Four questions for Christians

[Godscreated]

---

Sure. You take the original text, compare the words, phrases and sayings with the usage of the same in other texts of the period. Transpose the cultural references to the present and viola, you have it.

Now, are you good for your method of black = white translation? I mean, even every English translation contradicts directly what you're saying.
It's not like the words you're contradicting are even questionable or in doubt according to ANY translation. This is completely unique and unsupported trash.

---

I think translation is one problem among many in this discussion, and one which deserves to be addressed only after other problems have been resolved. Problems such as:

1. At what point are you certain that a text is truly the original text, and not a copy of something earlier which is lost to us?

None of the text for the Bible are original, just like all text from that time. Just because it's a copy it does not mean it's not accurate. Do you believe all other text from that time to be original, if not do you believe the copies of the original text to be inaccurate?

2. How can you be certain that the original text is accurate (especially regarding stories such as Genesis, which depicted many events without even the weak support of eyewitness testimony, or the stories which were written down centuries after they were supposed to have taken place)?

Oral stories have been known to be extremely accurate, if you are going to reject the text of the Bible that was first oral, then how much text about history that came through oral stories do we throw out. Especially those you might use to contradict scriptures.

3. How do you definitively establish that any of the spiritual stuff in the Bible is legitimate? Sure, you can have your visions or revelations, but is that as reliable as evidence gets? Minds are terribly suggestive, especially when one's own self is doing the suggesting.

What makes you think we suggest delusions to ourselves and the way you posted that statement do we take it you're speaking from experience. Why do you assume that the spiritual is not real, do you know for certain it's not, is your non experience with God the reason you claim we can not have one. Why would revelation not be viable, we match it to scripture to affirm that we have not fooled ourselves.

4. How much of the internal bias are you supposed to accept? The Bible is not telling facts neutrally; it is told very much from a certain point of view. It seems as if most Christians form their arguments from that internal perspective and insist that this is necessary to derive the truth from what is on the pages. I should think that, if there was actual truth in it, you would find it in spite of the clear partiality, rather than it being necessary to hold the same point of view

The Bible does not in any way try to prove itself, nor does God, the writers of scripture did not write to prove anything, they wrote to give witness to what God will do for those who love Him. There is no partiality except that which you want to see, you read scripture with presupposed ideas and then make it that way.

(see: the entire argument about God killing Amalekites; you have to take for granted (and not seriously question) the internal assertion that God cannot do evil for many of his actions to be perceived as not some of the most cruel examples of evil in history). Scripture doesn't use the word 'rape' to describe what is very obviously rape (indeed, scripture does not make any attempt to avoid the implication that it's rape), but how are we wrong for calling it rape?

There are places in scripture that use the word rape, it is used when the action of rape happens, why would it be used in some passages and then not in others, explanation, because you have no arguments unless you rewrite scripture to say so.

5. What is the single, gold standard by which all scripture should be interpreted? Given that virtually every Christian gets something different out of the Bible when they read it, with little consistency in interpretations from cover to cover, there seems to be no reason that our unflattering interpretation is any less correct a way to describe its contents than those which are pitifully fawning. And, what's more, once that standard is established, what objective facts support its legitimacy?

Could it be that God knew the things each one of us needed from scripture and revealed to us those things that would be helpful to our lives. I have had passages read to me then explained in a way I hadn't seen before, same passage with true meaning to two different people who had different lives and needs for their lives. As to the last question the same could be said of many text we call reliable history.

In my experience, Christians have no interest in exploring these matters, but I think they are serious. What difference do the various translations make, really, when the sources themselves are so questionable and vaporous? That puts the cart miles ahead of the horse.

Here's one that has and will continue to, know how about you being honest about truth being in scripture or reject most of history from that time.