its funny how they call this christian fiction... Showing 351-400 of 1,587

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "yeah, I suppose you could say I was fishing to work out what denomination you are

... but I can call something an egg if it doesn't have a shell... I produce an egg every month that doesn't have a..."

First of all, I am a Baptist. I believe that through baptism one makes a sort of "declaration" of God's saving grace - after they become His child.

And, that isn't the same type of egg I'm referring to. As I'm sure you well know.

[Hazel]

Well, I assume that you don't stone unruly children to death? And that you don't stone gay people to death? and that you do suffer the witch to live? I assume that you don't punish and ostracise those who claim to be able to see and speak to ghosts and to read fortunes? I assume that you don't atone for your monthly period which makes you ritually unclean by making a cleansing blood sacrifice?

[Hazel]

Sorry about the egg thing, I was being facetious :P

What sort of baptist? I understand there are several sub-denominations of baptist.

[[deleted user]]

That's all right, I suppose. But things can be misunderstood, especially on the Internet. I don't want that happening to you.

Well, we're not Southern Baptists - since we come from the East Coast - so we don't speak/sing with a "twang". LOL. Although, I must tell you, that the twang can be oh-so-endearing.

[Molly]

Kendra wrote: "Will wrote: "Yes, I apologize I didn't use the almighty KJV (which is just a "version" I hope you know). Mary was kind enough to post the KJV of those verses, and as you can see, it says the same t..."

Pretty words don't make the KJV bible more accurate, they just make sound pretty. If you want a really accurate version of the bible try the New Oxford Annotated Bible New Revised Standard Version With the Apocrypha. It's one meant for scholars. It's provides, context of the passage, various other optional translation of words, and things like that. It's meant for studying the bible and biblical passages, not so much for worship, but that's part of what makes it more accurate.

[Shaun]

Kendra wrote: "Pardon me? What rules am I not following in Leviticus?

And the rules did not change from the Old Testament to the New Testament. There were more added to the ones that were already in existe..."

Leviticus 23: There are six days when you may work, but the seventh day is a day of sabbath rest, a day of sacred assembly. You are not to do any work; wherever you live, it is a sabbath to the LORD

(The sabbath is Saturday)

Levitucus 24: Anyone who curses their God will be held responsible; 16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.

(Stoned anyone to death recently? Or have you NEVER heard anyone blaspheme?)

Leviticus 11: But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to regard as unclean. 11 And since you are to regard them as unclean, you must not eat their meat

(You've never eaten shellfish?)

Leviticus 19: Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

(So, no poly/cotton blends. No Cotton/lycra weaves.)

Leviticus 20: A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.

(Again with the stoning! There are enough spiritualists out there, have you ever beaned one with a rock? Why not?)

Leticicus 20: You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground—those that I have set apart as unclean for you. 26 You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.

(Are you keeping to Clean meat? Do you know what animals are clean and which are not (they are all in Leviticus too, so you know, you should)

[[deleted user]]

Of course, #1, I'm not scholar. Not by a long shot.
#2> from what I've learned - and I have read several different versions of the Bible - the KJV relaly is more accurate. I don't know everything , but that's what I have learned.

[Molly]

Kendra wrote: "Of course, #1, I'm not scholar. Not by a long shot.
#2> from what I've learned - and I have read several different versions of the Bible - the KJV relaly is more accurate. I don't know everythi..."

This one is made up by people who specialize in this field, meaning they've read a lot of different versions of the bible too. They also read the torah, gnostic gospels, the works of the Church father, things like that. They explain why they chose the word they chose, where and when an event is supposedly taking place, and what else was going on at the time. It's much more accurate than the KJV because of the way it was written. One is written for understanding and teaching while the other is written for worship.

Edited because of really horrible word choice.

[[deleted user]]

Oh please. Now, I can't stand this anymore. You all know so much you're all obviously so smart . Would you all kindly leave me alone now? i've already admitted that I'm not always right - far from it. You all need to quit your arguing and admit that none of you are always right, either.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Sorry about the egg thing, I was being facetious :P

What sort of baptist? I understand there are several sub-denominations of baptist."

I realized just now that I never did answer your question. We say simply that we are "Bible-believing Baptists". I've not heard of a name/title other than that. Not that I know of, anyway. I may have, but my memory isn't so good anymore.

[Hazel]

Of course we're not always right, but that doesn't make what we're saying here wrong. Everything you're being told by us is the result of years of work by theologians and other researchers as well as our own investigations. We're not just making stuff up, we're telling you the truth.

And if you wish to be left alone, why do you keep posting? I obviously understand if you don't answer that, as to answer that would mean posting, and you may not want to, and may have taken yourself away from the conversation.

Can I just check, how old are you? I've been wondering, and won't assume that your avatar pic is you, or that its you now. I understand if you don't reply to this as well.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Of course we're not always right, but that doesn't make what we're saying here wrong. Everything you're being told by us is the result of years of work by theologians and other researchers as well ..."

Well, in answer to your question, Hazel, I am nearing 30 years of age. My picture was taken a few weeks ago. The one displayed, I mean.

[Hazel]

wow, I had that pic pegged as much younger.

[[deleted user]]

Yes. Usually, people think I'm in my early teens. Don't ask my why I look so young, though. I have no idea. I just blame it on my mom because I'm about as short as she is. LOL

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Of course we're not always right, but that doesn't make what we're saying here wrong. Everything you're being told by us is the result of years of work by theologians and other researchers as well ..."

And, actually, I keep posting because.........well, first of all, I like to talk. You've probably guessed that already. Also, every time I see a comment that I don't like/agree with or take offense at, I feel the need to respond.

If I knew how to stop your comments from popping up in my Hotmail inbox, I just might od it. Because I'm pretty sure you're all getting sick of my retorts, and, to be honest, SO AM I!

[Will]

Kendra wrote: "So, why are you all fighting to put the Bible down? I think that, if anything, the Bible has been put down and "unpopularized" by so many people over the centuries."

Lulz, The Bible is the best selling book of all time, don't give me this "unpopular" bullshit. And, like I said, popularity is not an indication of value.


Kendra wrote: "I'm just thankful that it has stayed the Word of God"

But apparently only one translation, according to you. And a translation that didn't come about until the 17th century and is far removed from the earlier manuscripts that historians and theologians have.

[Mary]

Jonathan wrote: But what I hate is when anyone says the Bible isn't true categorically. I think you'll find that most historians find that the Bible itself is a historical document whether they believe in the stories within it. There are men and women named in Paul's letters as eyewitnesses to events and people who link up with other historical documents of the time. And if you go into it you'll really see that the modern Bible was gathered together because those books in it currently were written closest to the date of events referred to. So please don't make ignorant comments like the Bible is all fiction. There are elements of historical fact whatever you believe."

Certainly some of the events are historically accurate. There existed a King Herod, Caesar, etc. However, please provide me with citations of historical documents other than the Bible that point to the existence of Noah, Adam, Eve, Seth, Cain, Abel, etc. You cannot do it. As I stated in a previous post, there is only ONE reference to Jesus outside of the Bible that is contemporaneous and that reference is suspect (Josephus). There are a whole slew of Roman documents that survive from that era, yet nothing corroborates the story of Christ and he lived under their reign. From a purely historical perspective totally separate from religion, the Bible if it were any other collection of essays would be considered a collection of oral histories, parables, and mythology rooted in earlier civilizations. What I think is pretty ironic is that many who believe in a literal Bible accept some geological evidence that there was mass flooding at one time. These same people would discount that those same geological principles would point to an earth that is over 4 billion years old rather than 6,000.

There are a lot of very good historical stories in the Bible. There may be some truth in many of them, but others are purely oral histories and mythologies handed down from generation to generation that were added to or subtracted from over the centuries. If the beginning of the world was 6000 years ago, how do we know how many days it took to create the world? Numerals were not invented until 1000 years after "creation." The first known instance of writing was developed by the Sumerians about 6000 BCE. The Legend of Gilgamesh was the Sumerian creation story and most historians believe that the story of Adam and Eve was a variation of Gilgamesh. The Jewish people did not come into existence in the annals of history until about 1500 BCE. So the Sumerian culture is 4500 years older than that of Judaism. From a purely logical standpoint, if a story is similar to an older, more established story it is easy to attribute the newer story to the more established one especially if it is in the same region of the world.

You can get irritated all you want, but there is NO WAY to prove through historical evidence that the events in the Bible actually took place from any other documentation outside of the Bible. You might be able to prove mass flooding, but you cannot prove that Noah existed Adam, or Abraham, etc. If you have the proof, show it to me.

[Mary]

I am only going to answer one of your accusations, Shaun. You said I believe the Bible only because of what the Bible says, but that isn't true in the least. I have heard/seen proof from many people. My father - one source - and quite a few others who have studied up on History, Science (Biology, microscopic, etc) and the Bible. "

Then provide us with that proof. Just saying it exists is not enough. You have to provide sources if you want anyone to take you claims seriously.

[Mary]

Kendra wrote: "Alec wrote: "Kendra wrote: "Will wrote: "Popularity isn't an indicator of value, just look at Twilight."

So, why are you all fighting to put the Bible down? I think that, if anything, the Bible..."

How do you know the Bible is the word of God? Did he tell you? Have you seen him? I have no problem with you believing the Bible is the Word of God, but you have to admit you have no admissible proof that this is so. The Jews have been here longer than the Christians and they do not believe Christ is God's son. Why are they wrong and you are right?

[Will]

Jonathan wrote: "I think you'll find that most historians find that the Bible itself is a historical document whether they believe in the stories within it."

False. There are a few parts in the Bible that are historically accurate, but so does most fiction. What is clear is that the Bible contains much which clearly isn't true/didn't happen. Like, say, Nazareth, which didn't exist until around 200AD and therefore when the bible talks of "Jesus of Nazareth," we can immediately see that parts have been added after the fact. Also, an independent archaeological expedition found ZERO evidence of the wandering in the desert for 40 years of the Israelites. Also, this group consisting of a couple million Jews (which, like I said, left no evidence) is described journeying from Rameses, which didn't exist, at least in name, until around 1212 BCE when Rameses II came to throne.

There are literally dozens of examples just based on archaeology alone that contradict parts of the Bible.

[Will]

Also note, historians can clearly demonstrate that the event described in the Bible where King Herod killed a bunch of babies never happened.

We also know that King Herod died in 4BC, which contradicts lots of things claims in the Gospels, such as the census, the time of birth of Jesus, etc.

[Hazel]

If I knew how to stop your comments from popping up in my Hotmail inbox

you see at the bottom of the last comment on the page, there is grey writing that says "you are following this conversation", well if you click on the edit next tot hat, you can tell it how you want to be notified. You can have it by email, by goodread notification, that appears at the top of your goodreads page, or no notifications at all.

[Will]

I have to wonder how old "nearing 30" is exactly.

[Mary]

I agree with Jonathan and Stephanie totally. Referring to the Bible as "fiction" is almost like referring to a dictionary as being full of fictional information, wouldn't you say?

No. That analogy fails on its face. A collection of words cannot be considered fiction because it does not tell a story. There is no plot, characters, etc. We know what certain words mean because they are in usage or there is historical evidence to prior usage. We have a very accurate timeline for the history of linguistics as pertains to dictionaries. The oldest dictionaries were cuneiform tablets in about 2500 BCE. They were discovered in Syria. The largest problem with these type dictionaries would be proper translation, but since cuneiform is no longer a living method of writing it does not matter to current word usage. Just a little history of English dictionaries: The first English dictionary was not written until the 16th century. Language evolves just like everything else. The usage of certain English words changed as the English immigrated to America and standardized English spelling did not occur until the 18th and 19th centuries (Samuel Johnson wrote the first comprehensive English Dictionary and Noah Webster wrote the first comprehensive American English dictionary). Since we have multitudes of historical records from this time as well as older historical documents showing the evolution of words over time, can point to the accuracy of word usage in the past and how they either died out or changed over time.

[Mary]

Let me get this straight. You are accusing all of those people who wrote the Books of the Bible - not to mention who lived through and took into account all of the happenings written about in the Bible - as liars? Do you have any idea what a huge number that is? "

Is J.K. Rowling a liar? Was Charles Dickens a liar? Just because I write down a story, it does not mean it is literally true. J.R.R. Tolkien wrote a book called the Silmarillion. It is a very detailed history of Middle Earth from the time of its creation until the beginning of the 4th Age. Included in this text is the "Lay of Luthien," the history of the silmarils, the beginning of western men, the story of Morgoth the first Dark Lord, etc. If there were no surviving contemporaneous texts 5000 years from now EXCEPT the Silmarillion and a long era of dark ages in which history did not survive, what would stop those people in 5000 years from believing that elves, orcs and hobbits were our ancestors?

[Will]

The Silmarillion analogy is actually pretty good, but would be nearly flawless if it included a few pieces of historical accuracy alongside all of the fiction.

[Mary]

Will wrote: "The Silmarillion analogy is actually pretty good, but would be nearly flawless if it included a few pieces of historical accuracy alongside all of the fiction."

So, if someone writes a fanfic of the Silmarillion and then includes some medieval history in there, we have our source document . I love Tolkien. I thought it was pretty cool that he decided that he needed to create an entire Anglo-Saxon mythology as there were only bits and pieces in existence. He was a linguist and made up languages (elvish, orcish) and then developed the histories to go with the language.

[Will]

Yeah, he was pretty spectacular. I'll probably never read the Silmarillion, though.

[Hazel]

I've read the Silmarillion, once you get past all the begats, and the stuff where everyone has 3 different names, and into actual stories, its pretty good. It picks up at about the story of Beren and Luthien.

[Mary]

Hazel wrote: "I've read the Silmarillion, once you get past all the begats, and the stuff where everyone has 3 different names, and into actual stories, its pretty good. It picks up at about the story of Beren a..."

I think the problem most people have with the Silmarillion is they expect it to be a story like The Hobbit or the LOTRs. It is a "history" book. The first time I read it through (I was probably about 14-15), it was kind of a chore. Then I went back and just studied the 3rd Age, the era that included the LOTRs. Then I went backwards to the 2nd and finally the beginning of Middle Earth. The individual stories are good no matter which age they are in.

[Shaun]

Weirdone wrote: "Nancy wrote: "Karen Amen and amen. We have an awesome loving God. But He will rain punishment down on all who don't believe in His name. It is so sad that there are so many that don't believe. ..."

So wrathful that he doesn't care how many innocents get hurt as long as he gets to drown the guilty.

Except when the guilty are catholic priests who fiddled with children, or the catholic priests who helped to cover that up. You'd think that having the people who represent you on earth doing these things would generate some serious wrath but curiously, nothing...

[Hazel]

especially when apparently, that bit in leviticus, about stoning homosexuals, (I've just heard this, so it may not be true, but its still something that is possible), is apparently a mistranslation, and the hebrew doesn't say "when a man lays with a man", it says "when a man lays with a young boy"... so, if this is true, then leviticus has gods instructions to stone the paedophile...

[[deleted user]]

Xox wrote: "Stephanie wrote: "Jonathan.. I agree completely and appreciate your plea for people to not refer to the Bible as fiction.. My own husband calls it the "best selling fiction book of all", it drives ..."

@Xox: They are NOT fictional, There is very real proof of many of them. If the Bible is indeed fictional, then why are scientists and archeologists and the like finding evidence of things having happened - as the Bible portrays them? Also, if we can't tell things from the past have happened, then we shouldn't be able to see the evidence of things that ar emore recent: such as indian camps and such.

What proof do you have concerning the Bible NOT being true?

[Mary]

"@Xox: They are NOT fictional, There is very real proof of many of them. If the Bible is indeed fictional, then why are scientists and archeologists and the like finding evidence of things having happened - as the Bible portrays them? Also, if we can't tell things from the past have happened, then we shouldn't be able to see the evidence of things that ar emore recent: such as indian camps and such"

In order to believe the Bible without error, one must show ALL the stories are true. If any of the stories are NOT true, then the Bible is at least relegated to historical fiction. Assertions that the Bible is true based on evidence means nothing if you do not provide the evidence. You have not provided it, therefore why should we believe your assertions. The burden of proof in a logical debate is on the person making the original assertion. You have asserted that the Bible is the Word of God without giving any proof other than the Bible. That is circular logic. I cannot use the same word to define a word. If I ask you to define the color red, you cannot define it by saying, "red is red." You have to use some other word like "crimson" to define it in order to avoid circular logic. Attempting to prove the Bible as true by using the Bible as your source document is circular reasoning. Show us your proof that the stories are true.

[Mary]

Also...proof that say a mass flood occurred proves only that a mass flood occurred. It does not in any way shape or form prove God caused the flood.

[[deleted user]]

Mary wrote: ""@Xox: They are NOT fictional, There is very real proof of many of them. If the Bible is indeed fictional, then why are scientists and archeologists and the like finding evidence of things having h..."

Uhh, Mary, you are all saying that the Bible is NOT true without giving logical facts to follow along with. I don't see where what you're all saying is more true than what I've been saying.

[[deleted user]]

Would someone please tell me how to get out of this conversation? I'm being attacked, and I want out !!

[Will]

Stop saying things that aren't true?

[Mary]

What proof do you have concerning the Bible NOT being true? "

You cannot prove a positive through a negative. I say that there is a planet in another solar system that that has built machines capable of entering alternate universes. Prove me wrong.

[[deleted user]]

@Mary, I can't do that. Not because I don't know but because no matter what I say, you will dispute it. So what's the point in trying?

@Will, and how exactly do you know they are not true?

[Mary]

Uhh, Mary, you are all saying that the Bible is NOT true without giving logical facts to follow along with. I don't see where what you're all saying is more true than what I've been saying.
"

There is a large difference between saying the Bible is not true and saying there is no evidence to prove it is true. This is just simple logic Kendra. I can point to several instances where the Bible is most definitely not scientifically true. The Bible states that the earth has four corners. Since we know the earth is round, it cannot also be square or rectangular. The Bible says the stars exist in a canopy over the earth. Also not true. The Bible says that light comes from the moon. Nope. I do not have to prove everything is wrong to smash the idea that the Bible is without error. I only have to show a few examples.

[Mary]

Kendra wrote: "@Mary, I can't do that. Not because I don't know but because no matter what I say, you will dispute it. So what's the point in trying?

@Will, and how exactly do you know they are not true?"

The point is you are making assertions without the knowledge or education to back them up. It makes your position in the debate very precarious. You do not know how to prove it, but you continually assert that it is true. The point is you "think" it is true (with nothing to back it up) and you "hope" it is true because that is what you have been taught and you are afraid of the consequences if you don't take everything literally. The fear of eternal damnation is a pretty powerful motivator. But that same fear keeps you from questioning and learning.

[Shaun]

Kendra wrote: "Would someone please tell me how to get out of this conversation? I'm being attacked, and I want out !!"

You are not being attacked. Your assertions are being attacked, but frankly, they deserve to be.

You cannot tell a group of educated people something they *know* not to be true through hours of research and study, and expect them to not respond. And respond they have, quietly and patiently, with no ad hominem attacks but with evidence and explanations of why what you believe to be true about the bible is, in *fact*, *demonstratably* not true.

Doing so makes you look foolish. Doing so in the name of Chritianity makes christianity look foolish.

Saint Augustine himself said (to paraphrase) that one of the worst things a Christian can do is to tell people things that they know not to be true using the bible as your evidence. Because, he says, if you are going to make Christians appear to be provably wrong on the simple, mere physical things that don't matter, then how can you expect them to believe anything Christianity says about the important spiritual things?

Your level of faith is impressive, and I am pleased on your behalf that it sustains and comforts you. But it doesn't give you a free pass to assert that false things are true without being called to prove your assertion.

ANYONE with an ability to reason for themselves who has actually studied the Bible instead of just letting other people tell them what it says can see that it makes statements that are quite simply not true. THUS anyone who claims that the bible is the inerrant word of God is immediately suspect.

[Hazel]

Kendra, first, message no 407, not sure if you noticed it, its where I explain how to stop yourself getting email notifications for this, or any other, thread.

2nd, historical proofs and real life happenings aside. If god is to be considered the infallible all knowing/powerful being that he is touted as, then whenever god makes a prophecy, then that prophecy has to come true. But this is demonstrably not so with the prophecies in the bible:

- Cain kills Abel, god punishes Cain by telling him that he is cursed to wander forever, and will never settle... yet by Genesis 4:16, Cain has settled, built a city, and marries and has a son.

- The fall of Tyre: God prophesises that Nebuchadnezzar would sack and destroy completely the city of Tyre, and that Tyre will never be rebuilt. However, archaeological and historical evidence shows that Nebuchadnezzar never conquered Tyre, that after 13 years of laying siege to the city, he withdrew his forces. 240 years later, Alexander the Great destroyed Tyre. The city was rebuilt, and still stands today as one of the longest lived permanent settlements with continual habitation.

- God prophecises that Nebuchadnezzar will destroy Eygpt. In his only attack on egypt, Nebuchadnezzar is defeated.

- God states that he will dry up the river Nile, but no geological evidence, or historical record shows such an event happening.

- the prophecy that the messiah will be born in Bethlehem is a mistranslation, the original prophecy is very clear that the messiah will be born to a tribe called Bethlehem, not in a town called Bethlehem

- the prophecy that a child will be born to a virgin: the original prophecy in Isiaih was in hebrew, and the hebrew word used in the prophecy was the word for "young woman". When the greeks translated this, they translated it to say virgin instead of young woman, they mistranslated the word. So, the prophecy that was apparently fulfilled was the mistranslation not the original prophecy. The original prophecy also stated that the child would be called Immanuel.

There are so many more of these failed prophecies, that I simply do not have the time or inclination to cover even a tenth of them.

Now, we know the prophecies are fallible as they were created and written by men, and attributed to a god they created to control the people.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "If I knew how to stop your comments from popping up in my Hotmail inbox

you see at the bottom of the last comment on the page, there is grey writing that says "you are following this conversation"..."

Thanks. I've got it now.

BTW> you all have "facts" on your side, but can you show me/tell me any indisputable proof ? Anything that has not been disproved by the Bible? Anything at all .

[Hazel]

If I cited books and papers, would you even bother to go out and read them? I suspect you would not.

As for the one about Cain, read genesis, you'll spot it yourself.

And what do you mean by "anything that has not been disproved by the bible?" At what point do you think any reasonable scholar actually considerd the bible a reliable source of information, the very fact that investigations have to eb done to show whether or not information in the bible is based in fact or not shows that the bible itself is not a reliable source, it has to eb verified, and the majority of work done does not verify what is in the bible.

And even if historians have shown that some of the events described in the bible actually happened, this doesn't give any credence to the assertion that there is a god. None of the supernatural elements of the bible are supported by any research or investigations carried out. What the historians have shown is that some of the human elements of the bible are based in fact.

[[deleted user]]

OK. Let me see. I have found that I need to do more studying than I have already. Although, with my TBI-memory, I can't guarantee I'll remember anything I read about. What I do remember was from before it even occurred.

But I will tell you all one thing: you are in my prayers. Daily.

[Hazel]

Kendra, please don't pray for me, I consider it condescending.

[Alec John]

Who are we to say what is right and what is wrong? I believe in God but also believe in many things that Bible condemns. Like homosexuality for example. If God was all loving he wouldn't send us to hell based on who we like. And alcoholics--it's a mistake. If you are born with that will, it's not your fault.

[[deleted user]]

Alec wrote: "Who are we to say what is right and what is wrong? I believe in God but also believe in many things that Bible condemns. Like homosexuality for example. If God was all loving he wouldn't send us to..."

God does not send us to Hell because of who we like, or any such thing. He condemns us because of our sin. Because of what we choose to do . We choose to do wrong. A person who drinks - do you think they choose to do so? Most of the time, it's their choice - alone . They aren't forcefed.