations?And aside from David, the two accounts only have three names in common, why? The even disagree on the name of joseph’s fathe; Matther says Joseph’s father was Jacob, but Luke says his father was Heli? Why?
Moving on to the Resurrection, Matthew 28:1 says that two women went to the sepulchre on Easter morning; all of the other gospels disagree. Mark 16:1 says there were three, Luke 24:10 says there were five or more, and John 20:1 says there was only one.
If you check out this annotated text of the KJV, you’ll find that the Bible is just a tissue of self-contradictory legends and myths. Even if we disregard the facts and took the Bible as literally true, the god of the Bible consistently behaves in a vile, barbaric genocidal manner. Do you want to worship a God who has children torn to pieces by she-bears because they made fun of a prophet’s bald head (2 Kings 2:23-24)? Do you wish to worship a God who has whole peoples sentenced to extinction because they occupy land the Israelites want (Joshua 10:28-42)? Do you want to worship a God who sends evil spirits (Judges 9:23)?
Sorry, Dreamer, but your faith is based on mere legends and myths, that, if they were true, describe the work of an evil God.
Read your Bible, and discover the truth.
The Bible tells us that God’s purposes are sometimes beyond our understanding. Isaiah 55:8-9**“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts” **
and 2 Corinthians 4:17-18 "For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal"
I may be in a small percentage of believers who believe this way, but I have a firm and unwavering belief.
Well, it seems that you have closed your mind to any facutal evidence that might contradict your preconceived beliefs. I guess I have to admire your steadfastness, at least.
The next time you drop by your public library, take a look at these books:
The Prophet and the Astronomer, by Marcelo Gleiser. The author, who teaches natural philosophy as well as physics and astronomy at Dartmouth College, explores the complementary quest of religion and science to explore the Deep Questions of life.
In The Beginning, by Isaac Asimov, in which The Good Doctor discusses the many physical problems associated with a worldwide flood.
A History of God by Karen Armstrong, a former nun, who discusses the 4,000 year history of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
The triumph of evolution : and the failure of creationism, by Niles Eldredge. The title is self-explanatory.
**Reading the Bible again for the first time : taking the Bible seriously but not literally ** by Marcus Borg.
You really owe it to yourself to learn more about the Bible and its history and also to learn about the physical world.
…and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
Leviticus 20: 9-10
“For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”
So are these offences that serious in your view? Does God prescribe capital punishment for adultery?
Well then you have to answer a question I asked you earlier.
Take Noah’s Ark and the scientific theory of evolution.
I say that there is no evidence of the Great Flood (and there certainly ought to be if the waters covered the Earth to a depth of 5 miles for a year), and that there is a lot of evidence for evolution (which contradicts the age of the Earth being just thousands of years).
So:
You have to accept one of these choices…
Well the Bible could be ‘true’ by telling parables.
What made you decide it was all literally true?
And you really need to do much better answering gobear’s contradictory Bible quotes.
Which Genesis account is God’s word and which isn’t?
If you say that these passages are because ‘God is beyond our understanding’, then how can any of us (including you) understand any of the Bible?
Well quixotic78 beat me to it (they’re fast on this board!).
Did you know all that?!
I do worry particularly about the Resurrection. Anything, like the Gospels, written 30 - 100 years after the event is usually inaccurate.
No - the life of Jesus was written by eyewitnesses or people who recorded firsthand testimony. The writers were all living at the same time these events transpired, and they had personal contact either with the events or with people who witnessed the events.
“There can be no denying that both chapters differ generally, and on the surface, at least, appear to contradict each other in specific detail. The first chapter places stress upon divine complacency. This emphasis prepares the way for the fall of man as related in chapter 3.
Chapter 1, therefore, should be regarded as introductory and the basis for the correct understanding of Chapter 2. The second chapter assumes the creation of heaven and earth, sun, moon, and stars. Chapter 2, in reality, cannot be understood without chapter 1.
The two stories of creation are typical of ancient scribble practices, but they are not duplicates. The first presents a general description of the creative situation as a whole, while the second account discusses one specific aspect of it, namely man in his physical environment, and then relates it to some particular geographic consideration.
Developing the thought further, to prepare for the account of the fall, chapter 2 gives certain added details about man’s originial condition, which would have been incongruous and out of place in the grand, declarative march of chapter 1.”
Matthew is giving us Joseph’s family line, but Luke is tracing the genealogy of Mary. The reason Mary is not mentioned in Luke 3 is because she has already been designated the mother of Jesus in several instances.
The purpose of the two genealogies is to demonstrate that Jesus was in the complete sense a descendant of David. Through his foster father Joseph, He inherited by law the royal line, while through his mother he was a flesh and blood descendant of King David. Thus, Jesus had the proper credentials to the throne of David.
Yes, are you?
I agree, and I am 
Nope, sorry, you are wrong–this is what I mean by learning more about the Bible’s history. Your church has fibbed to you. Check out The Straight Dope on the matter.
Again, sorry, but you are wrong. Luke 3:23 says, " And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, **being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, **Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph…
Luke is very clearly giving Jesus’s descent from David through Joseph–doesn’t say word one about Mary. The Begats don’t really make any sense anyway because, after all Jesus wasn’t Joseph’s son; He was begotten by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Mary (or by sex with Mary if you swing with the LDS). What’s the point of listing His descent from Joseph if they weren’t even blood relations?
As far as my grasp of Scripture, you can ask any of the Christians here how well I know my Bible.
Do you know of people that do these things? Have you done these things? Are you dead? I’m surely not. 
In the Old Testament people were stoned for adultry. I don’t know about the cursing.
God sent his son Jesus to die on the cross for man’s sins. You know the scripture
Actually I don’t have to do anything. I said more than once that I am not a biblical scholar or anything near one, and I dismissed myself from this thread. And now, here I am doing it all over again.
I will answer whatever I can in the best way I can. If it’s not good enough for you then I’m sorry, but that’s too bad.
2 Corinthians 4:4 “The God of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of hte gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God”
OK **glee{/B], I will study this further and get back to you…again.
gobear, Why are you studying the bible if you don’t believe any of it? Why waste your time?
Why do you care what I think?
Well, I think everyone should read the Bible because it is impossible to comprehend Western civilization without it. Without understanding Biblical allusions, one cannot hope to appreciate the symbolism in Renaissance art, in Shakespeare, in Milton, in Dante, in Faulkner, in virtually every work of art produced by the West. One doesn’t need to believe in its literal truth to appreciate its beauty, especially in the King James Version, perhaps the only great work of literature produced by a committee.
As for why I am pursuing this debate, it is because I hate to see a sweet, intelligent young lady close her mind to the Bible’s deeper truths while swallowing a cheap and facile surface interpretation.
What is your evidence for this?
(Look at the thread gobear has quoted.)
This is from a book, isn’t it?
(The style is very stilted.)
And I don’t agree with it.
‘There can be no denying that both chapters differ generally, and on the surface, at least, appear to contradict each other in specific detail.’
Or ‘The two chapters are contradictory.’
‘The second chapter assumes the creation of heaven and earth, sun, moon, and stars.’
No, chapter 2 follows chapter 1 (as often happens in books). There is no ‘assumption’.
‘Chapter 2, in reality, cannot be understood without chapter 1.’
Rubbish! Chapter 2 is perfectly clear.
‘The two stories of creation are typical of ancient scribble practices, but they are not duplicates.’
And what are ‘ancient scribble practices’? Can we have some other examples?
They are indeed not duplicates - they are contradictory.
'Developing the thought further, to prepare for the account of the fall, chapter 2 gives certain added details about man’s original condition, which would have been incongruous and out of place in the grand, declarative march of chapter 1.
Why would ‘certain added details’ from chapter 2 be out of place in chapter 1?
An example:
Genesis 1: 27
And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.
Genesis 2: 7
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Now bear in mind I am responding to the person who claims to understand the style of the Bible.
Genesis 2:7 is dramatic and worthy of the ‘grand, declarative march of chapter 1.’
Genesis 1:27 is clumsy and repetitious.
I’m afraid it seems clear to me that there are two stories, which have been awkwardly combined.
Of course if, like my assumed writer, you believe the Bible is literally true and every word is direct from God, then you have to come up with explanations like the above, using absurd ‘writing style’ excuses.
In order, my answers are yes, no and no.
I’m glad you’re not dead :eek: , but you’re not answering my question.
Well people have been executed for adultery nowadays (but they weren’t Christians).
Indeed I do.
So you’re saying that Jesus’ act means these Old Testament rules don’t apply?
If so, it seems strange that the Bible contains them.
Guys, I’m going to end my time in this thread. I’ve said it before, I know, but I’m done. If you want you can go ahead and give “The Bible Answer Man” a call on his National Radio Show. Here is the Number.
It’s also live on the Web too. If you do I promise to listen :D. I just don’t have it in me anymore to argue back and forth with you guys. I’ve said all I could say about Why I believe. You’ve said everything you could to dispute it.
I look forward to seeing you around in other threads and I’m glad I got to know you a little bit. Take Care and C’ya around :).
btwgobear, I’m probably not as young as you think I am, but thanks for the other compliments :).
It’s a nice account, but I noticed something missing from it. Most, if not all, of the religious people I know (who were not simply religious due to being born into a religious family) have one special moment in their lives that they point to as their moment of “epiphany” or “true conversion.” One magical moment that they still recall, often with startling clarity, when it All Made Sense [TM] or when the religion they were exploring finally seemed Right, and when they felt the presence of God in them or asked Jesus into their heart or something.
I didn’t notice any moment like that in your account of your experiences. Maybe the moment was a little too personal for you to relate to a bunch of heathens like us , but still I was struck by its absence.
(Incidentally, there’s at least one atheist out there who’s had a similar epiphany: Jim Huber gives a moving on-line account of how God told him that God doesn’t exist.)
Interesting article. Did he say who the “voice” was? Or was it just something he “thought” he heard?
Responding to your question - I guess it was in another thread that I said this, but there were a few “spiritual moments” I had with God. None of them were like a bell going off in my head and I immediatlely knew God was real or anything, but they all played a part in my walk. I spent and still do spend a lot of time in worship with God. I myself am a musician and love music, so worship is one of my favorite times in church. There were and still are “moments” when I feel the presence of the Holy Spirit. When I’m thinking about God and I feel a warm, light wind all around me. It’s the slightest warmth, but it’s also an obvious one. Those special times are when I can tell I’ve been “filled up” as we call it, by the Holy Spirit. There are times when I miss church for a couple of weeks and when I return I know I need God’s presence to touch me because it has been too long without it. It’s sort of like one of those energy drinks. Once you drink it your good to go for the day :). Anyway I’ve also had some vivid dreams (which are not normal for me) when I’ve called out for God in my dream. I’ve had “spiritual warfare” dreams as well where I was once fighting with a demon in a black warehouse and we were throwing spears at each other. Yeah, maybe they are just “dreams”, but those rare times that I remember them so vividly and God was a part of them, they seem more than just a dream to me. But, as you say I’ve never really had one big experience that just “made it real” for me. Actually it’s been one long, strange trip :D.
Let me just add that I (obviously) don’t mind sharing my personal life with you “heathens”. I actually kinda like you guys ;).
I like you, too, dreamer–you’ve never gone rabid on us ‘heathens’.
I still want to know if you think it’s disturbing to think that people are only stopped from doing bad things because of their belief in a deity, though.
I don’t think people “stop doing bad things” because they find a belief system. I sure haven’t. I stopped doing many of the things I used to do, but I’m still a sinner, saved by grace :). On the other side of your question, I’ve said before that it was only in my case that God saved me from myself. I’m positive there are other peole who found their way in other ways, without God.