A question regarding ALL revealed scripture...answers please?

[Kouyate42]

This is a question which has really got me both puzzled about any religion which bases itself on revealed texts (in short, nearly all major religion).

Language itself is imperfect. The same word can have different meanings, or can even shift meaning as time passes by. Similarly, language is culturally specific in some instances, and includes nuances of language specific to that time and place. Any translator will tell you that translating from one language to another invariably loses much of these nuances and subtleties of language.

Moreover, language itself is limited. Some things are inexpressible in human terms, whilst other things can be described in terms which invariably limit it to the meanings understood by that word.

With this in mind, how on earth can any God then give His scripture to humans with the limitations of human language this then brings? How can the majesty of the Creator be expressed in what amount to pitiful language?

 

[po18guy]

He trusted His revelation to the Aramaic language, a primitive tongue by modern standards. However, the written revelation is far from complete, and tells us as much. The New testament is essentially a synopsis of the Gospel - a sacred Cliffs Notes, if you will. This indicates that the remainder is stored somewhere else. But, where?

 

[CopticChristian]

This is a question which has really got me both puzzled about any religion which bases itself on** revealed texts** (in short, nearly all major religion).

Language itself is imperfect. The same word can have different meanings, or can even shift meaning as time passes by. Similarly, language is culturally specific in some instances, and includes nuances of language specific to that time and place. Any translator will tell you that translating from one language to another invariably loses much of these nuances and subtleties of language.

Moreover, language itself is limited. Some things are inexpressible in human terms, whilst other things can be described in terms which invariably limit it to the meanings understood by that word.

With this in mind, how on earth can any God then give His scripture to humans with the limitations of human language this then brings? How can the majesty of the Creator be expressed in what amount to pitiful language?

The revealed texts as you say are a result of the living Faith and a record of the Faith and as such the OHCAC is not based on the book…the book was produced by the Faith…it is part of the revealed truth and came as a consequence of that Faith.

 

[Bezant]

This is a question which has really got me both puzzled about any religion which bases itself on revealed texts (in short, nearly all major religion).

Language itself is imperfect. The same word can have different meanings, or can even shift meaning as time passes by. Similarly, language is culturally specific in some instances, and includes nuances of language specific to that time and place. Any translator will tell you that translating from one language to another invariably loses much of these nuances and subtleties of language.

Moreover, language itself is limited. Some things are inexpressible in human terms, whilst other things can be described in terms which invariably limit it to the meanings understood by that word.

With this in mind, how on earth can any God then give His scripture to humans with the limitations of human language this then brings? How can the majesty of the Creator be expressed in what amount to pitiful language?

There’s another way to look at the issue, from Genesis. Language has its limits to be sure but there’s also a creative ability about it, an aspect mankind shares with God (albeit a limited creative ability). God brings the world into existence and organises it by command, and we build our civilisation and dominance over the earth through the expression of ideas. So language may be limited, and mankind’s creative ability through language may be limited, but something very true and meaningful can be expressed in those limits.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Have you looked into what is Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture? In Catholicism you cannot have one without the other.

What got written in the New Testament was already preached, believed in and being practiced before the pen recorded the gospel (teachings) of Jesus Christ and the epistles.

As far as language and translation is concerned. The Catholic Church translated the Greek into Latin which are the two “common” languages that were spoken in the first century Palestinian biblical times. The Catholic Church could translate these texts correctly because she spoke them and she possessed the apostolic Traditions that are revealed from the scripture text.

The Catholic Church is the only one who could translate the scripture from her own languages and translate their meanings because the Catholic Church was already practicing and preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, by both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. The Vulgate bible which is the Catholic Church’s official bible, because this is the earliest translation from the original Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic writings and interpetations by the Catholic Saint Jerome a world reknown triangular language scholar.

To this day both languages of Greek and Latin from biblical times are still alive within the Catholic Church.

 

[beehumble]

This is a question which has really got me both puzzled about any religion which bases itself on revealed texts (in short, nearly all major religion).

Language itself is imperfect. The same word can have different meanings, or can even shift meaning as time passes by. Similarly, language is culturally specific in some instances, and includes nuances of language specific to that time and place. Any translator will tell you that translating from one language to another invariably loses much of these nuances and subtleties of language.

Moreover, language itself is limited. Some things are inexpressible in human terms, whilst other things can be described in terms which invariably limit it to the meanings understood by that word.

With this in mind, how on earth can any God then give His scripture to humans with the limitations of human language this then brings? How can the majesty of the Creator be expressed in what amount to pitiful language?

The majesty of the Creator expressed through the Holy Spirit, notably when He descended upon the disciples at Pentecost. The Apostles received full knowledge and truth, the Deposit of the Faith, which surpasses human language. Note that when Peter preached that day, all who heard him understood him in their own tongue - language was no barrier to Truth. That Truth is universal and unchanging, and understandable across all ages and peoples - for in the final analysis, we are all the same.

God bless you.

 

[Sam_777]

With this in mind, how on earth can any God then give His scripture to humans with the limitations of human language this then brings? How can the majesty of the Creator be expressed in what amount to pitiful language?

Read (Acts 2), GOD instructed us by different languages using direct revelation so that we do not translate things in a wrong way:

"Now when the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like a violent wind blowing came from heaven and filled the entire house where they were sitting. And tongues spreading out like a fire appeared to them and came to rest on each one of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in other languages as the Spirit enabled them.
Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven residing in Jerusalem. When this sound occurred, a crowd gathered and was in confusion, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. Completely baffled, they said, “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that each one of us hears them 16 in our own native language? Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and the province of Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs – we hear them speaking in our own languages about the great deeds God has done!” All were astounded and greatly confused, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” But others jeered at the speakers, saying, “They are drunk on new wine!” "

 

[Kouyate42]

Read (Acts 2), GOD instructed us by different languages using direct revelation so that we do not translate things in a wrong way:

"Now when the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like a violent wind blowing came from heaven and filled the entire house where they were sitting. And tongues spreading out like a fire appeared to them and came to rest on each one of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in other languages as the Spirit enabled them.
Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven residing in Jerusalem. When this sound occurred, a crowd gathered and was in confusion, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. Completely baffled, they said, “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that each one of us hears them 16 in our own native language? Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and the province of Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs – we hear them speaking in our own languages about the great deeds God has done!” All were astounded and greatly confused, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” But others jeered at the speakers, saying, “They are drunk on new wine!” "

Even if this had actually happened, my point still remains. Human language in any way, shape or form is limited, fragile and ineffective. I will let Thomas Paine speak for himself here:
The Age of Reason:

The continually progressive change to which the meaning of words is subject, the want of a universal language which renders translation necessary, the errors to which translations are again subject, the mistakes of copyists and printers, together with the possibility of willful alteration, are of themselves evidences that the human language, whether in speech or in print, cannot be the vehicle of the word of God. The word of God exists in something else.
Did the book called the Bible excel in purity of ideas and expression all the books that are now extant in the world, I would not take it for my rule of faith, as being the word of God, because the possibility would nevertheless exist of my being imposed upon. But when I see throughout the greater part of this book scarcely anything but a history of the grossest vices and a collection of the most paltry and contemptible tales, I cannot dishonor my Creator by calling it by his name.

…

It is only in the CREATION that all our ideas and conceptions of a word of God can unite. The Creation speaketh an universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they may be. It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God.


Do we want to contemplate his power? We see it in the immensity

of the Creation. Do we want to contemplate his wisdom? We see it
in the unchangeable order by which the incomprehensible whole is
governed! Do we want to contemplate his munificence? We see it in the
abundance with which he fills the earth. Do we want to contemplate his
mercy? We see it in his not withholding that abundance even from the
unthankful. In fine, do we want to know what God is? Search not the
book called the Scripture, which any human hand might make, but the
Scripture called the Creation.

The majesty of the Creator expressed through the Holy Spirit, notably when He descended upon the disciples at Pentecost. The Apostles received full knowledge and truth, the Deposit of the Faith, which surpasses human language. Note that when Peter preached that day, all who heard him understood him in their own tongue - language was no barrier to Truth. That Truth is universal and unchanging, and understandable across all ages and peoples - for in the final analysis, we are all the same.

God bless you.

See my above Thomas Paine quote. I also think you miss a critical point: translating the divine into the mortal is impossible as it limits the limitless to the limited.

 

[Mirza19]

This is a question which has really got me both puzzled about any religion which bases itself on revealed texts (in short, nearly all major religion).

Language itself is imperfect. The same word can have different meanings, or can even shift meaning as time passes by. Similarly, language is culturally specific in some instances, and includes nuances of language specific to that time and place. Any translator will tell you that translating from one language to another invariably loses much of these nuances and subtleties of language.

Moreover, language itself is limited. Some things are inexpressible in human terms, whilst other things can be described in terms which invariably limit it to the meanings understood by that word.

With this in mind, how on earth can any God then give His scripture to humans with the limitations of human language this then brings? How can the majesty of the Creator be expressed in what amount to pitiful language?

Those are only limitations to someone who thinks there is one, absolute, restricted “answer” to sacred texts.

What I love about sacred literature is its openness. Its meaning can never be factually identified, assuming any of it has a single meaning. If Divinity exists, I think it intended for sacred literature to be received in such a way.

A novel has only so many “correct” ways of looking at it: reading it as it is, looking into it for social commentary in relation to the author and his/her culture, and seeing how it relates to the broader literary culture of its time and place. On the other hand, taking it out of all of those contexts, acting as if it were written yesterday, and reading your own meaning into it are incorrect.

Sacred literature, on the other hand, is open to all of that, simply because it’s correct meaning is illustrated by individual “faith” and not by factual methods of literary interpretation. It’s why it’s my primary area of study, because Sacred literature is removed from the constraints of secular literature and is truly infinite in its meanings. Sure, believing in Divinity, some of those understandings are “wrong,” but as a human I can never know for certain.

I guess I just fail to see what you listed as “constraints,” and instead see them as “blessings.” Then again, I see God as the Great Entertainer, giving us this puzzle to give us something to do. So perhaps my worldview is flawed.

 

[Publisher]

Scripture is NOT the word of God…it is a record of people’s dealings with God…scripture is a written record of what we THINK we know of God and about God.

Those of us who profess to believe in Jesus of Nazareth as God’s Complete Revelation of Himself to humanity finds the “Word” of God in human form…The “word of the Lord” that came to ancient peoples cannot be “translated” into words…the word of God must be seen LIVED out in front of our world by His People or it is not the “word of the Lord”.

The two greatest commandments God has revealed to us is "love God and love your neighbor as yourself…this is the whole of the prophets’.

God speaks to each human heart and now under grace He writes His words on our hearts…not in a book…nor does God dwell in buildings of stone…but in fleshy temples of the heart…and it is Within that we can find and hear the Word of the Lord.

 

[Nine_Two]

What has been revealed to us is not the entirety of what exists. The Divine Liturgy acknowledges that God is incomprehensable.

God only reveals to us what we have the capability to understand.

 

[Kouyate42]

Scripture is NOT the word of God…it is a record of people’s dealings with God…scripture is a written record of what we THINK we know of God and about God.

Problem is that you get books like the Qur’an which Muslims believe is the exact words of God sent down to earth, revealed by the angel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad.

It might be the case that Christianity only sees the Bible as a record, but other faiths do not view their Scripture in the same manner.

God speaks to each human heart and now under grace He writes His words on our hearts…not in a book…nor does God dwell in buildings of stone…but in fleshy temples of the heart…and it is Within that we can find and hear the Word of the Lord.

This is what I believe, almost exactly.

 

[Nine_Two]

It might be the case that Christianity only sees the Bible as a record, but other faiths do not view their Scripture in the same manner.

Christianity certainly doesn’t. Small sects might, but as a whole the bible is more than a simple record (although parts of it are quite literally, records).

 

[Whadyamean]

This is a question which has really got me both puzzled about any religion which bases itself on revealed texts (in short, nearly all major religion).

Language itself is imperfect. The same word can have different meanings, or can even shift meaning as time passes by. Similarly, language is culturally specific in some instances, and includes nuances of language specific to that time and place. Any translator will tell you that translating from one language to another invariably loses much of these nuances and subtleties of language.

Moreover, language itself is limited. Some things are inexpressible in human terms, whilst other things can be described in terms which invariably limit it to the meanings understood by that word.

With this in mind, how on earth can any God then give His scripture to humans with the limitations of human language this then brings? How can the majesty of the Creator be expressed in what amount to pitiful language?

You are perceptive and have a wonderful question deserving of a reasonable answer, as some on here are. But so as not to irritate the Faithful on this thread and take up space unnecessarily, message me if you might like the tile of a book I found very useful in this regard–and other regards as well!

 

[Kouyate42]

What has been revealed to us is not the entirety of what exists. The Divine Liturgy acknowledges that God is incomprehensable.

God only reveals to us what we have the capability to understand.

Now this is where the problem lies for me. I am a deist and for me, the Bible and other Scriptures are limited and outdated both in their visions of God and also their understanding and knowledge of the world. What we know about the world through science has, to my mind at least, surpassed and gone beyond wat the Bible knows. We are limited in our scientific knowledge only by time and technology, which is .ore and more sophisticated every day.

Surely this is a major problem in arguing Scripture as God’s communication to us? Why would the Creator of the universe limit Himself when he could reveal a universal scripture in the universe which can be understood by anyone at any time?

 

[grandfather]

This is a question which has really got me both puzzled about any religion which bases itself on revealed texts (in short, nearly all major religion).

Language itself is imperfect. The same word can have different meanings, or can even shift meaning as time passes by. Similarly, language is culturally specific in some instances, and includes nuances of language specific to that time and place. Any translator will tell you that translating from one language to another invariably loses much of these nuances and subtleties of language.

Moreover, language itself is limited. Some things are inexpressible in human terms, whilst other things can be described in terms which invariably limit it to the meanings understood by that word.

With this in mind, how on earth can any God then give His scripture to humans with the limitations of human language this then brings? How can the majesty of the Creator be expressed in what amount to pitiful language?

The limitations of language is indeed a problem in conveying messages to humans who receive information through physical senses. Language is inadequate to convey ideas that are beyond description by language. God is infinite. The human person is finite. The human mind is limited. Jesus said to His apostles, “There is much that I wish to tell you, but you can not bear it yet”. You just can’t get it.

This does not mean we can know nothing of God. It just means we can not know everything. Language while inadequate of conveying all of the meaning of a thought does not mean it is completely unable to convey meaning.

We get glimpses of spiritual truths, not the panorama and they can be shared through language to a degree. Something is better than nothing.

Jesus said that His apostles could not bear (understand) what He wanted to share with them YET. Our understanding can be expanded. You don’t start out learning math by enrolling in a calculus class. You learn to speak a word at a time and then put words together in sentences. Understanding revealed truth is the same.

If you are a deist you are stuck in a position where growing in understanding of God who reveals Himself to us is impossible. He is out there, but you can know nothing of Him, much less know Him. There is a difference between knowing about a thing and knowing the thing. If one claims God is unknowable then you are at your terminus of understanding by your own doing, or rather by your own error.

 

[Nine_Two]

Now this is where the problem lies for me. I am a deist and for me, the Bible and other Scriptures are limited and outdated both in their visions of God and also their understanding and knowledge of the world. What we know about the world through science has, to my mind at least, surpassed and gone beyond wat the Bible knows. We are limited in our scientific knowledge only by time and technology, which is .ore and more sophisticated every day.

First off, the bible isn’t a scientific book. It was never meant to be. I’m not sure where you’d get this idea. It’s a bit like expecting a book on sport x to expound on the physics involved in hitting/throwing the ball/puck/bird.

Second, one would be quite limited in describing our scientific advances to someone who is a ways behind us. For example how would you explain how to build an ipod to someone from a society which hasn’t figured out alternating current.
You can’t superimpose religion and science on top of each other, it just doesn’t work. They are two very different things. Many lay scientists like to think science is a replacement for religion but it really isn’t.

Surely this is a major problem in arguing Scripture as God’s communication to us? Why would the Creator of the universe limit Himself when he could reveal a universal scripture in the universe which can be understood by anyone at any time?

That argument is like arguing that a major problem with science is that we can’t figure out how the world around us works all at once. I mean afterall gravity seems pretty simple, why have their been revisions to what we know as recently as this century? I mean you drop something, it falls, right?

Another analogy is the child. Do parents teach them everything at once, or do they wait until they are ready to know certain things? Do you teach a two year old about safe sex? Or do you wait until they are older?

Similarly, as civilization advances, perhaps it is ready for new elements in revelation (although the Christian teaching is we have received all the revelation we are going to receive)?

As I write this I notice something, you refered to the revelation which has been given to Christianity as “outdated”, and yet you ask why God could not give a revelation that could be understood by anyone at anytime.
Therein lies a contradiction in your thinking. While the Christian revelation is for those after it, it is meant for all, and can be grasped by people of many different cultures, over many different time periods. It is the universal revelation. If you misunderstand it (as it seems you do, confusing it for a book on science), then find someone to help you understand it, if you disagree with the morals it states, that is a disagreement with the revelation, not a case of it being outdated.

 

[Kouyate42]

First off, the bible isn’t a scientific book. It was never meant to be. I’m not sure where you’d get this idea. It’s a bit like expecting a book on sport x to expound on the physics involved in hitting/throwing the ball/puck/bird.

Second, one would be quite limited in describing our scientific advances to someone who is a ways behind us. For example how would you explain how to build an ipod to someone from a society which hasn’t figured out alternating current.
You can’t superimpose religion and science on top of each other, it just doesn’t work. They are two very different things. Many lay scientists like to think science is a replacement for religion but it really isn’t.

Come on, Richard Dawkins and the like would call this ‘non-overlapping magisteria’ and have (correctly) identified it for the complete nonsense it is. Religion doesn’t have ANY ground where science does not also. Indeed, miracles rely on the sole fact that they VIOLATE the rules of science, and so enter the scientific realm, whether you like it or not.

Also, hypocritically, if some scientific evidence were found that supported the Bible/Qur’an/Torah, you can bet a good sum of money that believers would trumpet the findings to the sky.

Take your sport example- a book about sport might not EXPLICITLY mention parabolic trajectories or angles of deflection or any of the science behind that sport, but generally the writer will be aware of it.

That argument is like arguing that a major problem with science is that we can’t figure out how the world around us works all at once. I mean afterall gravity seems pretty simple, why have their been revisions to what we know as recently as this century? I mean you drop something, it falls, right?

Another analogy is the child. Do parents teach them everything at once, or do they wait until they are ready to know certain things? Do you teach a two year old about safe sex? Or do you wait until they are older?

Similarly, as civilization advances, perhaps it is ready for new elements in revelation (although the Christian teaching is we have received all the revelation we are going to receive)?

The whole premise of the Bible is flawed in any case when it can’t even get basic facts of history, biology, physics right. Basing anything based upon that is like building a house on sand. That to me is suspect: a perfect God would NOT get these sorts of things wrong.

Problem is that for too many believers, the Bible is the answer and then it’s a case of finding the evidence to fit. Any sort of new findings are filtered through the Biblical lenses. As a result you get the likes Creationists, whose understanding of science is corrupt, or even more moderate believers who seem to have no problem believing in evolution, but can still accept that the sun danced in the sky by 70,000 people or that the moon was split in two by the Prophet Muhammad.

As I write this I notice something, you refered to the revelation which has been given to Christianity as “outdated”, and yet you ask why God could not give a revelation that could be understood by anyone at anytime.
Therein lies a contradiction in your thinking. While the Christian revelation is for those after it, it is meant for all, and can be grasped by people of many different cultures, over many different time periods. It is the universal revelation. If you misunderstand it (as it seems you do, confusing it for a book on science), then find someone to help you understand it, if you disagree with the morals it states, that is a disagreement with the revelation, not a case of it being outdated.

We HAVE been given a universal revelation: science. Basic scientific understanding has been observed even in animals, and goes across from the most simple to the most cultured people. It’s also observed across all of history- some of the earliest writings are scientific texts.

When I look at the Bible, all I see is a vague collection of fables. You ask me to ‘find someone to help you understand it’- you only have to look at the 1000s of religions, and even within Christianity, the different sects, to see that this is a Sisyphean and pointless task.

 

[Nine_Two]

Come on, Richard Dawkins and the like would call this ‘non-overlapping magisteria’ and have (correctly) identified it for the complete nonsense it is. Religion doesn’t have ANY ground where science does not also. Indeed, miracles rely on the sole fact that they VIOLATE the rules of science, and so enter the scientific realm, whether you like it or not.

While Richard Dawkins is an intelligent man, as soon as religion crops up he is a blubbering idiot. Any biologist who believes that if you excise religion, you’ll find peace among mankind, loses all right to comment on the matter.

While you are correct about what a miracle is, that is not what you started the topic on. This topic is about revelation. Though miracles are described within the bible, they are not the revelation itself.

Also, hypocritically, if some scientific evidence were found that supported the Bible/Qur’an/Torah, you can bet a good sum of money that believers would trumpet the findings to the sky.

You mean like the aformentioned miracles?
I wouldn’t call them “trumptetted to the sky”. In fact Christ taught not to rely on them.

Take your sport example- a book about sport might not EXPLICITLY mention parabolic trajectories or angles of deflection or any of the science behind that sport, but generally the writer will be aware of it.

I would disagree. If someone writes a book about some team and their successes, and writes about one particular shot/hit/throw that was taken, there is absolutely no reason to believe they are at all aware of the mathematics behind it.

The whole premise of the Bible is flawed in any case when it can’t even get basic facts of history, biology, physics right. Basing anything based upon that is like building a house on sand. That to me is suspect: a perfect God would NOT get these sorts of things wrong.

First, while the bible is revelation, it was writen by man, so it is not infallible.
I am aware of a very few cases in which history is detailed in a provably incorrect manner, and in those cases it is usually just something minor. In many cases the history described has been usable by archeologists to make finds.
By biology I assume you mean the first two chapters of Genesis (a very small portion of the whole). That would be, I suggest, a case where man was not ready or able to understand the truth, a full scientific account would have been the same as describing the building of an ipod to a civilization without AC.
On physics, I have a suspision I know what you are refering to, of course to make an issue of that is to explicitly deny the possibility of an omnipotent God, which you haven’t proved as an axiom we should use.

Problem is that for too many believers, the Bible is the answer and then it’s a case of finding the evidence to fit. Any sort of new findings are filtered through the Biblical lenses. As a result you get the likes Creationists, whose understanding of science is corrupt, or even more moderate believers who seem to have no problem believing in evolution, but can still accept that the sun danced in the sky by 70,000 people or that the moon was split in two by the Prophet Muhammad.

The problem for too many unbelievers, the bible must be wrong and any evidence for it must be explainable by something else. They look at it through an atheist lens.

Let me ask you something. Since you wish for proof of the truth of the Christian faith, what would you accept as proof?

We HAVE been given a universal revelation: science. Basic scientific understanding has been observed even in animals, and goes across from the most simple to the most cultured people. It’s also observed across all of history- some of the earliest writings are scientific texts.

Science only tells us how things work. It doesn’t answer any of the other questions. Christianity (in particular, I’m not going to put words in the teachings of other religions) tells us who, what, where, when, and why.

When I look at the Bible, all I see is a vague collection of fables. You ask me to ‘find someone to help you understand it’- you only have to look at the 1000s of religions, and even within Christianity, the different sects, to see that this is a Sisyphean and pointless task.

Have you ever actually read it?

Absolutely it is a tough task and requires more than simply reading the bible, but looking at the legitimacy of those who teach it. But nothing in this life comes easy.

The diest position is equally unscientific. It seems to me its just a simple way around the normal atheist beliefs in autogenesis or perpetual motion, but which is ultimately just based on your own personal feelings, rather than any evidence.

 

[Kouyate42]

While Richard Dawkins is an intelligent man, as soon as religion crops up he is a blubbering idiot. Any biologist who believes that if you excise religion, you’ll find peace among mankind, loses all right to comment on the matter.

Where does Richard Dawkins say that? I’ve never seen it in print/speech.

While you are correct about what a miracle is, that is not what you started the topic on. This topic is about revelation. Though miracles are described within the bible, they are not the revelation itself.
You mean like the aformentioned miracles?
I wouldn’t call them “trumptetted to the sky”. In fact Christ taught not to rely on them.
I would disagree. If someone writes a book about some team and their successes, and writes about one particular shot/hit/throw that was taken, there is absolutely no reason to believe they are at all aware of the mathematics behind it.

Way to ignore something you know to be true.

Miracles are part of religion and are also a crucial talking point in science, and so are relevant to be discussed.

First, while the bible is revelation, it was writen by man, so it is not infallible.
I am aware of a very few cases in which history is detailed in a provably incorrect manner, and in those cases it is usually just something minor. In many cases the history described has been usable by archeologists to make finds.
By biology I assume you mean the first two chapters of Genesis (a very small portion of the whole). That would be, I suggest, a case where man was not ready or able to understand the truth, a full scientific account would have been the same as describing the building of an ipod to a civilization without AC.
On physics, I have a suspision I know what you are refering to, of course to make an issue of that is to explicitly deny the possibility of an omnipotent God, which you haven’t proved as an axiom we should use.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about the Bible, the Qur’an, the Torah or any other piece of supposedly divine revelation. There’s some passage in the Bible about all Scripture being ‘God-breathed’ and Muslims and Jewish believers believe their Scriptures are perfect and in the case of the Qur’an, God’s exact word given to the Prophet.

Anything else, any ‘alternate readings’ or silly arguments about silly vowel points or miscopied documents is just plain denial of the simple truth.

The problem for too many unbelievers, the bible must be wrong and any evidence for it must be explainable by something else. They look at it through an atheist lens.

Let me ask you something. Since you wish for proof of the truth of the Christian faith, what would you accept as proof?

I want some proof that Jesus even existed, that isn’t highly suspect of being a forgery (coughJosephuscough) or is simply too vague or pure hearsay.

That would be a good start.

I should point out I’m perfectly willing to change my mind as I find and take into account new evidence, on any position I hold.

Science only tells us how things work. It doesn’t answer any of the other questions. Christianity (in particular, I’m not going to put words in the teachings of other religions) tells us who, what, where, when, and why.

And is there anything wrong in saying ‘we don’t know why the universe was created’? Or is it that you need some major ‘purpose’ for what actually amounts to a rather insignificant existence on a small bit of rock in the middle of nowhere?

Have you ever actually read it?

IN Hebrew, Latin and Greek, yes.

The diest position is equally unscientific. It seems to me its just a simple way around the normal atheist beliefs in autogenesis or perpetual motion, but which is ultimately just based on your own personal feelings, rather than any evidence.