A case of the pot calling the kettle black?

A very old pot!

Most Anabaptists are conscientious objectors. CO's during world war two reformed the care of mental patients, built roads in British Columbia, etc. Many went to prison. Some took noncombatant roles, such as medics. In the 16th century, the Anabaptist movement was nearly extinguished, by Christians killing them. The Mennnonite who visited me in September spent months in prison for transporting abused political asylum seekers to the judge. The Christian Peacemaker Teams were founded as the result of a speech given at a Mennonite World Conferece. An American Quaker, Tom Fox, was killed by terrorists in Iraq on a CPT peacemaking mission. Others of us risked our lives in Haiti, Chiapas. the West Bank, Colombia, etc. We believe in making peace even if it kills us.

Well, I must confess that I have not read all the posts and some of the following points may have been raised already, critised already, disproved already, but here is my take on the subject.

1) I have some sort of belief in 'something out there' because I do not have the mental capacity of Stephen Hawking to understand the multiple universes, floating on membranes, collapsing and being reborn in 'Big Bang' events occuring in different dimensions (up to ten I think) that current physicists talk about. To me there must have been something to trigger the birth of the universe.

I couldn't go beyond your first point, Humph, because I assume it to be setting up the basis for your following points. Specifically, 'To me there must have been something to trigger the birth of the universe.'

Whether you subscibe to the BB theory (which itself could be cyclical) or any other explanation, you assume 'the birth of the universe'. Therefor, you have rejected even the possibility of an eternal universe. Why? Merely because we cannot come to grips with such a notion? In any event, why does this lead you to the view that 'there must have been something'? Again, is it because you want to rationalise something that, perhaps, is currently beyond our ability to understand?

So theists created a creator to avoid the mind strain. And this creator was created in times far more simple than ours. (And later of course, along came the person Jesus, together with a plethora of other would-be sons of the creator.)

I respect everyone's right to a view - I am merely providing another perspective.

E: I forgot to mention that 'if there must have been something', who/what created the 'something'... recurring...

If you accept that a god is eternal, why can you not accept that the universe is eternal (which, of course, could make a god redundant)?

There's a show on telly called Stargate, with false gods (but at least they made an appearance.)

I attended a talk recently given by a scientist with doctorates in several disciplines and a fellow Christian believer, who's talk was entitled 'How science proves creation'. He proved there was a creation of the universe and concluded that the only 'leap of faith' is believing in a creator. He left that point up to the audience. It's up to the individual to believe in a creator God - or otherwise.

Yes, of course it is - that's why I was careful to add the bit about another perspective. All the same, I would be interested to know how this learned man 'proved' the creation of the universe (bearing in mind the possibility of cycles). Is the text of his talk readily available?

I'm actually going to contact him with regard to posting it on a web-site in the new year.

I look forward to the URL - thanks.

I'm actually going to contact him with regard to posting it on a web-site in the new year.

"Tis New Year"

Have not seen him yet what being just back from Thailand, watch this space...

I read through this thread finally and found there wasn't a lot of discussion on the original topic. Changes veered off into comparative religion quickly, as these discussions usually do.

It seems to me there are two basic aspects to the question of veracity. First, are the writings contained in the Bible actually the word of God or of holy men inspired/appointed by God? Second, if you answer in the affirmative to the first question, are the contents true or was this God and/or his holy representatives either mistaken or, worse, intentionally trying to mislead mankind, ie, evil? Or possibly well-intentioned but incompetent?

One rarely hears any entertainment of the second question, but the Greek philosopher Epicurus allegedly did leave behind what I've always thought is a commentary worth considering, the so-called 'Riddle of Epicurus' (whether Epicurus actually wrote this or not, it's a valid conundrum in itself).

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Iinteresting, but even as an atheist I have to acknowledge that the only line that gets within shouting distance of validity is the last one.

He is both able and willing and will in due course.

I read through this thread finally and found there wasn't a lot of discussion on the original topic. Changes veered off into comparative religion quickly, as these discussions usually do.

It seems to me there are two basic aspects to the question of veracity. First, are the writings contained in the Bible actually the word of God or of holy men inspired/appointed by God? Second, if you answer in the affirmative to the first question, are the contents true or was this God and/or his holy representatives either mistaken or, worse, intentionally trying to mislead mankind, ie, evil? Or possibly well-intentioned but incompetent?

One rarely hears any entertainment of the second question, but the Greek philosopher Epicurus allegedly did leave behind what I've always thought is a commentary worth considering, the so-called 'Riddle of Epicurus' (whether Epicurus actually wrote this or not, it's a valid conundrum in itself).

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Sabaijai, that's what they mean when they say God moves in 'mysterious ways.' A thought-stopper for logic.

I read through this thread finally and found there wasn't a lot of discussion on the original topic. Changes veered off into comparative religion quickly, as these discussions usually do.

It seems to me there are two basic aspects to the question of veracity. First, are the writings contained in the Bible actually the word of God or of holy men inspired/appointed by God? Second, if you answer in the affirmative to the first question, are the contents true or was this God and/or his holy representatives either mistaken or, worse, intentionally trying to mislead mankind, ie, evil? Or possibly well-intentioned but incompetent?

One rarely hears any entertainment of the second question, but the Greek philosopher Epicurus allegedly did leave behind what I've always thought is a commentary worth considering, the so-called 'Riddle of Epicurus' (whether Epicurus actually wrote this or not, it's a valid conundrum in itself).

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Sabaijai, that's what they mean when they say God moves in 'mysterious ways.' A thought-stopper for logic.

Of course. On the other hand, can you have a 'A Serious Discussion, The veracity of Holy scripture' without logic? No you can't. You can have a mystical, whimsical, etc discussion but not a 'serious' discussion. Just my opinion, YMMV.

What about the 'soundness' element of logic?

E: Clarification

To get back (sort of) to the original question, I think it is very easy to make conenctions after-the-fact to any prophesy and claim accuracy. People do this continually--just look at the interpretations of the works of Nostradamus.  So to use Israel as "proof" of the validity of the Bible is merely grasping as personal justification, in my opinion.

The second point is that the Bible we know today, and I am speaking of the King James version, is a far cry from what was originally the Bible.  Total books were cut, most by the efforts of Constantine and the offshoots of the Council of Nicaea, but other books were eliminated as history progressed.  Some books were eliminated because they did not go along with political realities, either within the church(s) or within the secular government. Some were judged repetitive. Some were judge farfetched. For example, The First Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ was removed because the claims in it seemed unrealistic, for example, when he stretched a throne Joseph had made too small (but how is that much different than the feeding of the masses?).

Not only were books chopped, but words were changed to fit then modern ideas of right and wrong. So what we have now is not only an abridged version of what early Christians considered as the "Bible," but the meanings have both inadvertently and purposely been changed.

I do not write this to throw out the veracity of the work. But to pull inuendos and obscure meanings from modern Bibilical text and try to match them with historical facts in order to prove the veracity of the writings is really grasping at straws, in my humble opinion.

He is both able and willing and will in due course.

If either the men writing the words or the deity inspiring the words is untruthful, whether willfully or unknowingly, that conclusion is untenable.

I read through this thread finally and found there wasn't a lot of discussion on the original topic. Changes veered off into comparative religion quickly, as these discussions usually do.

It seems to me there are two basic aspects to the question of veracity. First, are the writings contained in the Bible actually the word of God or of holy men inspired/appointed by God? Second, if you answer in the affirmative to the first question, are the contents true or was this God and/or his holy representatives either mistaken or, worse, intentionally trying to mislead mankind, ie, evil? Or possibly well-intentioned but incompetent?

One rarely hears any entertainment of the second question, but the Greek philosopher Epicurus allegedly did leave behind what I've always thought is a commentary worth considering, the so-called 'Riddle of Epicurus' (whether Epicurus actually wrote this or not, it's a valid conundrum in itself).

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Veering off again, but here's yet another possibility:

What if there is no "evil"? What if the things we would classify as evil, just happen anyway?

Generally (to be safe) words - 'evil' - have to be capable of conveying a meaning within standard comprehensible bounds, otherwise communication is lost. I think that there is a common understanding of the meaning 'evil' and that we can't attach some higher or more obscure sense to that word. On that basis, there is evil that we witness and evil that we understand to occur. If, however (as I suspect is the case) you are posing a question as to the nature of evil - whether it be a creature or an independent incident/state of mind/character trait, etc - then for the former, you may find it convenient to assume the existence of a greater being. I find that my atheism provides me with answers quite readily - no need to be concerned with 'mysterious ways' and the like.

The second point is that the Bible we know today, and I am speaking of the King James version, is a far cry from what was originally the Bible.  Total books were cut, most by the efforts of Constantine and the offshoots of the Council of Nicaea, but other books were eliminated as history progressed.  Some books were eliminated because they did not go along with political realities, either within the church(s) or within the secular government. Some were judged repetitive. Some were judge farfetched. For example, The First Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ was removed because the claims in it seemed unrealistic, for example, when he stretched a throne Joseph had made too small (but how is that much different than the feeding of the masses?).

Not only were books chopped, but words were changed to fit then modern ideas of right and wrong. So what we have now is not only an abridged version of what early Christians considered as the "Bible," but the meanings have both inadvertently and purposely been changed.

I do not write this to throw out the veracity of the work. But to pull inuendos and obscure meanings from modern Bibilical text and try to match them with historical facts in order to prove the veracity of the writings is really grasping at straws, in my humble opinion.

Sorry bonobo, this is simply not true! The bible we have today is amazingly accurate to the original. Books were not removed, it is true to say that some were not included, but this is a different point. The first gospel of the infancy of Jesus was not removed, just not included. As for stretching a throne and your comparison with feeding the multitude, Jesus never did anything to 'show off' (stretching a throne) he fed the multitude, raised the dead, healed the sick, cleansed lepers, gave sight and hearing to the blind and deaf, etc, and never for his own personal benefit. He was showing what God's kingdom will be like.

Words were not changed nor added nor deleted. If it were the case that the church leaders were to be condemned by the bible they would have to throw out the entire thing. There is not one church organisation that I know of that lives it! They are all contemned by the bible.

Another thing on this books being added or taken away. These all refer to new testament additions and we know from scripture itself that the OT was enough to provide salvation, the NT simply adds to, not detracts from the original message. And no matter what you add or take away the OT remains intact. (If you are interested in perusing this fact - 2 Tim 3.15-17, Luke 24.27, Acts 17.2-3, Acts 18.28, Rom 1.1-6 1 Cor 15.1-4 all written of the OT before the NT was in existence.)

He is both able and willing and will in due course.

If either the men writing the words or the deity inspiring the words is untruthful, whether willfully or unknowingly, that conclusion is untenable.

I have been thinking about this one sabaijai. If you believe, as I do, that God is an omnipotent being and that the writers were inspired by his power my conclusion is perfectly tenable.

The second point is that the Bible we know today, and I am speaking of the King James version, is a far cry from what was originally the Bible.  Total books were cut, most by the efforts of Constantine and the offshoots of the Council of Nicaea, but other books were eliminated as history progressed.  Some books were eliminated because they did not go along with political realities, either within the church(s) or within the secular government. Some were judged repetitive. Some were judge farfetched. For example, The First Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ was removed because the claims in it seemed unrealistic, for example, when he stretched a throne Joseph had made too small (but how is that much different than the feeding of the masses?).

Not only were books chopped, but words were changed to fit then modern ideas of right and wrong. So what we have now is not only an abridged version of what early Christians considered as the "Bible," but the meanings have both inadvertently and purposely been changed.

I do not write this to throw out the veracity of the work. But to pull inuendos and obscure meanings from modern Bibilical text and try to match them with historical facts in order to prove the veracity of the writings is really grasping at straws, in my humble opinion.

Sorry bonobo, this is simply not true! The bible we have today is amazingly accurate to the original. Books were not removed, it is true to say that some were not included, but this is a different point. The first gospel of the infancy of Jesus was not removed, just not included. As for stretching a throne and your comparison with feeding the multitude, Jesus never did anything to 'show off' (stretching a throne) he fed the multitude, raised the dead, healed the sick, cleansed lepers, gave sight and hearing to the blind and deaf, etc, and never for his own personal benefit. He was showing what God's kingdom will be like.

Words were not changed nor added nor deleted. If it were the case that the church leaders were to be condemned by the bible they would have to throw out the entire thing. There is not one church organisation that I know of that lives it! They are all contemned by the bible.

Another thing on this books being added or taken away. These all refer to new testament additions and we know from scripture itself that the OT was enough to provide salvation, the NT simply adds to, not detracts from the original message. And no matter what you add or take away the OT remains intact. (If you are interested in perusing this fact - 2 Tim 3.15-17, Luke 24.27, Acts 17.2-3, Acts 18.28, Rom 1.1-6 1 Cor 15.1-4 all written of the OT before the NT was in existence.)

Sorry, it is actually what you are saying that is not true. And whether "removed" or "not included" is a matter of semantics.

I am not going to get into a debate about religion or if the Bible is "true" or not. That is a matter of personal faith. But historically speaking, there were books which were used by early Christians which did not make it into Constantine's version of the Bible, and then at least 14 books were removed for the King James Version.  The Old Testiment itself was not codified until about 200 years before Christ, and even there, there have been books "not included."

ANd as far asThe First Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ, there is also a passage about him being put on the back of a donkey which was really a man bewitched, and when Christ was placed on him, the donkey reverted back into the man. So it is not all about selfish things, and this book was removed, deleted, not included, whatever, for what most scholars think are the hard-to-believe claims written therein.

And you claim that words were never changed?  That is pretty much historically proven that they have been changed, either by design or in simple translation errors.  One I remember off-hand was what I was told in confirmation class by one of our pastors who was also a Greek scholar. The "fish" with which Jesus fed the masses was, according to the ancient Greek text, "fish weed," so it was probably seaweed.  THat does not change the main points of the event, but it goes to show that yes, words have been changed over the years.

My point is that to dive deep and try to find substance in obscure interpretations from something which has evolved over the last 2,000 years is pretty silly.  You wrote something about the forces conquering Israel coming on wings of eagles, or words to that effect. Well, first, who knows what was the exact meaning of the original words? Second, because someone or some army had a standard of arms or a banner with an eagle, that does not mean it is filling the prophecy.  

The Bible is a matter of faith. Yes, there are certain things in it which are validated in other historical documents.  And I understand the desire to have proof that everything from one's beliefs is true.  But that desire also leads us to the Shroud of Turin and the tomb of Jesus' brother.

bonobo, it's obvious we are not going to agree on this but several of the things you quote are simply untrue. It is not simply semantics to say books were not included or removed. I could write a gospel called the 'gospel according to suegha' this wouldn't make it scripture even if some christians thought it so.

It is not true to say at least 14 books were removed from the KJV!

Regarding your story from the infancy of Jesus, this in itself proves it's not true, it would do nothing and add nothing of worth to the gospel message.

I have the Greek versions of the NT and can find no reference to 'fishweed' either in the English or the Greek.

I wrote nothing about 'the forces conquering Israel coming on wings of eagles'.

One thing you wrote I do agree with - 'The bible is a matter of faith'. I have studied the Bible for 30 years I read and study every day, I speak on bible subjects and have done for 20 years in the UK and Ireland as well as speaking in Frace and Switzerland. I do however, have to add, I have no idea what you are alluding to when you mention the Turin Shroud and the tomb of Jesus brother!

Suegha,

I absolutely mean no disrespect in my posts here.  I admire your fervent faith and respect that. All my posts point back to your origianl query and my feeling that it is silly to try and make tenuous connenctions to "prove" the veracity of the Bible, especially when the Bible has been a living, evolving piece of work.

I will address some of what you wrote below, but once again, none of this implies disrespect. I had to do a little research so as not to be relying strictly from memory.

bonobo, it's obvious we are not going to agree on this but several of the things you quote are simply untrue. It is not simply semantics to say books were not included or removed. I could write a gospel called the 'gospel according to suegha' this wouldn't make it scripture even if some christians thought it so.

It is true that you could write the Gospel According to Suegha, and not including it into the Bible would mean just that, not including it. But many of the so-called Lost Books of the Bible were in fact accepted by large numbers of early Christians. Although the books in the Old Testament were pretty much standardized by 450 B.C. they were not put into the order we know now until about 250 BC when they were translated into Greek. From about 40 AD on, there were many, many books written and were consdiered to be what was commonly called the New Covenant. The first major figure to codify the Biblical canon was Origen of Alexandria, sometime in the early 200's. His New Testament did not include James, 2nd Peter, and 2nd and 3rd epistles of John, but he did include the Shepherd of Hermas.(He also adamently rejected the concept of the Trinity.) Other books, such as the Gospel of Thomas and the previously mentioned The First Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ were included in various canons, but it wasn't until 393 when African Synod of Hippo approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, that the Bible really started to become what we now know today. This canonization was repeated repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419.

While there was some disagreements about the Book of Revelations, most Western and Eastern churches (the Ethiopian and Syriac churches objecting) basically agreed to what should be canonized fromt his time forward, although it took soem time for this to be formalized in some cases. A full dogmatic articulation of the canon was not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism,[28] the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for British Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox. But even today, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches include Ecclesiasticus while the Protestant churches do not in their Bibles.

My point is that the Bible has been written in many languages and in many ways which do not always agree with each other, and the actual books took some time to be canonized, so it is hard to pull obscure meanings from some verses and try to relate that to historical events in later years.

It is not true to say at least 14 books were removed from the KJV!

You are right and I was wrong. The King James originally had 80 books, and the 14 were removed from it as being Apocrypha. I had it backwards.

The Aprocrypha included in the intial versions of the King James Bible were:

1 Esdras (Vulgate 3 Esdras)

2 Esdras (Vulgate 4 Esdras)

Tobit

Judith

Rest of Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24)

Wisdom

Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach)

Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy (all part of Vulgate Baruch)

Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90)

Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13)

The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14)

Prayer of Manasses

1 Maccabees

2 Maccabees

Regarding your story from the infancy of Jesus, this in itself proves it's not true, it would do nothing and add nothing of worth to the gospel message.

Oh, I agree with you.  I only used it as an example of works which at some point were part of the canons but were not any longer.

I have the Greek versions of the NT and can find no reference to 'fishweed' either in the English or the Greek.

I was only able to find one small reference to this online, and not an authorative one at that:  http://www.veggieboards.com/boards/showthread.php?t=70363

And as I went through confirmation almost 40 years ago, I will have to concede this one.

I wrote nothing about 'the forces conquering Israel coming on wings of eagles'.

No you didn't.  I went back to the post, and your reference URL quoted Deuteronomy 28 v 49 and 50:

The Lord will bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flies, a nation whose language you will not understand, a nation of fierce countenance, which does not respect the elderly nor show favour to the young.

But I still think that is silly to use the Roman (or Greek or German or Arabic) taking of Jerusalem as proof of the Bible's veracity just because they came from far away, had a different language, were merciless, and had an eagle banner.  Just about all conquerors would have three of those characteristics, and by law of chance, some would have an eagle symbology.

One thing you wrote I do agree with - 'The bible is a matter of faith'. I have studied the Bible for 30 years I read and study every day, I speak on bible subjects and have done for 20 years in the UK and Ireland as well as speaking in Frace and Switzerland. I do however, have to add, I have no idea what you are alluding to when you mention the Turin Shroud and the tomb of Jesus brother!

My reference to the Shroud of Turin and the tomb of Jesus' brother is a direct reference for people wishing to have concrete proof of their faith.  Both turned out to be frauds, but people still want to believe, still want to accept their authenticity as a way to confirm that their faith is valid and true.

Sometimes, faith alone is enough.

Job done!

I will add though, we don't need any other books added to the bible, it is complete. Thoughts that something else is needed gives us books like the 'Book of Mormon'. Now read that and tell me if it even resembles scripture?!?

Job done!

I will add though, we don't need any other books added to the bible, it is complete. Thoughts that something else is needed gives us books like the 'Book of Mormon'. Now read that and tell me if it even resembles scripture?!?

I have read it, and the problem is, it does "resemble" scripture. But with due respect to my Morman friends, I find it hard to believe that the book was written on golden tablets which were later found buried in eastern New York.

I'll give you one real problem with it (and it's not the bad grammer, or the fact that it was 'translated' into 1611 English even though it was 'translated' in the 1800s!) the prophet Nephi keeps on telling the readers how righteous he is, there's no prophet in the OT that does that, they are constantly reminding us of how unrighteous and unworthy they are!

It also repeats vast tracts from the KJV which include transcriptional errors that we now understand to be problematic.

And while I'm at it, they also say that Jesus is Jehovah - Jehovah (or Yahweh) is the devine name given to the Father. It's easy to prove this to them from the Bible and they have no answer for it!

Anyway, enough of this, let's agree to difer and move on.

I'll give you one real problem with it (and it's not the bad grammer, or the fact that it was 'translated' into 1611 English even though it was 'translated' in the 1800s!) the prophet Nephi keeps on telling the readers how righteous he is, there's no prophet in the OT that does that, they are constantly reminding us of how unrighteous and unworthy they are!

It also repeats vast tracts from the KJV which include transcriptional errors that we now understand to be problematic.

And while I'm at it, they also say that Jesus is Jehovah - Jehovah (or Yahweh) is the devine name given to the Father. It's easy to prove this to them from the Bible and they have no answer for it!

Anyway, enough of this, let's agree to difer and move on.

Oh I am in complete agreement with you one this one. But yes, let's move on.  

I love a happy ending!