Is the bible still relevant today?

[BunnyKillBot]

A biblical scholar / historian right at the start says that very little of the Bible is actually factual. I'm still watching the rest.

O rly?

Does that include the sections of the bible that are poetic? Do any of Shakespeare plays contain actual fact? Is the moral message of the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet irrelevant because its not based on a true story? Is Shawshank Redemption, the highest ranking film on imdb, irrelevant today, because its not based on a true story and doesn't contain much actual fact?

Trolololololo

The only issue of any relevance concerns the historical chronology sections which are muddied due to church attitudes towards the Bible as being the absolute word of God.

For centuries, biblical scholars and historians were unable to study what actually happened because to disagree with the biblical version was heresy. Over time, any accounts that deviate from the biblical version would have been erased.

But then again, such is the nature of ALL history. The winner gets to write the history book. If the Nazi's had conquered the world, would we now consider them all to be scum of the earth? Or would we be speaking German and hailing mein fuerer?

 

[bhavv]

really, then he's a bit misguided. There are loads of historical facts in the bible. Many of which we wouldn't of known about without it. Just because they are miracles of god or explained in a non science way. Does not mean they didn't happen. For this reason alone the bible is still relevant.

Its a She, didnt you even watch it?

O rly?

Does that include the sections of the bible that are poetic? Do any of Shakespeare plays contain actual fact? Is the moral message of the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet irrelevant because its not based on a true story? Is Shawshank Redemption, the highest ranking film on imdb, irrelevant today, because its not based on a true story and doesn't contain much actual fact?

Trolololololo

The only issue of any relevance concerns the historical chronology sections which are muddied due to church attitudes towards the Bible as being the absolute word of God.

This is EXACTLY what she discusses in the video, so why dont you simply watch it before posting troll comments in my thread?

 

[RDM]

If considering that the Biblical belief of 'Jesus is the son of God' is meant to be literal, then God would have to be the Biological father of Jesus. If Jesus's parental DNA is that attributable to a human male, which it would have to be for Jesus to be a valid member of the human species, then this leads to either one of two conclusions, EITHER that:

A) God was a human male and Jesus's father, or ...
B) God was not the father of Jesus.

I actually firmly believe in B by the way, and that the real Jesus was a normal person, NOT born to a virgin mother, and that biblical teachings of God as his father were not literal, but metaphorical.

You seem to be missing "C) God is an all powerful supernatural being and so therefore doesn't have to follow the normal rules." Which seems pretty obvious to anyone with even a passing knowledge of Christian myth. It isn't like I would expect Heracles, Achilles or Theseus to have normal DNA either.

 

[Glaucus]

Its a She, didnt you even watch it?

No, I was responding to one of the points you stated. Why would I need to watch it to do that.

 

[bhavv]

You seem to be missing "C) God is an all powerful supernatural being and so therefore doesn't have to follow the normal rules." Which seems pretty obvious to anyone with even a passing knowledge of Christian myth. It isn't like I would expect Heracles, Achilles or Theseus to have normal DNA either.

Under literal or rational scrutiny, this wouldnt be a third option.

No, I was responding to one of the points you stated. Why would I need to watch it to do that.

There are hardly any historical facts in the Bible. Several of the Christian speakers in the debate actually agree that the Bible is not a historically accurate or factual text, as do the majority of academic historians who study the Bible today.

 

[RDM]

Under literal or rational scrutiny, this wouldnt be a third option.

Why not? Considering the biblical description of God is as a non-physical supernatural all powerful being?

 

[Rainmaker]

If considering that the Biblical belief of 'Jesus is the son of God' is meant to be literal, then God would have to be the Biological father of Jesus.

Your argument falls down and fails right there, making the rest of it moot. Jesus is the son of God in Spirit - as the bible tells us we all are. Therefore Jesus was a human being animated by the Spirit of God. That doesn't mean God has human form, or any DNA. If you're going to criticise something at least do it on its own grounds not by using irrelevant information or strawmen.

Remember I'm not Christian, so I'm not 'defending' anything. Merely pointing out that if you're going to decry something you should at least understand it first. Your posts illustrate that you clearly do not.

If Jesus's parental DNA is that attributable to a human male, which it would have to be for Jesus to be a valid member of the human species, then this leads to either one of two conclusions, EITHER that:

A) God was a human male and Jesus's father, or ...
B) God was not the father of Jesus.

I actually firmly believe in B by the way, and that the real Jesus was a normal person, NOT born to a virgin mother, and that biblical teachings of God as his father were not literal, but metaphorical.

I didnt state that Jesus would have his parental DNA from God. Its absolutely not possible for a valid human to have either parental or maternal DNA from anything other than a human, so if Jesus was a human, he cannot have been the son of God, UNLESS we assume that God was also a human.

Or (C) that the Spirit of Jesus was a manifestation of God, and that the physical body he inhabited was by-the-by.

 

[bhavv]

Why not? Considering the biblical description of God is as a non-physical supernatural all powerful being?

Because rational thinking does not consider mythological beliefs.

 

[RDM]

Because rational thinking does not consider mythological beliefs.

In that case why are you asking such a stupid question? If you do not allow the supernatural in a discussion around God then you may as well not have a discussion around God.

 

[Rainmaker]

Because rational thinking does not consider mythological beliefs.

But the very thought experiment posed by you relies on the existence of Jesus the son of God (rather than simply historical Jesus), and his return to the Earth. So I'm not sure what your point is?

You can't pose a hypothetical question about a supernatural event, and then say 'Oh sorry, you can't explain this supernatural event supernaturally - it's not logical'. Wut?

EDIT: Beaten by seconds by RDM. Again. I'll just sit in the corner like the ginger stepchild that I am.

 

[Glaucus]

In that case why are you asking such a stupid question? If you do not allow the supernatural in a discussion around God then you may as well not have a discussion around God.

Because for some strange reason, people need to destroy other people opinions, without anything to discus.

 

[bhavv]

In that case why are you asking such a stupid question? If you do not allow the supernatural in a discussion around God then you may as well not have a discussion around God.

It wasnt my question, it was asked by the host of the talk show and I simply thought it was a good one so I quoted it.

 

[Rainmaker]

It wasnt my question, it was asked by the host of the talk show and I simply thought it was a good one.

But as soon as people answer it you take offence and change the grounds of the discussion to one which renders his 'good question' entirely moot.

 

[bhavv]

But as soon as people answer it you take offence and change the grounds of the discussion to one which renders his 'good question' entirely moot.

Sorry, I should have mentioned that I think its a good question under the biblical belief that God is the father of Jesus, and under the definition of father as a biological male parent of the same species of the offspring.

of course there are many other definitions for 'father', which I already addressed in my answer to the question.

 

[Vonhelmet]

So, bhavv, your point is that if you arbitrarily make the rules under which God must operate, then Jesus can't be the son of God, right?

Well, it's pretty hard to argue with that, so I guess you win. Well done.

 

[Rainmaker]

Sorry, I should have mentioned that I think its a good question under the biblical belief that God is the father of Jesus, and under the definition of father as a biological male parent of the same species of the offspring.

But since that isn't the biblical (or Christian) definition then your entire premise was wrong. /thread... ?

According to the bible God is Jesus' (and our) Heavenly father not biological father. So once again your point is moot. I refer you to my reply in post 27.

 

[bhavv]

So, bhavv, your point is that if you arbitrarily make the rules under which God must operate, then Jesus can't be the son of God, right?

Well, it's pretty hard to argue with that, so I guess you win. Well done.

Those rules being proven scientific rules for how organic human life (in fact all mammalian life) is made.

According to the bible God is Jesus' (and our) Heavenly father not biological father. So once again your point is moot. I refer you to my reply in post 27.

So the biblical God is a human, hence my point is valid.

 

[Rainmaker]

Those rules being proven scientific rules for how organic human life is made.

/facepalm (well you did insist on posting in GD).

 

[bhavv]

/facepalm (well you did insist on posting in GD).

Just so you cant tell people what they can and cannot add to the discussion, and report posts that you dont like.

I have no problem with any post that people want to make in this thread, thats why I want it in GD.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Those rules being proven scientific rules for how organic human life is made.



So the biblical God is a human, hence my point is valid.

If God is a supernatural being, then I think he can make humans any way he likes.

Your argument hinges on your being able to limit what God can do. That's a fairly untenable position.