The most damaging verse in the bible?

[AquinasForGod]

Question for debate: What do you think is the most damaging verse in the bible?

I mean, what verse or verses together (like maybe a contradiction) do you feel is the most damaging to the Christian faith, that might make a Christian go, hmm, maybe I have the wrong religion.

I have been searching the threads here and so far, I have found no points made against the bible that I find troubling or difficult to give an answer for.

I suppose some would be troubled if they think God wrote the bible himself or something, but why would anyone believe that?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #107]

So the Vatican is still going with the evolutionary theory? Just remind me, if Genesis is wrong, how do you fit that into the theology of the Bible being reliable?

Each book in the bible is reliable for its purpose. Is the story of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" reliable for its purpose? Yes. It is reliable as an interesting way to teach children they should not cry for help unless they need it or one day no one will believe them when they are actually in trouble.

That story is far more impactful than if you just tell the child. Do not ask for help unless you need it or one day no one will believe you.

Very good. So you will see that that it relegates the Bible to stories about the condition of humans and proposed life lessons, to which we must of course bring reason and discernment, because if we just swallowed any agenda wrapped up in an instructive story, like a poison pill wrapped in bacon, we would be in a poor situation. This puts you in the position of having to justify and validate every book of the Bible as a valid life -lesson, never mind reliable fact; and I'm minded to ask just what the life lesson of Genesis is, other than that people make up some tall tales.

[JehovahsWitness]

. It's as if each day was plucked at random and put in order as picked. No continuity whatsoever.

As has been stated, the bible is not a science book, but where it does touch on scientific matters it is astoundingly accurate. The fact that, it presents the main stages of creation in the correct order , long before such knowledge became generally available, is of itself convincing evidence of its divine origins.



source: Evolution or Creation

RELATED POSTS

Are the ORDER of events in the Genesus creation account scientifically sound?
viewtopic.php?p=1032442#p1032442

Could the ancient writers of scripture have simply had 10 "lucky guesses"?
viewtopic.php?p=1097224#p1097224

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

EVOLUTION, BIBLE HISTORY and ...THE 7 CREATIVE DAYS OF GENESIS

The problem is Genesis does not state things in the correct scientific order.

Day 1: Earth exists. It is in darkness. God creates light, not the sun or stars, but light. It says God created the heavens and the earth. Not that he created one before the other. In fact, what is called heaven doesn't exist yet but the earth does.

Day 2:God separated the waters from above and below, and called the expanse that separated the waters, Heaven. This is when it seems heaven came to be.

Day 3: God gathered the waters into seas then created plants. No sun yet or stars but there are plants.

Day 4: In th at Expanse he formed on day 2, the same expanse he called heaven, he now places the sun the moon and all the stars within heaven. Earth doesn't come to be before stars. You might want to say maybe the light in day 1 was the stars and then he moved them to into place or something, but that doesn't work for the moon because the moon is not a light. Day 4 is the first mention of the moon. So it seems the writer is saying this is when the sun, stars, and moon came to be at the same time.

Day 5: God makes swimming water life and flying life.

Day 6: God made the land-walking beasts and humans.

Another thing incorrect in the list is flying animals like birds come before land walkers. This is incorrect.

That is not the correct order of things. In fact, even back then people would have known plants need the sun. It is a basic observation. This knew this for sure. The writer knew this for sure, so he must have been teaching some other idea by saying plants day 3 and sun day 4. I don't know what he was trying to convey, but I bet the readers back then understood it.

I'm not Catholic and I do not hold to Catholic interpretation of the text. Read properly there is nothing in the Genesis creation account that is scientifically problematic, indeed as I said, it is impressively accurate. Feel free to follow my links for a more accurate reading of Genesis.



JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

EVOLUTION, BIBLE HISTORY and ...THE 7 CREATIVE DAYS OF GENESIS

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #95]

hat questions about our place in the world that give us any hope does it actually answer?

For example, they wondered why men were stronger and faster and thus better at working the field and animals for food. Why is this the case? The story they told was because woman was made from man, so she is the lesser.

Just what hope does this address?

If Genesis 1 is the kind of personal revelation and enlightenment we can expect from god then no thank you. Give me an ancient god who at least knows up from down and doesn't treat his followers as gullible rubes.

When I said you would be rejecting the possibility of personal revelation and enlightenment, I mean if the bible never existed, God could still give you a personal revelation.

Yet he chose not to, but instead left us with one mess of a message in the form of a book. A book so disordered and conflicting that it's spawned a staggering 45,000 competing denominations in the world.

And what, god can produce a universe and fill it with intelligent creatures, but can't insure that his word is properly passed on? What kind of competent god is that?

Not that God cannot do it. God can do anything logically possible. It is that God did not will to. We see the world in such a limited way. We look at and see all the things we think are wrong or things we would do better if we were God, but we speak out of ignorance. We do not see the whole of time. We do not see all the consequences of every act of God in the world.

And why, do you think, he chose not to insure that his word is properly passed on? The only thing I can think of is that he doesn't care.

God let's all play out as it needs to in order to achieve maximal goodness.

And obviously he's incapable of doing so without relying on hate, pain, and suffering---so I think it's safe to scratch the omnipotent part of his character.

Can't you think of scenarios where suffering is necessary for the greater good?

Not on the scale of suffering he works on.

Or why God might hide for the greater good?

Nope.

.

[Miles]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #107]

So the Vatican is still going with the evolutionary theory? Just remind me, if Genesis is wrong, how do you fit that into the theology of the Bible being reliable?

Each book in the bible is reliable for its purpose. Is the story of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" reliable for its purpose? Yes. It is reliable as an interesting way to teach children they should not cry for help unless they need it or one day no one will believe them when they are actually in trouble.

That story is far more impactful than if you just tell the child. Do not ask for help unless you need it or one day no one will believe you.

Curious as to what you think the lesson is in 2 Kings 2:23-25

23 Elisha went from that city to Bethel. He was walking up the hill to the city, and some boys were coming down out of the city. They began making fun of him. They said, "Go away, you bald-headed man! Go away, you bald-headed man!"

24 Elisha looked back and saw them. He asked the Lord to cause bad things to happen to them. Then two bears came out of the forest and attacked the boys. There were 42 boys ripped apart by the bears.

25 Elisha left Bethel and went to Mount Carmel and from there he went back to Samaria.

Be careful of whom you make fun of? They just might have the ear of god, who will do whatever is asked of him no matter how perverse?

.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #107]

So the Vatican is still going with the evolutionary theory? Just remind me, if Genesis is wrong, how do you fit that into the theology of the Bible being reliable?

Each book in the bible is reliable for its purpose. Is the story of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" reliable for its purpose? Yes. It is reliable as an interesting way to teach children they should not cry for help unless they need it or one day no one will believe them when they are actually in trouble.

That story is far more impactful than if you just tell the child. Do not ask for help unless you need it or one day no one will believe you.

Curious as to what you think the lesson is in 2 Kings 2:23-25

23 Elisha went from that city to Bethel. He was walking up the hill to the city, and some boys were coming down out of the city. They began making fun of him. They said, "Go away, you bald-headed man! Go away, you bald-headed man!"

24 Elisha looked back and saw them. He asked the Lord to cause bad things to happen to them. Then two bears came out of the forest and attacked the boys. There were 42 boys ripped apart by the bears.

25 Elisha left Bethel and went to Mount Carmel and from there he went back to Samaria.

Be careful of whom you make fun of? They just might have the ear of god, who will do whatever is asked of him no matter how perverse?

.

For those Rabbis that believe this story actually happened, point out that the Hebrew there for boys can be young men. They were criminals, a water cartel, which is why Elisha blessed the water to purify it so all had access to good water. The water cartel got pissed off and told Elisha to go back up, meaning leave this world, like Elijah went up.

So Elisha took this as a death threat. 42 young men could kill him for sure. Hell, 42 children could kill him if they tried. so Elisha called out to God and God listened.

I do not take this approach. Either it is an allegory that the youth were cut off from the land. They were exiled or it is to teach us a moral lesson that if we are truly in danger and ask God, God could answer.

But intelligent theists do not read this story as a child and think it is about some little kids calling an old man bald, then God summons a bear to eat them all up. LOL. We might as well read Little Red Ridding Hood.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Miles in post #113]

Just what hope does this address?

They hoped to have answers to life questions. One of those questions was why are women the lesser?

Yet he chose not to, but instead left us with one mess of a message in the form of a book. A book so disordered and conflicting that it's spawned a staggering 45,000 competing denominations in the world.

That is why Jews have an oral tradition, oral laws and interpretations of Torah. This is why the church has a oral tradition. The protestants broke away from the living church, from those oral traditions and came up with all these odd ideas about the bible, like thinking Genesis is not in conflict with science.

And why, do you think, he chose not to insure that his word is properly passed on? The only thing I can think of is that he doesn't care.

He did, through his living church. The living church has passed this down generation after generation. And because the church is loving, it grows with the times.

And obviously he's incapable of doing so without relying on hate, pain, and suffering---so I think it's safe to scratch the omnipotent part of his character.

I do not think that follows. God could make the world such that there is no suffering but at the cost of our freewill. God wills that we freewill beings exist and works with the consequences to achieve maximal goodness with also keeping our freewill in tact.

Not on the scale of suffering he works on.

This must be a lack of imagination on your part, but perhaps maybe you never tried to steelman the position and really think about it. It could be that children starve to prick our hearts, to activate a higher level of human empathy, so we are moved to act and help our brothers and sisters. We have the means to end world hunger, yet we do not do it.

You also said you cannot think of any reasons God might hide for the greater good. I find that hard to believe. One reason could be if we can find God while living in darkness, in sin, in temptations, and remain faithful then we will not fall away when we experience the beatific vision, like Satan did.

[brunumb]

We might as well read Little Red Ridding Hood.

When it comes to the Bible, that's not a bad suggestion.

[Miles]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #107]

So the Vatican is still going with the evolutionary theory? Just remind me, if Genesis is wrong, how do you fit that into the theology of the Bible being reliable?

Each book in the bible is reliable for its purpose. Is the story of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" reliable for its purpose? Yes. It is reliable as an interesting way to teach children they should not cry for help unless they need it or one day no one will believe them when they are actually in trouble.

That story is far more impactful than if you just tell the child. Do not ask for help unless you need it or one day no one will believe you.

Curious as to what you think the lesson is in 2 Kings 2:23-25

23 Elisha went from that city to Bethel. He was walking up the hill to the city, and some boys were coming down out of the city. They began making fun of him. They said, "Go away, you bald-headed man! Go away, you bald-headed man!"

24 Elisha looked back and saw them. He asked the Lord to cause bad things to happen to them. Then two bears came out of the forest and attacked the boys. There were 42 boys ripped apart by the bears.

25 Elisha left Bethel and went to Mount Carmel and from there he went back to Samaria.

Be careful of whom you make fun of? They just might have the ear of god, who will do whatever is asked of him no matter how perverse?

.

For those Rabbis that believe this story actually happened, point out that the Hebrew there for boys can be young men. They were criminals, a water cartel, which is why Elisha blessed the water to purify it so all had access to good water. The water cartel got pissed off and told Elisha to go back up, meaning leave this world, like Elijah went up.

So Elisha took this as a death threat. 42 young men could kill him for sure. Hell, 42 children could kill him if they tried. so Elisha called out to God and God listened.

Which is interesting because very few Bibles regard them as young men at all. In fact, of the 53 Bibles I checked the vast majority referred to the 42 as being much younger:

1 calls them Little kids

1 calls them young people

2 call them young lads

3 call them youths

4 call them young men

7 call them little children

10 call them small boys

25 call them boys

As I read these only 8% (4) of the 53 Bibles regard them as men of any kind.

But intelligent theists do not read this story as a child and think it is about some little kids calling an old man bald, then God summons a bear to eat them all up. LOL. We might as well read Little Red Ridding Hood.

So what do intelligent theists read the story as? What you think the lesson is in 2 Kings 2:23-25?

.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Miles in post #118]

I answered that in the post you replied to. Here it is.

I do not take this approach. Either it is an allegory that the youth were cut off from the land. They were exiled or it is to teach us a moral lesson that if we are truly in danger and ask God, God could answer.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #112]

'Read properly' evidently translates as 'with enough faith to ignore problems and fiddle the science and the Bible as necessary'. I already pointed out that Science does not agree with Genesis nor Genesis with science. How can you call that 'read properly'?