Biblical question and problems

[Inspector Jihad]

Originally posted by: mugs
They had additional children, Seth was one. I believe they had daughters as well. They must have.

I didn't read your Noah link, just skimmed it... but it doesn't say that the Biblical version was plagiarized, it could have been the other way around. Or it could have been two independent accounts of the same event.

the epic of gilgamesh is much much older than the bible.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
The bible has been translated many times in many languages... and the translations are not always work perfectly. Almost any bi-lingual person would admit that there are some things that just get lost in the translation.

Indeed, the Bible has been translated into hundreds, perhaps thousands of different languages. You are right, no translation is perfect. Many times it is difficult to explain certain elements in another language, and so something may be lost in the translation. But it would be a stretch to imply that because of that we are missing serious theological doctrines because we all don't read Greek.

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
It was changed to suit man. King James is a good example. Also the role of women in the church has changed to suit man. Women were held in high reguard in the church in biblical times, but that was changed. Then there is all the differing versions of the bible and the different religious sects. They all believe that have the ONLY truth, yet they all seem to be different. That is human nature.

The Bible has not been changed to suit man, and where is your evidence to suggest that the role of women has changed? Paul wrote that women should not hold positions of authority over men in the church. You can't say that we just made a translation mistake, when it is obvious that is not the case.

The Catholic Bible's New Testmanent is identical to the Protestant New Testament. The Catholic Bible include the Apocrypha in the Old Testament, and is considered "lesser doctrine. So these two "versions" of the Bible are merely the same Bible, with some additional books considered to be doctrine by Catholics.

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
My mention of man's falibility is my opinion. I feel that no matter how devine God's inspirations were... man is imperfect and cannot fully comprehend... the closest analogy I can find is water and a glass... no matter how clean and pure that water is, if the glass is tainted, the water will not be as pure and clean as intended. I think that thru man's limited understanding, the glory of all is not fully enhanced.

I would agree. Our knowledge is limited, and distorted by our fallible perspectice.

Using your analogy, if the glass is tainted, our view is distorted, but the water is still pure. The water is still pure regardless of how unable we are to see it.

I agree with you in principle here. But Paul said it better: "now we see in a mirror, dimly."

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
You are correct, the bible is believed to be the foundation of salvation. But it should not be the only thing. And some common sense should apply.

Jesus Christ is God who died for us, and He is the only one we can count on for salvation. Our only knowledge of Jesus' teachings come from the Bible, so the promise of salvation rests on the authenticity of the Bible. If you can't trust the Bible as being a reliable conveyer of truth, you can't be sure of your salvation.

It is my opinion, based on studying and experience, that the Bible can indeed be trusted.

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Jesus Christ is God who died for us, and He is the only one we can count on for salvation. Our only knowledge of Jesus' teachings come from the Bible, so the promise of salvation rests on the authenticity of the Bible. If you can't trust the Bible as being a reliable conveyer of truth, you can't be sure of your salvation.

It is my opinion, based on studying and experience, that the Bible can indeed be trusted.

Jesus is God is where you lose me. I do not believe that, will never believe that.

I am happy that you trust in your bible. I am not going to question your experience, your studies, nor your walk. I woud never do that to anyone, just as I would not expect someone to do that to me. Bottom line for me is that there are loads of things about the bible and about religion in general that are open to questions and interpretations...

those that want to believe will find a way to make it fit and those that do not want to believe will pick out every little thing so they could throw it all away.

On a personal note... I do indeed trust the bible, but I also will apply some common sense to the mixture rather than go on blind faith.

 

[thehstrybean]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Jesus Christ is God who died for us, and He is the only one we can count on for salvation. Our only knowledge of Jesus' teachings come from the Bible, so the promise of salvation rests on the authenticity of the Bible. If you can't trust the Bible as being a reliable conveyer of truth, you can't be sure of your salvation.

It is my opinion, based on studying and experience, that the Bible can indeed be trusted.

Jesus is God is where you lose me. I do not believe that, will never believe that.

I am happy that you trust in your bible. I am not going to question your experience, your studies, nor your walk. I woud never do that to anyone, just as I would not expect someone to do that to me. Bottom line for me is that there are loads of things about the bible and about religion in general that are open to questions and interpretations...

those that want to believe will find a way to make it fit and those that do not want to believe will pick out every little thing so they could throw it all away.

On a personal note... I do indeed trust the bible, but I also will apply some common sense to the mixture rather than go on blind faith.

So kinda agnostic? That's cool. Jesus being son and God is way too hard for man to understand. The Trinity is what turns some people off to Christianity. First agnostic post that has been non-bashing and reasonable. Thanks!