For Consideration of the Unbeliever: The Bible

Semmelweis Reflex

Active member
It isn't the goal of a believer to convert an unbeliever. The goal of a believer is, to the best of their ability, supply the unbeliever with accurate knowledge so that they may make an informed choice. The choice of remaining an unbeliever is equally acceptable so long as accurate knowledge is given. The Hebrew word Israel means to contend, grapple or wrestle with God. That's what we do. (Genesis 32:22-28)

Theology is study of the divine, Biblical and non-Biblical. Simply put, my theology is what I think the Bible means, whereas Biblical studies would be concerned with what the Bible says. Theology is interpretation. For example, Psalm 139:8, depending on the translation, says God is either in hell, the depths, the world of the dead, the nether world or the grave. The original Hebrew Sheol is Biblical but the pagan influenced hell is theological. The Biblical sheol is simply the common grave of mankind, no matter the form of burial. The theological hell is a place underground where, depending on the religious belief is either cold or hot, temporary or permanent, purification or punishment. The English word hell means to cover or conceal.

It's important to recognize that the Bible isn't infallible. The inspired word of God is infallible but the translation wasn't inspired. The Bible itself warns of this. Inspired expression often being translated as spirit consider 2 Thessalonians 2:2; 2 Timothy 4:3-4; 1 John 4:1, 6. These scriptures are talking about misleading influences inspired by, in effect, the spirit of the world. In this case, most likely from members of the early congregation, or church, who had false ideas. The Bible wasn't written to us, it was written to the people in the time in which it was given. Thus the need for divine inspiration. From our perspective it is useful as a warning. To us the Bible is an example just as earlier inspired writing was an example to early Christians (Jude 1:7). So, we don't need the translation to be inspired. The warning is against misinterpretation and mistranslation. Everyone, including, experts, scholars, you the reader and myself are subject to error. Disagreement doesn't constitute satanic influence.

Snakes don't talk. The serpent didn't talk to Eve. The Bible says it did because Eve thought it did. The narrative was from her perspective. Donkeys also don't talk. An angel spoke with the voice of a man to make it appear as if the donkey was talking. Also in the case where it appears that "Samuel's" spirit is summoned by the witch of En-dor, it was demonic deception; where the cowardly scouts sent out came back and said the Nephilim were in the land. They lied out of fear. Sometimes the Bible even gives details of earlier events using references that didn't exist at that time. For example, at Genesis 3:24 the cherubs use a flaming blade of a sword to prevent Adam and Eve from returning. No such thing existed at that time. At Genesis 2:10-14 the geographical details of Eden are given with reference to one river "to the East of Assyria" when Assyria certainly didn't exist then. But it was familiar to the reader who was reading it much later. There are also spurious verses that don't appear in earlier manuscripts. They were obviously added later. For example, Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11; 1 John 5:4, 7.

In study it is, of course, important to research and consult scholarly works, but one should be mindful of the influence of tradition. Jewish thinking was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy through Alexander the Great after 332 BCE and in Christianity through Constantine the Great after 325 CE. The immortal soul from Socrates, the trinity from Plato, the cross from Constantine, Christmas from the winter solstice celebrations and later Dickens, the rapture from Darby, Easter from the alluvial plains of Ur and the goddess of fertility Astarte. Most of these teachings, with the exception of the rapture, come from ancient Babylon and like myth and fable always do, they mingle with one another over time. They found their way into Greek philosophy and were adopted by apostacy through later sources. All of these influences are pretty well documented, there is nothing conspiratorial about them.

What's the meaning of the Bible? What's it about? It can be summed up very simply as this: the vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus.

God created Michael first. Then Michael, as Jehovah's master worker, created everything through Jehovah's Holy Spirit or active force. (Genesis 1:26; 3:22; Proverbs 8:22-31; Colossians 1:15-17; John 8:23; 17:5) The word Holy means sacred, or belonging to God. Spirit means an invisible active force, like wind, breath, mental inclination. Something that we can't see but that produces results that we can see. So, the holy spirit is God's active force, invisible to us. The first thing that Michael, through Jehovah's holy spirit, created was the spiritual heavens. This was followed by the spirit beings, often called angels. (Job 38:4-7) Then the physical heavens, or space as we know it, including Earth, the stars, sun and moon and finally everything on Earth eventually concluding with Adam and Eve.

The angels existed for a very long time before man was created, and they had time to mature, like children, so that they knew what was good and bad from their creator. It is important that you understand that being created perfect is much like being born a baby. Parents see their newborn children as perfect, but think about it. They can't walk, talk, feed themselves, go to the bathroom properly - they are bald, toothless, chubby, defenseless little creatures. Perfect in the sense that they have great potential and innocence.

By the time man was created the angels had already reached their potential.

On the seventh day, when the creation was complete, God "rested." This doesn't mean that God was tired or that he stopped working, it means he set aside a period of time in which we were allowed to mature, as the angels had done. When we would have accomplished this, we could, as the Bible says, enter into God's Day of rest. In other words, the seventh "day" or more accurately, period of creation, continues to this day. So, the knowledge of what is good and what is bad is the eventual possession of that maturity. The ability to decide for ourselves what was good and what was bad, predicated upon an acknowledgement of our own accord, of our creator, Jehovah's rightful sovereignty. (Psalm 95:11; Isaiah 40:28; John 5:17; Romans 8:22; Hebrews 4:1-5)

This is why, once Adam rejected that concept by deciding for himself what was good and bad before he had matured enough to best do that, Jehovah had to shorten his life from living forever to eventually dying. Because if he and his offspring, mankind, were allowed to live forever under those conditions, they would never reach that maturity and they would bring about an endless series of chaos and destruction.

So, in effect, Satan charged Jehovah with the crime of withholding some knowledge from mankind. He knew this wasn't true, but he wanted to try and seize control of the power that Jehovah's sovereignty represented even if it meant destroying all that it represented and everything else in the process. Even destroying himself. Like a jealous child breaking a toy so no one else can have it.

But to Jehovah justice is very important. You can't just wave away a crime due to the damage that has been incurred. So, he allowed the charges against him to be tried, as in a court of law. He allowed Satan's theory to be tested in a manner of speaking. With the stipulation that 1. he wasn't going to allow it to prevent his original purpose for the angels and mankind from being fulfilled beyond what was necessary to establish his defense. That they should live forever in peace, in heaven and on earth respectively. And 2. that justice would be done.

So immediately after Adam's sin Jehovah put in motion the plan for all of this to take place while Satan's theory was being tested. In a basic sense the steps were as follows.

1. Select a group of people.
2. Form a nation for those people.
3. Demonstrate to them what was going on by establishing a law which they couldn't keep due to their imperfection, or the incomplete nature of their lack of the aforementioned maturity.
4. Provide a way out through a Messiah or Christ, namely, Michael, who volunteered due to his love for mankind and his father, Jehovah's purpose. So, Michael came to earth as a man, Jesus the Christ.

One final point of consideration regarding mankind. From Jehovah's perspective the life he created, the life he gave us, is sacred. You may recall that sacred means belonging to God. According to the Bible our soul is our life, represented by our blood, so blood is sacred. To kill someone, or take their soul, requires the payment of the killer's own soul because it is taking something sacred to Jehovah. So, the blood sacrifices represented a respect for or acknowledgement of his created life granted to us. For example, if a person was found murdered and no one knew who did the killing then they had to sacrifice a bull and spill its blood on the ground as a symbolic acknowledgement of God's possession. Sacred life. A sort of gesture of justice. (Deuteronomy 21:1-9)

Since we inherited sin through Adam then the only man who could pay the price for the blood of Adam, which had been perfect and without sin from the start until he did sin - was the blood of a man who was without sin.
 
I didn't have room to include the disclaimer. Since this isn't my first rodeo I know what sort of objections skeptics tend to have with stuff like this, so . . . . There isn't anything special or overly complicated about this information. It doesn't originate with me, I learned it from other people. I've known children, unbelievers and mentally handicapped people who knew these things. This is the interpretation I accept as accurate knowledge. There are other interpretations. You may have your own and that's fine, of course. I'm always interested in discussing what others believe or don't believe. My interpretation changes. I'm wrong all the time. I'm always learning. I will likely learn from you.
 
So the question is, why should an unbeliever accept any of this?

That's their call. Maybe they wont. It's more likely they wont. Not many believers will either. Groupthink is a great deal more appealing to the masses than truth. Speaking from my own experience as an unbeliever who did accept it I can say that it was because I had no choice. After 6 months of intense research and study it was obvious that I had no basis for doubt and all the evidence pointed towards the authenticity of the Bible. Over a quarter of a century later I have a great deal more knowledge on the subject than I did then and nothing has changed as far as my estimation of the unquestionable authenticity of the Bible.

The thing about me though, is, if you happen to catch this while you scour it for something to justify your ideology, that I'm not and will never be a member of any organized religious or secular group. My estimation of the Bible is based on truth. Unbiased, critical, undogmatic, pragmatic and practical examination.

If the bible is accurate then god is a monster.

Okay, that's a common opinion, but what difference does it make? Anyway, you probably think he is a monster and by your own poorly constructed reason, the Bible is accurate.

The idea of a just loving god and the monster presented is a contradiction without sufficient evidence to overcome its own likelyhood and thus god is likely false.

I did say the Bible is fallible and often substituted for myth and fable. It's also misrepresented.

If the bible ISN"T accurate then you have a two tiered interpretation process: You interpret the veracity of any passage and then you interpret that passage.

Example?

Anyone that's listened to an English lit major knows how arbitrary it is to take bits and pieces of a work and run with it, but when you're trying to reconcile different passages with each other and with the theme you want to be there AND you can toss out parts? The sky is no limit.

I don't know what that even means. As with the above I would ask you to show me an example of exactly how that would be done but it's just an empty justification for your disbelief. You won't supply an example of any of that.

You simply have no evidence for any of this. You re talking to unbelievers but you're trying to keep your paradigm that the bible is true.

By pointing out it doesn't always tell the truth and has spurious passages?

That isn't a paradigm we hold.

But is the paradigm you hold true or baseless.

If a religion isn't completely consistent and coherent thats what we expect of a mythological system put together by different human beings many centuries apart operating in different cultures with different influences. It's not like greek myths or even norse myths are completely unified.

Having a version of christianity that isn't as contradictory as the other versions does absolutely nothing to make it true

Moot. Having any version of Christianity would be, as is historically observable with any and all religion accepted by the masses, a transmogrification.

So the question is, why should an unbeliever accept any of this?

Accepting it as true doesn't necessarily mean anything other than you accept it as true. You can do that and reject the proposition it offers. I believe, without a doubt, that people are idiots. That doesn't mean I have to become an idiot. It means as a person I'm an idiot as well. So I act accordingly. I take that into account. For quite a long time I accepted the Bible as true but didn't act upon it. Even being an idiot I eventually came to the logical conclusion that I should act on it. I'm getting better at it, but I'm a slow student.
 
The choice of remaining an unbeliever is equally acceptable so long as accurate knowledge is given.
Please relate this to all the "Christians" in here that say that everybody has everything they need in order to believe, and all those that don't, are being unreasonable.

(Also, this seems to fly in the face of Romans 1:20.)
 
Please relate this to all the "Christians" in here that say that everybody has everything they need in order to believe, and all those that don't, are being unreasonable.

(Also, this seems to fly in the face of Romans 1:20.)
St. Thomas Aquinas held that "the erring reason binds." IOW, if after the honest application of reason you think that something - even atheism - is true, you have a moral obligation to believe it. It is a really interesting doctrine to hear from such a staunch Catholic thinker.

Of course, Aquinas may have thought that nobody in fact looks at the evidence rationally and ends up an atheist. He lived in an age when that was still a tenable position.
 
@Semmelweis Reflex

Your OP is sort of interesting, but there's not a lot to discuss. In practice, the CARM forums are mostly for adversarial debate. There's no argument in your OP, so what you're getting and will continue to get in reply is requests for evidence and arguments.

For starters, why do you think there's a God?
 
"Introduction"]It isn't the goal of a believer to convert an unbeliever. The goal of a believer is, to the best of their ability, supply the unbeliever with accurate knowledge so that they may make an informed choice.

This seems a tacit admission that the evidence for God isn't enough to settle the matter. I don't choose to believe the Earth orbits the Sun because the evidence puts the matter beyond dispute and choice.
The choice of remaining an unbeliever is equally acceptable so long as accurate knowledge is given. The Hebrew word Israel means to contend, grapple or wrestle with God. That's what we do. (Genesis 32:22-28)
What knowledge do you have that unbelievers don't?
 
@Semmelweis Reflex

Your OP is sort of interesting, but there's not a lot to discuss. In practice, the CARM forums are mostly for adversarial debate.

Yeah, I've done that - for a long time. It taught me a great deal, but having gone over every argument many times it isn't something I do much of these days. I would usually just rather not. Uh, if an interesting perspective grabs my attention I may pursue it a little bit but, for me, at this stage it just seems silly and pointless. Boring.

There's no argument in your OP, so what you're getting and will continue to get in reply is requests for evidence and arguments.

That would be cool. Or if they just read it.

For starters, why do you think there's a God?

A God? There's another thread on that here. Recently. There are many gods mentioned in the Bible. Specifically I assume you mean Jehovah. The answer is simple. The Bible. I think the biggest obstacle for the militant atheist is an alternative paradigm which is based upon an allegedly "science" based rejection of the supernatural. I never had that. I don't see that as a reasonable argument for various reasons. It's an understandable position but it doesn't really stand the test, as they say.
 
This seems a tacit admission that the evidence for God isn't enough to settle the matter.

How so?

I don't choose to believe the Earth orbits the Sun because the evidence puts the matter beyond dispute and choice.

Okay. What evidence do you have to support whatever your position on the Bible or God is?

What knowledge do you have that unbelievers don't?

Pearls before swine? That sounds like an insult but it isn't. Swine have no use of pearls.

I don't know what knowledge they have individually. Most atheists have no knowledge and don't wish to have any. They're not interested. The atheists you encounter online are more of what I call the "militant" or outspoken atheists which are a tiny minority. I've known one or two that had a fairly good deal of knowledge due to their interest in history. In general? The knowledge they have comes from tradition, which is really misleading. But they don't care because their objection really doesn't have much to do with that. To a much smaller extent they tend to apply "science" which is, well, possibly worse than the aforementioned tradition.

The former I briefly touched on in the OP - did you read it? An example of the latter I think I mentioned in the other thread on God. Maybe not, I can't remember. The book of Revelation makes references to celestial phenomenon which idiot "science" tends to dismiss as the superstitious fear of primitive people. All one would have to do is look back in some of the Hebrew texts and the exact same references are applied to political, social and environmental upheaval. So, Jerusalem being destroyed - it's government, people and new land in a figurative sense. The same with Revelation only on a global scale.
 
Not "why will"

Why should. As in, what does this change for someone that hasn't accepted your religion yet?

It isn't my place to determine why should or shouldn't they. And what is my religion? I'm a Bible believer. I don't belong to any religion.

Lets say your scholarship succeeds and you have found a way to make he bible non contradictory and non crazy.

I can't make it that way, it is that way.

That does not make it evidenced. That doesn't provide evidence that its true.

Evidence? You mean like fingerprints, fire pattern, lie detector test? I'll check with the guys at the crime lab and see if they've come up with any leads.

Unless you already believe that the bible is true your interpretation of the bible is meaningless.

Then your interpretation is meaningless and mine isn't? That doesn't seem right.

**drinks**

Seriously, EVERY apologist majored in atheism as a freshman in college. It's really just not credible. Having religion light is not the same as being an unbeliever.

What are you drinking? That makes no sense. Freshman atheism apologetics college course isn't credible? Okay. I'm not going to argue that. Religion light? I don't care about any of that nonsense. I don't care if you're Patrick from Sponge Bob Square Pants or Sam Harris either you believe or you don't.

Yeah. This is absolute malarkey. There is no overwhelming evidence of the bibles veracity.
There isn't good evidence of the bibles veracity.
There isn't even anything that can legitimately be considered a good argument for its veracity.

It sounds like you've made up your mind and you must have good reason for that. I can't imagine what you want from me.

I'm perfectly happy to provide examples,

Excellent. I look forward to that.
 
An example was provided up above. The short answer is the process called Eisegesis , where people read things that aren't there into the text.

I want an example, outside of English lit and the pub. From the Bible. Like you said where someone can "take bits and pieces of a work and run with it, but when you're trying to reconcile different passages with each other and with the theme you want to be there AND you can toss out parts? The sky is no limit."
 
That isn't even right enough to be wrong.

It isn't uncommon for "science" to jump on the coattails of technology once they figure out how it was done. By somebody else. The Wright brothers and mechanical flight is an obvious example. Apes. Jane Goodall would be another. The personal computer I use was invented by a couple of college dropouts in their parents garage. But I'm not going to go there again. It's off topic and I try to avoid polemic pontification, not only from the traditional religionists but also from the modern day snake oil salesmen trying to rush in the scientific utopia with amateur eugenics.
 
I didn't have room to include the disclaimer. Since this isn't my first rodeo I know what sort of objections skeptics tend to have with stuff like this, so . . . . There isn't anything special or overly complicated about this information. It doesn't originate with me, I learned it from other people. I've known children, unbelievers and mentally handicapped people who knew these things. This is the interpretation I accept as accurate knowledge. There are other interpretations. You may have your own and that's fine, of course. I'm always interested in discussing what others believe or don't believe. My interpretation changes. I'm wrong all the time. I'm always learning. I will likely learn from you.
So according to your 'spoilers' the Bible is Fallible and tells lies! What method do you use to determine if there are any truths in the Bible?
 
Because the most you can offer is a choice. If the evidence put the matter beyond doubt there wouldn't be a choice. As said, when given the evidence I don't choose to believe the Earth orbits the Sun, I am compelled to accept it.
Okay. What evidence do you have to support whatever your position on the Bible or God is?
Concerning the Bible, what I understand is informed by the scholars that study it. The key events of the Gospels are certainly not proven, leaving them open to doubt.
Pearls before swine? That sounds like an insult but it isn't. Swine have no use of pearls.
Yeah, at the very least this is yet another tacit admission that you don't have anything like the evidence you need to put God's existence beyond a reasonable doubt. If you had this you'd be giving it instead of resorting to rhetoric.
I don't know what knowledge they have individually. Most atheists have no knowledge and don't wish to have any. They're not interested. The atheists you encounter online are more of what I call the "militant" or outspoken atheists which are a tiny minority. I've known one or two that had a fairly good deal of knowledge due to their interest in history. In general? The knowledge they have comes from tradition, which is really misleading. But they don't care because their objection really doesn't have much to do with that. To a much smaller extent they tend to apply "science" which is, well, possibly worse than the aforementioned tradition.
This doesn't really tell me anything. I had religious education lessons at school, I attended church for a while. Not once did anyone simply say we know God exists because of x, and here you are are fitting into that pattern.
The former I briefly touched on in the OP - did you read it? An example of the latter I think I mentioned in the other thread on God. Maybe not, I can't remember. The book of Revelation makes references to celestial phenomenon which idiot "science" tends to dismiss as the superstitious fear of primitive people. All one would have to do is look back in some of the Hebrew texts and the exact same references are applied to political, social and environmental upheaval. So, Jerusalem being destroyed - it's government, people and new land in a figurative sense. The same with Revelation only on a global scale.
This is all rather vague. For example, cities have been getting destroyed throughout human history.
 
Last edited:
yeah. Science works therefore I'm a racist.

I didn't say science didn't work, anything about race or attribute anything to you.

Seriously, go soak your head.

Is that your science at work?

You have zero room to accuse someone else of selling snakeoil when you're trying to peddle this vacuous pap.

Now I see what the problem is. If you were any more obtuse you would be Winnie the Pooh.
 
Last edited:
I want an example, outside of English lit and the pub. From the Bible. Like you said where someone can "take bits and pieces of a work and run with it, but when you're trying to reconcile different passages with each other and with the theme you want to be there AND you can toss out parts? The sky is no limit."
From the OP:

"Snakes don't talk. The serpent didn't talk to Eve. The Bible says it did because Eve thought it did. The narrative was from her perspective. Donkeys also don't talk. An angel spoke with the voice of a man to make it appear as if the donkey was talking."
 
Back
Top