The Inspired Word of God
While some fundamentalist Christians believe that the Bible was divinely written by God, most Christians reject the idea that the Creator of the Universe actually sat down and wrote a book. It seems that atheists aren't the only ones who think this is utterly ridiculous. If the Creator of the Universe did write the Bible, than it would contain far fewer errors and atrocities and hopefully far more wisdom and morality and would certainly be far more scientifically and historically accurate. So if these Christians agree with atheists that the Bible was definitely not written by the Creator of the Universe, than how can they be Christians who hold the Bible as such a sacred holy book?
The claim is that the Creator of the Universe “inspired” it’s writing. What does that mean exactly? Gene Roddenberry inspires me, but I don’t think I am using the word “inspires” in quite the same way as some of my Christian friends. For me, inspiration is something that I think about which moves my intellect and emotion causing me to act in a creative fashion such as a poet being inspired by a sunset.
When most Christians use the term in relation to the Bible, they seem to mean more than that. They seem to be suggesting that a divine influence has been at work in the form of a metaphysical Holy Spirit which has qualified him or her to receive and communicate sacred revelation. In other words the Bible wasn’t just inspired by the idea of God, but was actually influenced through the Holy Spirit’s interactions with men by God literally.
It isn’t that my mainstream Christian friends think that some guys thousands of years ago were thinking about some vague higher power concept and then became inspired and wrote the Bible all on their own. These Christians seem to believe that the Creator of the Universe literally put the thoughts into the heads of these writers and so the Bible while physically written by men, was spiritually written by God… in part.
If the Bible were merely inspired by the idea of God the same way that Star Trek was inspired by the adventures of Horatio Hornblower, than the Bible should be considered wholly fictional except in places where the historical accounts are collaborated by non-biblical writers. People are then free to pick and choose (i.e. without contradiction) parts of the Bible they feel give them wisdom and reject the parts of the Bible which are immoral and silly. We would treat the Bible the same way we treat any great work of fiction.
On the other hand, if the Bible was inspired in a more metaphysical manner through some sort of literal divine influence, than we should expect nothing less than absolute perfection in every detail. This book should be the most brilliant book ever written and should not only be clearly written, but should transcend space and time the way it’s author God is alleged to transcend space and time. Either the book’s content should be the stuff which stands up to the test of time, or God should have added a “To be continued” clause at the end of it so that when we get to a certain level of wisdom, morality, or scientific advancement, God could guide us further.
The problem is that the content of the Bible does not stand the test of time and the Bible states that no additions will be made. This book is the end all and be all of God’s collective wisdom to humanity. So how do we deal with this obvious contradiction? Christians have figured it out. God despite creating humans in his own image doesn’t seem to have hands. So God send this Holy Spirit to indeed metaphysically inspire the writing of the Bible. The problem was that he had to inspire flawed humans and while God is by definition supposed to be perfect, it seems that he couldn’t communicate his divine thoughts to these men perfectly at all. So man’s interpretation somehow got mixed into God’s spiritually inspired magnum opus. To make a long story short, God wrote the Bible perfectly in the minds of men and those men f@#%ed it up.
So what we are reading as the Bible isn’t fully accurate according to these Christians. The ideas are the ideas of the Creator of the Universe, but the details are a little fuzzy. Oh, and most importantly, anything that we as a society might consider to be morally repulsive that was written in the Bible was not God’s infallible morality, but was rather the parts of the Bible that men screwed up. Slavery, stoning, mass rape, genocide, holy wars, etc. were not God’s ideas. In fact, if you read the Bible and find that you disagree with something, than you can rest easy knowing that God probably didn’t write that part. That part was almost certainly written by some evil, greedy, self-centered, sinner. But if you find a part of the Bible that you do agree with… that was God… apparently.
Atheism 101 Articles:
Atheism 101: What is the difference between atheism and agnosticism?
Atheism 101: Is there moral grounding without God?
Atheism 101: The Purpose of Life
Atheism 101: Is the Bible the inspired word of God?
Atheism 101: The anti-intellectualism of religion
Atheism 101: Why has Christianity demonized nudity, sex and sexuality?
Atheism 101: Does it take more faith to be an atheist?
Atheism 101: What came before the Universe?
Atheism 101: How to respond to the ex-atheist
Comments
Opposing christianity is not atheism 101, it is anti-theism 101.
@Greg
No Greg. Opposing Christianity is not anti-theism 101. It's Anti-Christianity. You sound like a Christian who believes their god is the only god therefore if any one mentions god they mean yours.
Atheists often are confronted by Christians and asked certain questions and/or presented with certain challenges. Atheists should know how to respond to some of the most commonly used challenges. This is one. Christians tell me all the time that I should believe because the Bible is the inspired word of God. This is how I respond and it will probably be helpful for other atheists so that they can respond better to this line of argument as well.
Soulless,
No, I believe there is no god, so I am an atheist see. Have been all my life and have been promoting atheism for over 10 years online. This is anti-theism, not atheism. I am not only an atheist, but also anti-theology, so I don't mind, but I do tell them apart and so should you.
Staks,
yada yada, this article says nothing for atheism, and opposes christianity sure, but to call it atheism 101 is wrong and false.
Greg, that is your opinion. I have justified my reasoning and while you are welcome to disagree, you should note that it is your opinion. My opinion on the matter is obviously different. I see this as atheism 101, basic training for fellow atheists. You should be mindful of the difference between fact and opinion Greg. In Reason,
-Staks
If you hear something ridiculous enough times, then it starts to sound normal. The best way to combat popular cults is to pretend that you're seeing what they're peddling for the first time.
Any independent thinking child could counter the hog-wash that cultists spew. The problem is when they get their psychotic tracks laid down in the developing minds of children that they do the most harm.
A child raised to believe that fairy tales are truth will have a difficult time separating fact & fiction.
And what everyone else said too. Atheism is not Anti-theism. Although I too am both, these are not the same thing.
This is backwards. It is those with Religion that are opposed to the vacuum of faith, and seek to fill it. Children are born Atheists, so it is the religious that rail against nature.
I probably agree with you but couldn't read far as you repeatedly use 'than' when you mean 'then.' Do you use VR software?
I agree - very hard to continue reading the article when the mistakes jump off the page like that. I also, probably agree but couldn't concentrate on the content -
Dear Mr Rosch:
I would suggest that you ought to learn a little bit more about the Bible before putting your criticisms on the public record. The Bible is a collection of books: some historical, some poetic, some prophetic, some prayerful. Each book has to be read with an understanding of its purpose and context in order to begin to gain a proper appreciation of its lessons.
The strawman Christian explanations of the Bible that your present are worthless, except for your purpose of making belief seem ridiculous. There is a vast tradition and vast treasury of intelligent biblical exegesis out there, freely available, that would answer many of the questions you clearly are concerned with, and would relieve you from the need to write this kind of thoughtless and dismissive polemic against people of faith.
There is a vast treasury of contradictory biblical exegesis out there. The Abrahamic god, if he exists, appears to have a serious communication problem. The Believer has no way of knowing which of these contradictory exegeses is god-supported and which is not. They generally opt for whatever one fits the world and moral views expressed by their significant others.
If your version of god had the power to write books himself, would they be less ambiguous? How do you explain the loss of power that this god exhibits between creating the universe from nothing or chaos (which is it?) and having to get some of his poorly created minions to do the acting?
@Sean C.
There are no lessons of value that can be learned via the Bible which cannot be obtained elsewhere and without the myriad of Biblical lessons which are of detriment to a human being living in the 21st Century with a 21st Century understanding of the universe. The progress we have made in the last 2000 years has come not from "Faith" in religious texts but from "Doubt" in those texts. So "Belief" actually is ridiculous in the extreme. It is dogmatic religious Belief which holds back the human race through the mechanism of "Faith", and it is, has been, and always will be "Doubt" to which we, including yourself, owe our modern existence.
Addressing Soulless' comment:
Really? Respectfully, Sir/Ma’am, I challenge this as being grossly and irresponsibly illogical. We are cruisin’ toward an incredible bruis’n if what you have said here represents a 21st century snapshot of humanity’s progress over the past 2,000+ years. If I may be so bold, I am sure that the fundamentals of atheism, anti-theism, or anti-Christianity, represented here are not the intellectual property of anyone in this forum. Yet, all here possess real convictions stemming from the establishment of an organized and proselytized notion of doubt or non-belief.
We (humans) are a people faith. We are hard-wired to be a race of faith. Perhaps you were initially stirred by lecture, text, or someone admirably “larger than life” or larger than common thought. Perhaps your intellect is molesting your ability to actualize your human predicament and existence. I do not believe that you can be the intelligent individual that I assume you are and maintain that “The progress we have made in the last 2000 years has come not from "Faith" in religious texts but from "Doubt."
I am sure that the Wright Brothers never peered into the skies of Kitty Hawk and said, “I doubt that every literary work that references birds or any flying creature is accurate or useful. I doubt that man can ever enjoy a bird’s eye perspective of the world.” President Kennedy did not exude doubt when he claimed that man would one day walk on the moon.
You yourself placed faith, not doubt, in everything from the manufacturer of your computer, your utility provider, internet provider, your eyes, and whatever you are sitting on right now to read this reply to your comment. You have faith in everything that has been previously established for your benefit. I pray that you will not forever feel “soulless” and that you may have faith in Jesus and experience His benefits for you.
We are all people of faith and believers of something. You have shown me your faith in your intellect, reason, and doubts. I maintain faith in the Creator, Governor, and Preserver of sentient men.
“Our doubts are traitors and make us lose the good we oft might win, by fearing to attempt” –William Shakespeare
Doubt is a pain too lonely to know that faith is his twin brother. - Kahlil Gibran
“Doubts and mistrust are the mere panic of timid imagination, which the steadfast heart will conquer, and the large mind transcend.” – Hellen Keller
Sean C - you beat me to it. This is yet another "half-cocked", shoot your mouth (keyboard) off article from an obviously very uniformed Staks Rosch.
I think he is trying to be in the same mould as a Hannity or Limbaugh, fire off half truths with enough inflammatory comments to make people react, but all it does over time is show people for the fools they are.
Staks stick to what you claim to know - Atheism and present a positive case for Atheism. Can you do it? You failed to answer my question about purpose, can you answer this one Staks?
Sean C. - Yes the Bible is a collection of books. Did I claim otherwise? No, I did not. Are any of those books written by the Creator of the Universe? No. Were any of those books metaphysically written by The Holy Ghost? No. So rather than just stating that I am all wrong and need to learn the "Truth" as you define it, why don't you actually point out where I am mistaken. For the record, different Christians have different "Truths" about the divinity of the Bible. Why do you think you have the monopoly on that "Truth?" You claim that "book has to be read with an understanding of its purpose and context," but that is just your opinion. There are many Christians who would disagree with you on that. Plus, there are many Christians who would disagree with your opinion about the individual books purpose and context. Again, how is it that you seem to have the monopoly on these things. Next, you claim strawman, but you fail to point how how I have strawmaned Christians here.
Sean C. - Finally, you whine that attack people of faith. How so? I have criticized the beliefs and ideas of "people of faith," but not the people themselves. This is a distortion of the truth meant to play the victim card.
Nigel - You claim that my article is uninformed, but you fail to inform. You claim that I have made "half-truths" but you fail to point them out. You claim that I have made "inflammatory comments" but you fail to point them out. Atheism isn't a worldview, the positive case for atheism is a negation of theism by definition. I answered your questions about purpose before you even posed them in that article, but because you didn't like the answer, you continue to claim that it was unanswered.
Wow Staks;
For the record, you didn;t answer the purpose question I posed, you took the easy road because you have no answer.
Sean C did point out a major error with your article i.e. "The Bible is a collection of books: some historical, some poetic, some prophetic, some prayerful."
Your article rests on the assumption that every word in the Bible is a command on how to live, when clearly this is not the case as explained by sean C, then you point to stoning etc. as to why the bible is imperfect. Essentially you start with an incorrect assumption, like most of your rants against Christianity.
Finally, you say athesim is a negation of theism, but negation is not positive - "by definition". So you fail again to answer another challenge.
Step down from your ego, big boy, and you might actually learn something.
Nigel - You claim that I did not answer the purpose of life question, yet my entire article WAS THE ANSWER. Specifically, I pointed out multiple times in the article and in the responses that, "we can find our own meaning and purpose in life." I even elaborated in that further. PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE!! Sean C. pointed out that the Bible is a collection of books. That is true. Did I say otherwise? No I did not. I agree with Sean C. that the Bible is a collection of books. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of whether or not any of those books or all of those books as a collection were metaphysically "inspired" by God. I think I said that already. "but negation is not positive - by definition." Yes, I said that too. So what? Did I claim otherwise? No, I didn't. Was that some sort of challenge? If so, than it was a stupid challenge. I have a challenge for you, prove that a Bachelor was married. Ha Ha, you failed the challenge. Atheism is not a belief! Humanism is.
Nigel - But this to line of personal attacks does not get you out of any of the issues at hand. You claim that my article is uninformed, but you fail to inform. You claim that I have made "half-truths" but you fail to point them out. You claim that I have made "inflammatory comments" but you fail to point them out. You claim that my article rests on assumptions, but you fail to point them out. In fact, you have made several inaccurate assumptions about my position. You seem to assume that I disagree with Sean C. about the Bible being a collection of books. You seem to assume that I think atheism is a positive belief system. The fact is that I defined atheism in a previous article. It is not a belief system at all. Those were assumptions YOU made which are not true. Humanism on the other hand is a positive belief system and most of the atheistic community in America take a Humanistic would view, which is very positive.
Great article.
Staks - how weak your position must be in your own mind to resort to
1) complete denial e.g. "You claim that my article rests on assumptions, but you fail to point them out"
2) outright lies e.g. you stated in your comments that "the positive case for atheism is a negation of theism by definition.", then when challenged that this is not in fact a positive case for Atheism respond with :..Did I claim otherwise? No", when in fact you did, you tried to present the negation as the positive case.
and 3) childish writing e.g. "I have a challenge for you, prove that a Bachelor was married. Ha Ha, you failed the challenge" that clearly shows you fail to comprehend the points of contention.
Finally you resort to a whole different topic, like most Atheists, by bringing introducing Humanism. Aren't you meant to be illuminating Atheism for us all?
Keep up the good work.
P.S. Please write a series on Humanism, the Christian position is very in sync with Humanism's goals.
Nigel - 1. you still have yet to provide the alleged assumptions. I am not saying that there aren't any, just that you have have failed to clarify your statement with actual examples. Stating that I am in denial is simply a personal attack which still does not address the issue at hand. 2. Oh I see, you are playing word games. I originally said, "Atheism isn't a worldview, the positive CASE for atheism is a negation of theism by definition." This is correct. Here "positive" modifies the "atheism" as a position or case. You have then switched the meaning of "positive" to a value judgment of an atheistic worldview which I had already stated doesn't exist. I did not dispute the claim that negation is the opposite of positive when the two terms used in the same way modifying the same subject. I state by my statements. 3. The Bachelor statement was a response to your fallacious challenge which you claim I failed that I had to some how try to disprove a tautology.
Staks;
Really? "yet to provide the alleged assumptions" try re-reading the comment from July 26, 11:42 PM.
People who read the Bible as though it is a first grade primer, should stick to reading material they can handle or get a tutor. This includes Atheists and "Christians".
Inspire is from the Latin, inspirare - which means "to breath in". The scripture used most to declare "inspiration" in 2 Timothy uses the term in the Greek, theopneustos, which is better defined as God-Breathed. As in God breathed out.
The words, the writers of the words, and the circumstances used to convey the messages are all God breathed. The Bible is not meant to be a book that you pick up and casually read like Harry Potter or Dr. Seuss. It is meant to be read and studied for the rest of your life. Some its wisdom you may never fully understand.
Using it as a tool to rationalize your disbelief or justify your definition of "truth" is just as dangerous and foolish as picking up a sword by the blade and attempting to wield it.
Nigel - You claimed "Your article rests on the assumption that every word in the Bible is a command on how to live." I didn't make that assumption at all. My article had little to nothing to no with how people organized their lives. It has to do with whether or not the Creator of the Universe and anything to do with the writing of a Holy Test. Once again Nigel, you actually have to READ the article before you start commenting on it. Second, as I stated again multiple times, I never assumed that the Bible was one book. The Bible by definition is a collection of books. If I were to ask someone if they are a fan of Harry Potter, it is usually assumed that I am speaking about the SERIES of books. It would be pretty odd if someone were to be critical of me for not knowing that J.K. Rawling actually wrote 7 books and not just one. Sean C.'s statement was just a form of personal attack and didn't address any of the points made in the article.
Leo - That was very interesting about the origin of the word "Inspired." I did not know that. But I do take issue with your claim that, "The Bible is not meant to be a book that you pick up and casually read like Harry Potter or Dr. Seuss." First, that is your opinion that you are presenting as fact. Not everyone would agree. Second, maybe Harry Potter and Dr. Seuss aren't casual reads either. Maybe they need to be studied over a lifetime too. And third, to paraphrase Twain, it isn't the parts of the Bible that I don't understand that I have an issue with, it is the parts of the Bible that I do understand. Finally, you didn't address any of the criticism that I presented in the article.
@Leo
2 Timothy is know to be Pseudographia as are many other books in the Bible.
“It is an obvious fact today that there is much diversity among the manuscripts, due either to the carelessness of the scribes, or the perverse audacity of some people in correcting the text, or again to the fact that there are those who add or delete as they please, setting themselves up as correctors.” -Origen, 3rd century Christian theologian.
So now you admit I did provide the assumption despite stating twice I hadn't provided it. So are you just ignorant or a liar or both?
Applying the same rules as Atheists use when arguing against Christianity can we assume from this that Atheists have no integrity?
Which, at least, is consistent with the evolution based worldview that underpins Atheism.
Nice work Staks.
Nigel, are you retarded? As I stated before multiple times now, I didn't make those assumptions. You assumed that I did because you didn't read the article. Second, you stated, "can we assume from this that Atheists have no integrity?" Atheism is not a belief system Nigel. How many times have I stated that now. You statement is analogous to saying that the lack of belief in unicorns has no integrity. It is just a retarded statement to make. I also think it childish that after I addressed every point you made regardless of how ridiculous, you now call me a liar and bring up new issues which have nothing to do with the article (evolution). When I wrote on that topic for the Examiner, I will address that. But I am not going to address it here.
Staks;
You are pretty good at using word games to avoid facts I'll give you that. It is a shame you could not rise to the ocassion and better represent your position. Oh well.
Sincerley, all the best.
@Soulless
Pseudographia? According to who?
You will need more than one source and a source better than Origen, who was considered and anathema(as in denounced, not lifted up) by several of the early councils.
Are you sure you don't have it confused with the Acts of St. Timothy?
@Staks
If you think that Harry Potter or Dr. Seuss are more than casual reads and require actual study to understand, then I apologize for wasting your time as it seems you need it for more studying.
In reference to the Twain quote, I find it interesting that as an Atheist you use it when a Christian would wholeheartedly agree with it.
Perhaps you will understand why someday, after you finish up Green Eggs and Hams.
"can we assume from this that Atheists have no integrity?" Atheism is not a belief system Nigel."
It's not a belief system itself, it is a belief. It doesn't matter how often you state it, it is false each and every time.
I am an atheist, you don't know what that even is. You argue with Nigel and he is correct, you have no intellectual integrity whatsoever. You have failed to recognize that there are valid logical reasons that show and prove your definition of atheism is impossible and false.
Saying "an atheist does not believe in a god" is true about what an atheist IS NOT. Not true about what an atheist IS. is <> is not.
You've defined nontheist, not atheist. It's basic set theory to have members of a set who are not red described as the set of non-red things. Not believing renders a nontheist, not an atheist.
You've dismissed it without reason, and in the face of logical proof hold onto your dogma. By no means do you have any idea what atheism even is.
Nigel,
"the positive case for atheism is a negation of theism by definition."
Did he really say that? This guy is not an atheist at all. He is what I call a notter. Notters are those who say they are what they aren't. They say negatives are positives. They say they don't attack and yet they target.
It's a mess.
I am an atheist. I do not hate, do not discriminate against those who believe except to say that being a theist is a guarantee of poor logic and being a nontheist is no gaurantee of being any better.
Atheism is the position that "God exists" is believed to be false. This allows for the possibility there is a god. As the bus ads say, God probably does not exist. We do not know this, we do know certain gods cannot exist but not all. The christian god is described as a logical contradiction (P and not P at the same time) and cannot exist. God never repents and god also repents. Only through a logical contradiction can we prove what is impossible.
Staks,
Evolution is a strawman argument put forth only by fundies and has no bearing on atheism. Pope John Paul II agreed with evolution, in fact more theists maintain evolution than nonbelievers do. How so?
Polls say just about 50% of americans think life evolved, yet only 10-12% are nonbelievers.
So tell me what evolution does again to oppose religion and belief in a god?
You've been suckered by theists into thinking evolution is an issue at all. It isn't.
Greetings to one and all in that mighty name of "Jesus". Each Christian of whom know him in the power of His resurrection...or, maybe I should say...those who are well acquainted with the fact, that He truly did come back from the dead...also appeared to his disciples.
Thomas was invited by Jesus to feel the nail prints within His hands. So, those who also have been convinced by only having His spirit to convince them, having never had the opportunity to feel the nail prints in his hands, as did Thomas: Jesus said blessed are those who have seen and then believed, but greater are the blessings that rest upon those who have never seen, but still believe.
I am a full time writer and an ordained minister. I have written three books so far. My first book: Reviving the dead church, by reminiscing the day of Pentecost. The second one is: Beyond the Golden Sunset and by the Crystal Sea. My third book: Off to visit the Prophet Elijah, on this one, the contract to publish has been complet
Greg - You stated and I am quoting you on this, "Atheism is the position that "God exists" is believed to be false. This allows for the possibility there is a god." This has been my position which you had previously told me was not correct. Second, it seems that you are a bit of a troll on the examiner atheist pages since you have told most atheists that they are using the term wrong when they have not. Your problem isn't with people's positions, but rather a problem of labeling. Your fly is stuck in the bottle as Wittgenstein would say. I have explained my reasons for claiming that atheism is a lack of belief in a deity and that my position amounts to the position that "God exists" is believed to be false. So if you now disagree with that position, than we are just going to have to agree wot disagree as it is merely an issue of labels and not of substance. Now let's move on to substance.
Greg - as far as evolution is concerned, I don't see how I have been "suckered by theists" when I haven't address the issue at all. On a separate note, just to clear up the record, you stated that more theists believe in evolution than atheists. Percentage wise this is not correct.
You need to be inspired to look up the difference between 'thAn' and 'thEn'. I think.
The Bible is completely historically and archeologically accurate! There is so much evidence for the Bible being Truth. The problem is not with the evidence, it's with people not wanting to seek the evidence, or rejecting the evidence. Most people who disagree with the Bible have not read it. And, scientists have always agreed that the "absence of evidence for object x is never, ever evidence that object x doesn't exist". To clarify, people didn't have evidence for far away galaxies in the past centuries; however, it doesn't mean they weren't there. The evidence is there, will you seek it? Will you seek God?! :) If you are an athiest and just won't read the Bible, I recommend reading, "the case for Christ" by Lee Strobel who is an atheist turned Christian! It is a great book, and he is a super intelligent person! Highly recommend.
Prove inspiration. If you can't, then Christianity, which hinges entirely on the word of some unknown author, has no reasonable underpinnings whatsoever. The whole charade is built on quicksand...
Hello Staks,
I was disappointed by your article: you make glaring statements about the 'contradictions' and 'errors' in the Bible and then do the anti-Faith Two-Step, not bothering to provide us with any!!!
It must also be pointed out, that Leo's assertion pertaining to the way an honest,interested person is supposed to study the Word of God is factually correct: one need but look to 2 Timothy 12-17 and 2 Timothy 4:1-4 to see just two clear examples of the point.
The truth of the matter is that if you wished to truly find out if what you believe, Atheism is accurate, you could pick up a Bible, a software program called QuickVerse, and in about 6 months of regular study, you would find that most of the positions you hold are fallacious.
I've studied the Noble Qur'aan for some 7 years. I'm an Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Bible Thumper, but I wanted to know what the Noble Qur'aan actually taught. So I bought a few and started studying: hermeneutically.
Cheers from a Bible T
Soulless,
My dear fellow....citing something from Origen, out of context I must add, does not lend credibility to your argument. Should you desire to discredit 2 Tim., then you must present Origen speaking specifically about that book.
The contextual fact of the matter is that the Apostle Peter both recognized and admired the Apostle Paul's writings; he recognized that many people reading Paul's works had a hard time with them: because his writings were thorough, in depth, and very literary...in other words, it took brains and real thinking to understand what he was saying....along with a great deal of prayer and patience.
I urge you to do yourself a favor and begin to look at biblical issues honestly, openly, and with the goal of understanding what is written, contextually, rather than desiring to grind personal axes.
Cheers from a Bible Thumper.
Thanks JR for your opinion, but I have actually read the Bible cover-to-cover multiple times. I have also attended many Bible studies (which take the passages out of context so that they can be re-interpreted to be more modern). I did notice that you didn't address any of the central points in this article, but instead insisted that there are no biblical contradictions, which is something I didn't even talk about in this article and it an absurd statement anyway.
It's unfortunate that history points to God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as the true beggining or end of life yet so many people want to create their own artificial god or gods because they cannot understand what 'Truth' is just like pontius pilate couldn't. Would it not be better to believe in something and see it happen or not happen than to not believe and have nothing happen either way? Remember Eternity is just A breath away!
Every Word is God inspired...powerful to the core and redemptive to man...
I'm not convinced.
I would rephrase the title of this post to:
"Are the Bibles the inspired word of God"
Because there is not one Bible but 3 different Bibles. The protestant Bible, the catholic Bible and the orthodox Bible. And I'm not talking about translation here, these 3 Bibles have a different lists of books.
Ssshhhhh! The fundamentalists don't want people to know that.
I would rephrase the title of this post to:
"Are the Bibles the inspired word of God"
Because there is not one Bible but 3 different Bibles. The protestant Bible, the catholic Bible and the orthodox Bible. And I'm not talking about translation here, these 3 Bibles have a different lists of books.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!