Have difficulty believing the Bible.

I don't read the Bible, never liked reading the Bible. My wife reads the Bible and has morning devotion every day. It's not my thing. Even in Bible college I only read what I had to. Biblical mysticism was interesting but not permanently. Everything I understand about God is in me and cannot be removed because God is the who that I am.
You ask public questions after being critical about the Bible and then personally decline to ever read it as though you've already decided any acceptable answers cannot include your reading parts of the book itself because such weirdly annoys or bothers or manipulates you in some personally unpleasant way? Odd you ask so many religious questions with that attitude and at the same time relate your own wife is just the opposite that to me reads like part of the real issue tormenting you includes difficult conversation you obviously sometimes have with her? And that probably means you would decline listening to any of the youtube audiobooks like the below:

 

The issue of birth control is a complete misunderstanding. The early Church was established by men who thought sexual intercourse should only be indulged in when a couple wanted to conceive a child. Their problem lies in people having sex at other times. It's not contraception which the Church objects to, it's having sex which doesn't lead to pregnancy. If people actually thought about it, they would realise that themselves.
Yup. Catholics want more Catholics in the world.
 
What's wrong with our Creator controlling what He created? He's our heavenly Father, we are His children. What's wrong with an earthly father controlling his children? Both leave open the ability for them to also make their own choices as well. Some right, some wrong. Some good, some evil. But the love of these two fathers want their children not to have to suffer the natural consequences of the wrong choices. So a foundation is laid as the children grow and learn.
What's wrong with an earthly father controlling his children?

"Controlling" that's what's wrong. Guiding, advising - that's hopefully what a father does. Children will hopefully grow to be individuals, not clones of their father.

Capt Lightning, taking one of my lines totally out of context and then twisting it is taking the most egregious cheap shot "below the belt".
But it got you lots of "Likes", duped members into believing you "won an argument", and made a Christian look like an idiot who is far from that. I suppose that makes it worth it for you. That's disgusting. Please. Use integrity in your postings.
`
My words I posted in response to C50's post #8 regarding both heavenly and earthly father's children, that you chose to OMIT from "quoting" me says:

"...Both leave open the ability for them to also make their own choices as well. Some right, some wrong. Some good, some evil. But the love of these two fathers want their children not to have to suffer the natural consequences of the wrong choices. So a foundation is laid as the children grow and learn."

My original post #9 was responding to C50 who had used the word "Control" in his previous post.

Quoting the Bible out of context is also a popular tool used by some unbelievers...not all. That's the reason I enter "religious" threads; to clarify what the Bible is accurately saying.
`
 

What's wrong with our Creator controlling what He created? He's our heavenly Father, we are His children.
What's wrong with an earthly father controlling his children? Both leave open the ability for them to also make their own choices as well. Some right, some wrong. Some good, some evil. But the love of these two fathers want their children not to have to suffer the natural consequences of the wrong choices. So a foundation is laid as the children grow and learn.
@Knight in his post #46 also misquoted my post #9 out of context in the very same way Capt Lightning did by only quoting my first 3 short sentences...choosing to also OMIT the part (made BOLD in my original quote above). It's okay to post part of one's thread but not for the wrong purpose of deceiving the readers. Please. Again, use integrity in posting.

And the rest of your post, I agree with Gary O'....it's not worth wasting my time on either.
 
Last edited:
@Knight in his post #46 also misquoted my post #9 out of context in the very same way Capt Lightning did by only quoting the my first 3 short sentences.
He also chose to OMIT the part (made BOLD above). It's okay to post part of one's thread but not for the wrong purpose of deceiving the readers. Please. Again, use integrity in posting.
It's infuriating when this happens. Just shows what sort of people they are! I'm sure many people come on sites like this just to spout off because they can't get away with it in their real lives.
 
Lara, Please keep your hat on. Would it have made any difference if I had included your entire post, or for that matter, not quoted any of it?

I meant no offence whatsoever and was only really disputing the term "control". No trying to score cheap points, no attempts to dupe, make anyone look silly and I'm sorry if anyone feels that I did.
It is one thing to keep children from straying outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour, but something different if you tell them how to think. By all means advise and guide them. Get them to think about the consequences of their actions, but "controlling" them is, in my mind, ordering them to do things your way. I grew up with parents who thought that I should think as they did and believe what they believed. Well, I didn't and my real criticism of them is that they could never explain why they did or why I should.

So, peace be upon you - and it's a nice looking hat.
 
Parenting is not about control, but rather setting expectations and standards, listening, guiding and setting examples. It’s not a power struggle. Same with those who believe in a Heavenly Father. If we are given free will, then why is “control” relevant? A dangerous word "control."
Many churches have tried to control their congregation, resulting in dire consequences, same with many families. Just my opinion.
 
@Lara, I always enjoy reading your posts, not sure what you mean by "the other side", there's a considerable portion of believers in Christ in this thread(myself included). I don't know exactly what you mean with the term "faith based believers", but I suspect in your(Fundamentalist? Evangelical?) world that has a specific connotation. Please feel free to express your beliefs, keep in mind others have just as strong(and valid) beliefs as well.

Thank you for saying you enjoy my posts...much appreciate that.

What I meant by the "other side" is that we have unbelievers of things unseen and believers through faith without seeing. Thus 2 sides.
I believe in the Bible through faith. Thus "faith based". I said that there weren't any Christians in this thread yet because that post was early on before any Christians had entered. I was referring to this thread...Not to SF in general. It's typical that Christians are not as aggressive as atheists and agnostics and may feel uncomfortable joining in.

What's with labels? I'm not fundamentalist nor evangelical nor any particular denomination. I haven't attended church in 2 decades. But, yes, I'm a believer in Jesus Christ which makes me the label of "Christian"...but don't confuse that with some who say they are Christians and not.

Yes, I do feel free to express my beliefs and I do respect others beliefs who are different than mine. I don't wish to change their minds if that's what you're inferring. God would be angry with me if I was making anyone's choice for them in what to believe because God created them with the ability to choose on their own. He only wants each individual to make their own choice to believe in Him if they want to.

But that doesn't mean I can't clarify what the Bible is accurately saying when someone takes something from it out of context or is just plain confused and asking for clarification, or thinks there is an inconsistency. I do "go to bat" for clarification of biblical truth.
 
Last edited:
"But that doesn't mean I can't clarify what the Bible is accurately saying when someone takes something from it out of context or is just plain confused and asking for clarification, or thinks there is an inconsistency. I do "go to bat" for clarification of biblical truth."

Your clarifications are not truth, but your personal opinions. If that upsets you, I'm genuinely sorry.
 
Lara's opinions are not necessarily untruths; That is if you define a truth as something one believes to be true (They are being honest and not lying). So a more accurate description of Lara's opinions is that they are opinions. Maybe they are true. Maybe they are not. Since they cannot be proven, they remain opinions. Truth or untruth is then irrelevant. That one believes it is truth does not convince the non-believer. This is the gap between believers and non-believers. Believers claim to be telling the truth. Non-believers know that the believers believe it, but understand that there is no proof. This makes most debates about religious doctrines exercises in futility. This frustrates both sides of the argument, and people walk away angry.
 
Lara's opinions are not necessarily untruths; That is if you define a truth as something one believes to be true (They are being honest and not lying). So a more accurate description of Lara's opinions is that they are opinions. Maybe they are true. Maybe they are not. Since they cannot be proven, they remain opinions. Truth or untruth is then irrelevant. That one believes it is truth does not convince the non-believer. This is the gap between believers and non-believers. Believers claim to be telling the truth. Non-believers know that the believers believe it, but understand that there is no proof. This makes most debates about religious doctrines exercises in futility. This frustrates both sides of the argument, and people walk away angry.
I'll just jump in here for a brief moment...
On any topic, simply believing something to be true does not necessarily mean it is true.
 
@Mr. Ed >>>" Have difficulty believing the Bible."

Why ought you simply believe because authorities in denominations you were part of in your past stated such as dogma? That is and has been for centuries obviously a self-serving agenda to control flocks, especially since it was often hijacked by the powerful and their politicians. Today, even many prominent scholars and theologians don't believe in inerrancy or infallibility nor do some denominations. Some won't state so publicly while such is obvious from their writings. Since much scholarly material written over centuries is for the first time given the Internet, now available to the public, one can see many scholars then and now also didn't rigidly believe such. There is much on the Internet one can now read about that controversy. Inerrancy and infallibility are primarily creations of 19th Century fundamentalists. The following shows that attitude on a fundamentalist site per below:

https://israelmyglory.org/article/errant-or-inerrant-that-is-the-question/
snippets:

In the Age of Enlightenment (Age of Reason, as it was known in the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe), philosophical rationalism crept into theology and began producing an antisupernatural way of thinking that undermined seminaries, Bible schools, denominations, and churches...

Some people say the Bible is inerrant on doctrine and theology but not, for example, on matters of history and science. But such a statement is fallacious... A God of truth, who cannot lie, could not and would not authorize error. Doing so would contradict truth...

Thus, if Scripture did not reveal truth about history and the physical world (no matter how major or minor), it could not be trusted at all. God cannot err, and the Scripture that proceeds from Him is the inspired, verbal, infallible Word of God. Therefore, the Bible in its original autographs is inerrant...

On October 26–28, 1978, 300 leading evangelicals met at the Hyatt Regency O’Hare in Chicago to craft what became known as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. This statement is one of the most complete definitions on the affirmation of scriptural inerrancy.


The above tersely shows many theologians are intensely afraid if their followers cannot totally trust the Bible and are then left to their own ignorant interpretations, they are likely to believe almost anything. On the other hand if an ordinary person actually reads and studies available material today, they will find a great deal of the Bible believable and of great value at the level of "oral history". Not believing The Flood covered the whole Earth dogma does not mean one cannot be a Christian. No problemo for this person.

For example, if one want's to read what New Testament early Christian first century beliefs were about, I would highly recommend starting by reading St. Paul's "Book of Romans".

https://www.blueletterbible.org/nasb20/rom/1/1/s_1047001
Well presented post. I would only like to add that there are many versions of "THE BIBLE," edited and interpreted towards specific goals. It would be helpful if believers cited the version they reference and their religious affiliation, if any.
 
Last edited:
In one of the Gospels doesn't Jesus ask, "What is truth?" Maybe there is no exact "truth" about things we can not "KNOW" for being absolutely true. Like a statement "The earth has trees." So when Jesus says "I am the truth", maybe he means that he doesn't believe there is absolute
truth .? I like to think of it that way. It is similar to Buddhism. It is very practical. Generally it teaches that our thoughts produce our reality. So meditation is for learning to be alive without havinng to think about it....just live. All the inner dialogue about meaning is bound to get our minds jumping around or speaking half truths.
 
Well presented post. I would only like to add that there are many versions of "THE BIBLE," edited and interpreted towards specific goals. It would be helpful if believers cited the version they reference.
Very true

English Standard Version​

The English Standard Version is a literal translation of the Bible, firmly rooted in the tradition of Tyndale and King James but without archaic language. Published at the beginning of the 21st century, it is extremely close to the Revised Standard Version and is well suited to public reading and memorisation.

ESV_9781107648296p1546-1547_-_sample.jpg


King James Version​

The King James Version is the world's most widely known Bible translation, using early seventeenth-century English. Its powerful, majestic style has made it a literary classic, with many of its phrases and expressions embedded in our language. Earlier generations were 'brought up' with this translation and learnt many of its verses by heart.

KJV_9780521228626p1460_-_sample.jpg


New American Standard Bible​


The New American Standard Bible is a literal translation from the original texts, well suited to study because of its accurate rendering of the source texts. It follows the style of the King James Version but uses modern English for words that have fallen out of use or changed their meanings. It uses capital letters for pronouns relating to divinity, eg 'there He sat down with His disciples'.

NASB_9781107604162p1502_-_sample.jpg


New English Bible​

The New English Bible was a translation undertaken by the major Protestant churches of the British Isles. Scholars translated from the best Hebrew and Greek texts, aiming to present the full meaning of the original in clear and natural modern English. The translation was published jointly by the University Presses of Cambridge and Oxford.

NEB_9780521101967p0011-_sample.jpg


New International Version​

The NIV watchword is ‘balance’. The most widely used of any modern Bible version, the New International Version marries meaning-for-meaning principles with word-for-word renderings. It is an all-round translation, suitable for a wide range of purposes, and has proven especially popular amongst evangelicals. Its straightforward, contemporary language is both clear and dignified in style.

NIV_Clarion_Sheet_21.57_Matt_6_Two_Masters_-_sample.jpg


New King James Version​

The New King James Version was first published in 1982 and is a modernisation of the King James Version of 1611, using the same underlying Greek text for the New Testament. It preserves the KJV's dignified style and its word and phrase order but replaces some words and expressions that may be no longer easily understood. The translators sought 'to preserve the original intended purity of the King James Version in its communication of God's Word to man.'

NKJV_9781107676824p1632_-_sample.jpg


New Living Translation​

The New Living Translation was translated from the ancient texts by 90 leading Bible scholars. It employs clear and natural English. It often makes implicit information explicit (e.g. 'disreputable sinners and corrupt tax collectors'.) The NLT's motto is 'the Truth made clear'.

NLT_9781107448100p794_-_sample.jpg


New Revised Standard Version​

The New Revised Standard Version is a thorough revision of the original RSV by an ecumenical team of scholars. It is growing in popularity, particularly in churches, schools and academia. The translators made full use of contemporary biblical manuscripts, resulting in a clearer understanding of many obscure passages. It uses gender-inclusive language (making it clear where the original texts include both males and females).

NRSV_9780521702614p06_-_sample.jpg


The Revised English Bible​

The Revised English Bible updates the New English Bible, retaining the latter’s elegant literary style, but removing its archaisms. The REB employs a modest amount of inclusive language and is good for public reading. Like the NEB before it, the REB is a British translation, sponsored by all the main Christian denominations.

REB_9780521513180p05_-_sample.jpg


Tyndale​

William Tyndale’s seminal contribution to the development of the Bible in English is universally recognised. Translating directly from the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, he produced a text of enduring quality that underpinned Bible translations in English from the sixteenth century to the present day

Tyndale_9781107626195p35_-_sample.jpg


Revised Version​

The Revised Version was produced in the nineteenth century by British and American scholars, benefiting from the discovery of some early and important manuscripts which threw new light on many aspects of biblical scholarship. It was the first real revision of the KJV and the basis for the American Standard Version of 1901.

RV_Two_Masters.jpg
 
I hard for me to put into words but I think that a believers faith IS truth for them. Those that require proof are often times scorned in religious sects. THAT is our problem. On both the believer in God/s and those that don't sides they are hard core RIGHT/CORRECT about their position. Why is it so volatile I wonder?
 
Very true
Interesting post. And of course you do not show the original language in which this was written, thousands of years ago. Not that anyone here could understand it.

Translation and interpretation is as much art as science, and often pretty subjective. Even words and expressions in the same language take on different meanings over time. Hard to really know what these words meant to the original author(s).
 
Why is it so volatile I wonder?
I think it's because the whole thing exists in a knowledge vacuum. Without proof one way or the other, people can either fill in the blanks with a preferred belief or choose to opt out until more information is available. We don't generally argue when everyone agrees on the validity of all the information.
 


Back
Top