In order to really take a fair look at the Bible I had to first remove it from it’s glorified position within my mind. I think this is a critical step, we have to change our perspective before we can approach something without prejudice.
“So, really, you don’t have any way of knowing if the original intent nor message of the Bible is being given in the scriptures we have today. Nor do you have any way of knowing how close the Bible we have today even resembles the original. Yet you are willing to bet it’s accurate and true but only when it suits your purposes and only the interpretation(NIV) that you like the best. Have you studied the manuscripts? Do you know Hebrew? How do you know the NIV is the best interpretation?”
Wrong. I trust the evangelical interpretation because I’ve observed their methods and motives and the character of those people and also those today who also trust the evangelical interpretation. I’ve found no deception or dishonest motives.. I’ve observed honesty objectivity. So, no I don’t know Hebrew, and it’s not necessary to know it. I’ve applied objectivity and have made my decision.. it’s how it’s done in life most of the time. We can’t all be experts on everything.. we don’t live long enough and many don’t have the mental capability.
They’ve studied extensively the manuscripts we do have, and they’ve applied all aspects of research required, age of documents, sources, historical records etc to determine the accurate interpretation. And most key, they’ve applied the CONTEXT of ALL writings of the witnesses/ authors.. of the prophets and disciples who’ve given their lives to testify to their faith and words.
They are smart enough to not give credence to “witnesses” who make claims base solely on their own words alone.. people like Muhammed or Joseph Smith. They are smart enough to take into account the actions of these people.. not just the claims they make.
All of this is really not that hard to discern.. it just takes honest objectivity and common sense.
And God has given these abilities to all of you.
Kathy: I’d still like to know.. which is it? Is the archaeological find of dinning rooms in the temples evidence that supports Paul’s testimony? Or not?
Me: Supports Paul’s testimony about what? Idol sacrifices? Greek idolatry? Meat sacrificed to idols? That the Greeks ate meals in the temples?
“I wanted the truth, not a fantasy or something that made me feel good. To be frank, if I’d known the pain I was about to endure, I probably would not have been able to make that decision.
To make a long story short, I found that as I probed into my religious world view, pulling threads here and there, it fell apart like a cheap sweater. ” ~ Dave, Ex-minister.
Ruth, the earliest evidence that the Jews had a written language is dated to about 1000 BCE – before that, all was oral. Why, I must wonder of Kathy, would the Bible see the need to specifically state that a particular story came from oral tradition? Should each page say, “This page was written in ink”?
Wrong. I trust the evangelical interpretation because I’ve observed their methods and motives and the character of those people and also those today who also trust the evangelical interpretation. I’ve found no deception or dishonest motives.. I’ve observed honesty objectivity. So, no I don’t know Hebrew, and it’s not necessary to know it. I’ve applied objectivity and have made my decision.. it’s how it’s done in life most of the time. We can’t all be experts on everything.. we don’t live long enough and many don’t have the mental capability.
They’ve studied extensively the manuscripts we do have, and they’ve applied all aspects of research required, age of documents, sources, historical records etc to determine the accurate interpretation. And most key, they’ve applied the CONTEXT of ALL writings of the witnesses/ authors.. of the prophets and disciples who’ve given their lives to testify to their faith and words.
Are you suggesting that all the other translations of the Bible are by those who haven’t studied extensively the manuscripts we do have and applied all the aspects of research required? Those who translated the NLT, ESV, NAS, KJV, HCS, ASV, DBT, DRB, ERV, GWT, ISR, ISV, KJP, NET, OJB, WEB, WBT, WYC?
What about the Jewish versions? Are they not studied enough to provide an accurate translation of their own manuscripts?
You’re probably right, though. A whole bunch of smart people believe it so it must be true.
“Kathy: I’d still like to know.. which is it? Is the archaeological find of dinning rooms in the temples evidence that supports Paul’s testimony? Or not?
Me: Supports Paul’s testimony about what? Idol sacrifices? Greek idolatry? Meat sacrificed to idols? That the Greeks ate meals in the temples?”
The credibility of the NT and Paul.
And please don’t get confused again.. I’m NOT claiming it is “proof” of anything.. I’m claiming, just as the link suggests.. that it is archaeological evidence that goes towards or SUPPORTS the truth of the NT and Paul.
“Why, I must wonder of Kathy, would the Bible see the need to specifically state that a particular story came from oral tradition? Should each page say, “This page was written in ink”?”
Divine revelation Arch.. that claim is made throughout the Bible.
And what is your evidence that the Bible is based on “oral tradition”? This is NOT claimed in the actual scriptures. What do you base this claim on?? — Kathy
Unless someone was around to witness creation (as related in the bible), then it’s pretty obvious the scriptures are based on oral tradition.
They are smart enough to not give credence to “witnesses” who make claims base solely on their own words alone..
And, pray tell, what is the bible, if not claims made by “witnesses” in their own words?
And please don’t get confused again.. I’m NOT claiming it is “proof” of anything.. I’m claiming, just as the link suggests.. that it is archaeological evidence that goes towards or SUPPORTS the truth of the NT and Paul.
I’m not confused. I know what evidence is. It is evidence that Greeks, at least, ate meals in the temples. It is evidence that Paul knew that. It isn’t evidence that Paul’s testimony regarding anything else is credible.
“many don’t have the mental capability.” – we certainly know that applies to you, don’t we Kathy?
Sadly, knowing nothing of Hebrew, you have no way of knowing that in Genesis, the Bible’s god tells Abraham that his name is “El Shaddai,” and repeats in Exodus, to Moses, that his name is Yahweh, but that he was known to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as “El Shaddai.” All English versions of the Bible have changed that into “God Almighty,” which is incorrect, but you and your evangelical friends will never know that, will you?
“.Are you suggesting that all the other translations of the Bible are by those who haven’t studied extensively the manuscripts we do have and applied all the aspects of research required? Those who translated the NLT, ESV, NAS, KJV, HCS, ASV, DBT, DRB, ERV, GWT, ISR, ISV, KJP, NET, OJB, WEB, WBT, WYC? ”
Nope.. I’m sure they’ve studied too.. but all can’t be right, so again, we have to discern which is the most accurate, and I’ve given my reasons for my choice.
“Why, I must wonder of Kathy, would the Bible see the need to specifically state that a particular story came from oral tradition? Should each page say, “This page was written in ink”?”
Divine revelation Arch.. that claim is made throughout the Bible.
So Moses miraculously recorded the Pentateuch before he was even born? Or did God dictate it to him?
“And please don’t get confused again.. I’m NOT claiming it is “proof” of anything.. I’m claiming, just as the link suggests.. that it is archaeological evidence that goes towards or SUPPORTS the truth of the NT and Paul.”
True or false? Simple question, it requires a simple answer.
Nope.. I’m sure they’ve studied too.. but all can’t be right, so again, we have to discern which is the most accurate, and I’ve given my reasons for my choice.
If you would look at this discovery OBJECTIVELY, you would understand that the presence of dining rooms in the temples does not mean anything … except that people ate there. It doesn’t even indicate if they were Greeks (probably were, as Ruth suggests, but there is no objective evidence to confirm this).
“Obviously I missed something. What point were you attempting to make about the defendant walking out of the house?”
Have none of you ever watched tv in your lives? If so, I don’t know how you could have missed all the court room dramas.. or the most watched trial with OJ or Casey Anthony? I guess not, because if you had this all wouldn’t be so confusing for you.. if you had watched I imagine it had to be very confusing.
And what is your evidence that the Bible is based on “oral tradition”? This is NOT claimed in
the actual scriptures. What do you base this claim on??
“Let’s clear up a misconception here. I said much of it was based on oral tradition. If, indeed(and there is some doubt), a character named Moses wrote the ‘five books of Moses'(Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus ,Numbers, and Deuteronomy) much of what was written had to have been oral tradition. Moses was not alive at the creation, nor was he alive at the time of Noah, nor was he alive at the time of Abraham. Many of the previous generations are reported to have lived hundreds of years and had died many years before Moses was even born. Based on that alone I’d say that much of the Torah, at least, was based on oral tradition. Do you have any question on that? The Bible does lay out that it had to be based, at least partially, on oral tradition.”
So, basically what you are claiming is that a Book about God, the Creator of all, wouldn’t claim that the Creator of all could give revelation to His follower, a creation of His… because that’s just not possible.. it just can’t be done.. creating the universe is understandable, but not Divine inspiration.
Finding Truth 
In order to really take a fair look at the Bible I had to first remove it from it’s glorified position within my mind. I think this is a critical step, we have to change our perspective before we can approach something without prejudice.
Exactly this!
LikeLike
Ruth, cont..
“So, really, you don’t have any way of knowing if the original intent nor message of the Bible is being given in the scriptures we have today. Nor do you have any way of knowing how close the Bible we have today even resembles the original. Yet you are willing to bet it’s accurate and true but only when it suits your purposes and only the interpretation(NIV) that you like the best. Have you studied the manuscripts? Do you know Hebrew? How do you know the NIV is the best interpretation?”
Wrong. I trust the evangelical interpretation because I’ve observed their methods and motives and the character of those people and also those today who also trust the evangelical interpretation. I’ve found no deception or dishonest motives.. I’ve observed honesty objectivity. So, no I don’t know Hebrew, and it’s not necessary to know it. I’ve applied objectivity and have made my decision.. it’s how it’s done in life most of the time. We can’t all be experts on everything.. we don’t live long enough and many don’t have the mental capability.
They’ve studied extensively the manuscripts we do have, and they’ve applied all aspects of research required, age of documents, sources, historical records etc to determine the accurate interpretation. And most key, they’ve applied the CONTEXT of ALL writings of the witnesses/ authors.. of the prophets and disciples who’ve given their lives to testify to their faith and words.
They are smart enough to not give credence to “witnesses” who make claims base solely on their own words alone.. people like Muhammed or Joseph Smith. They are smart enough to take into account the actions of these people.. not just the claims they make.
All of this is really not that hard to discern.. it just takes honest objectivity and common sense.
And God has given these abilities to all of you.
LikeLike
**I messed up my wordpress code:
Kathy: I’d still like to know.. which is it? Is the archaeological find of dinning rooms in the temples evidence that supports Paul’s testimony? Or not?
Me: Supports Paul’s testimony about what? Idol sacrifices? Greek idolatry? Meat sacrificed to idols? That the Greeks ate meals in the temples?
LikeLike
LOL
LikeLike
Thanks Neuro and Ruth for your comments. It’s a very deep subject, but one that I think of now and again and enjoy learning about other people’s ideas
I actually have more to say on the subject, but I’ll put my comments off to another time, another place (maybe on my blog?).
LikeLike
More quotes from ex-Christians. http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/quotes.html
LikeLike
Ruth, the earliest evidence that the Jews had a written language is dated to about 1000 BCE – before that, all was oral. Why, I must wonder of Kathy, would the Bible see the need to specifically state that a particular story came from oral tradition? Should each page say, “This page was written in ink”?
LikeLike
Wrong. I trust the evangelical interpretation because I’ve observed their methods and motives and the character of those people and also those today who also trust the evangelical interpretation. I’ve found no deception or dishonest motives.. I’ve observed honesty objectivity. So, no I don’t know Hebrew, and it’s not necessary to know it. I’ve applied objectivity and have made my decision.. it’s how it’s done in life most of the time. We can’t all be experts on everything.. we don’t live long enough and many don’t have the mental capability.
They’ve studied extensively the manuscripts we do have, and they’ve applied all aspects of research required, age of documents, sources, historical records etc to determine the accurate interpretation. And most key, they’ve applied the CONTEXT of ALL writings of the witnesses/ authors.. of the prophets and disciples who’ve given their lives to testify to their faith and words.
Are you suggesting that all the other translations of the Bible are by those who haven’t studied extensively the manuscripts we do have and applied all the aspects of research required? Those who translated the NLT, ESV, NAS, KJV, HCS, ASV, DBT, DRB, ERV, GWT, ISR, ISV, KJP, NET, OJB, WEB, WBT, WYC?
What about the Jewish versions? Are they not studied enough to provide an accurate translation of their own manuscripts?
You’re probably right, though. A whole bunch of smart people believe it so it must be true.
LikeLike
Why, I must wonder of Kathy, would the Bible see the need to specifically state that a particular story came from oral tradition?
Yeah, I was just trying to get her to apply some logic, reasoning, and honest objectivity. 😉
LikeLike
“Kathy: I’d still like to know.. which is it? Is the archaeological find of dinning rooms in the temples evidence that supports Paul’s testimony? Or not?
Me: Supports Paul’s testimony about what? Idol sacrifices? Greek idolatry? Meat sacrificed to idols? That the Greeks ate meals in the temples?”
The credibility of the NT and Paul.
And please don’t get confused again.. I’m NOT claiming it is “proof” of anything.. I’m claiming, just as the link suggests.. that it is archaeological evidence that goes towards or SUPPORTS the truth of the NT and Paul.
LikeLike
“Why, I must wonder of Kathy, would the Bible see the need to specifically state that a particular story came from oral tradition? Should each page say, “This page was written in ink”?”
Divine revelation Arch.. that claim is made throughout the Bible.
LikeLike
And what is your evidence that the Bible is based on “oral tradition”? This is NOT claimed in the actual scriptures. What do you base this claim on?? — Kathy
Unless someone was around to witness creation (as related in the bible), then it’s pretty obvious the scriptures are based on oral tradition.
They are smart enough to not give credence to “witnesses” who make claims base solely on their own words alone..
And, pray tell, what is the bible, if not claims made by “witnesses” in their own words?
LikeLike
And please don’t get confused again.. I’m NOT claiming it is “proof” of anything.. I’m claiming, just as the link suggests.. that it is archaeological evidence that goes towards or SUPPORTS the truth of the NT and Paul.
I’m not confused. I know what evidence is. It is evidence that Greeks, at least, ate meals in the temples. It is evidence that Paul knew that. It isn’t evidence that Paul’s testimony regarding anything else is credible.
LikeLike
“many don’t have the mental capability.” – we certainly know that applies to you, don’t we Kathy?
Sadly, knowing nothing of Hebrew, you have no way of knowing that in Genesis, the Bible’s god tells Abraham that his name is “El Shaddai,” and repeats in Exodus, to Moses, that his name is Yahweh, but that he was known to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as “El Shaddai.” All English versions of the Bible have changed that into “God Almighty,” which is incorrect, but you and your evangelical friends will never know that, will you?
LikeLike
“.Are you suggesting that all the other translations of the Bible are by those who haven’t studied extensively the manuscripts we do have and applied all the aspects of research required? Those who translated the NLT, ESV, NAS, KJV, HCS, ASV, DBT, DRB, ERV, GWT, ISR, ISV, KJP, NET, OJB, WEB, WBT, WYC? ”
Nope.. I’m sure they’ve studied too.. but all can’t be right, so again, we have to discern which is the most accurate, and I’ve given my reasons for my choice.
LikeLike
“Why, I must wonder of Kathy, would the Bible see the need to specifically state that a particular story came from oral tradition? Should each page say, “This page was written in ink”?”
Divine revelation Arch.. that claim is made throughout the Bible.
So Moses miraculously recorded the Pentateuch before he was even born? Or did God dictate it to him?
LikeLike
Ruth,
“And please don’t get confused again.. I’m NOT claiming it is “proof” of anything.. I’m claiming, just as the link suggests.. that it is archaeological evidence that goes towards or SUPPORTS the truth of the NT and Paul.”
True or false? Simple question, it requires a simple answer.
LikeLike
Nope.. I’m sure they’ve studied too.. but all can’t be right, so again, we have to discern which is the most accurate, and I’ve given my reasons for my choice.
I see.
LikeLike
True or false? Simple question, it requires a simple answer.
False.
Next.
LikeLike
kathy, you’re asking if genealogical evidence of dining rooms in greek temples is evidence that the entire bible is true and valid?
is the discovery of troy evidence that the Iliad is historically true in all aspects?
if that is what you’re asking, your question screams of dishonesty or stupidity.
LikeLike
FALSE, Kathy.
If you would look at this discovery OBJECTIVELY, you would understand that the presence of dining rooms in the temples does not mean anything … except that people ate there. It doesn’t even indicate if they were Greeks (probably were, as Ruth suggests, but there is no objective evidence to confirm this).
LikeLike
This belief of yours that the archaeological discovery verifies something about Paul is nothing but your personal bias showing.
LikeLike
“Divine revelation Arch.. that claim is made throughout the Bible.” – Ahh, more magic – telepathy this time!
LikeLike
Ruth,
“Obviously I missed something. What point were you attempting to make about the defendant walking out of the house?”
Have none of you ever watched tv in your lives? If so, I don’t know how you could have missed all the court room dramas.. or the most watched trial with OJ or Casey Anthony? I guess not, because if you had this all wouldn’t be so confusing for you.. if you had watched I imagine it had to be very confusing.
And what is your evidence that the Bible is based on “oral tradition”? This is NOT claimed in
the actual scriptures. What do you base this claim on??
“Let’s clear up a misconception here. I said much of it was based on oral tradition. If, indeed(and there is some doubt), a character named Moses wrote the ‘five books of Moses'(Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus ,Numbers, and Deuteronomy) much of what was written had to have been oral tradition. Moses was not alive at the creation, nor was he alive at the time of Noah, nor was he alive at the time of Abraham. Many of the previous generations are reported to have lived hundreds of years and had died many years before Moses was even born. Based on that alone I’d say that much of the Torah, at least, was based on oral tradition. Do you have any question on that? The Bible does lay out that it had to be based, at least partially, on oral tradition.”
So, basically what you are claiming is that a Book about God, the Creator of all, wouldn’t claim that the Creator of all could give revelation to His follower, a creation of His… because that’s just not possible.. it just can’t be done.. creating the universe is understandable, but not Divine inspiration.
LikeLike
ugh, archaeological – not genealogical…
so sorry. my comments tend to reek of stupidity.
LikeLike