misright:

I learn from de best that's why i've choosen to be a member of nairaland. u knw what u don't knw.

True. And I've really benefitted from a lot of posts on the various threads as well. I was only a lil unsure what the thread was about.

Cheers.

You are a Christian if you believe that JESUS died to set us free from sin. You are a christian if you believe that God made the heaven and the earth, if you believe that JESUS is the son of God. If you believe that JESUS is in U. If you accept him as your personal LORD and Saviour. If you surrender your soul to him, if you give your life to him and let him take control of your life, let him your guide, your helper.

If you donot believe his word then you are not a christian. In 1JOHN 1vs1
In the beginning was the word and the word was with GOD and the WORD was GOD.

Believe his word, believe his prophets and it shall be well with you.

Stay Blessed

i thot,i was the only one being hunted by such a feeling till i saw this thread.my dillema started wen i watched an edition of barbara walters' show in wich the topic was about heaven n if it existed.i was bothered by the fact that NO ONE seemed to agree on the same thing,despite the fact that she talked to several leaders in different sects of the church n the mosque,the buddhists n other major religions in the world.the only set of people who seemed to agree were the atheists n the scientists.

hence,my questions are;
is the bible as we know it today,the real one or has it been tampered with?
why have some certain parts of the bible been removed?
why isnt the bible universal like the quran or other books other religions use?
really really,let's face it some parts of the bible do sound just like the history of a group of
people?
if the story of the how the yoruba cxame to be or the greek stories can be described as mytrhologies,why cant the old testament be said to be the jewish mythology?
why is that judaism is the jewish religion now?
why is that we blivd jesus was GOD's son as he claimed,n we dont bliv people who claim sop now?shebi,he said he was comin back
i bliv in an almighty GOD,but am beginnin to doubt the 'bible story'

tuneri:

really really,let's face it some parts of the bible do sound just like the history of a group of
people?

Some of it is, some aren't.

if the story of the how the yoruba cxame to be or the greek stories can be described as mytrhologies,why can't the old testament be said to be the jewish mythology?

A lot of it [B]IS[/B] Jewish mythology.

why is that judaism is the jewish religion now?

Now? When did it stop being the Jewish religion?

why is that we blivd jesus was GOD's son as he claimed,n we don't bliv people who claim sop now?

Because not enough time has passed and we have better ways of keeping and passing information.

I used to be a strong Christian untill I read the Bible,seriously.I did CRK in my JAMB exams and had to study the Bible extensively and the more I read,the less sense it made.

I wonder how people who regularly read the BIBLE still have strong faith.I am still a Christian but a rather sceptical one.

how does the more u read it the less u believe it makes perfect sense everything in the bible fits hand in hand old testament new testament

if you dont believe all that,you are not a christian.

reading the bible everyday does not make you a Christian, it also burst down to why you are reading the bible, every time i set to read the bible, i am always amused, getting to discover new things that make me fear God and the existence of man the more, thats just it, it depends on why you are reading the bible and what you want to achieve from the reading, the major thing is that, do you really believe in Jesus Christ and God? salvation is the number one thing you need in your life ok?

I don't believe the creation story and feeding of a thousand. HANG ME!


*I think they are just metaphors*


And I'm a pretty decent Catholic

good for you! its good to have an opinion

do you believe in ANY of the "stories" in the bible?

So you belive some stories in the bible and you dont believe some. Question is how do you know which one to believe and which one not to? On what basis do you believe and/or disbelieve? your intuition?

lafile:

So you believe some stories in the bible and you don't believe some. Question is how do you know which one to believe and which one not to? On what basis do you believe and/or disbelieve? your intuition?

Several times, like in the Genesis narrative of the creation and the Adam and Eve story, the language and devices used: poetic language laced with numerous symbolisms, archetypes, and imagery, can give one an inkling. Another way - one fraught with problems though - is to see if the picture it paints contradicts the reality of the Universe and Earth. That method is usually applied to stories that are deemed irrelevant to salvation.

the bible is there for everyone, it depends on how you take it to be, you can either believe it and not believe it, that's all, the bible is mystical and you can't understand the complexity of the bible even then pastors do confess that the mysteries of the bible is too wide and far too much for you to understand. so you shouldn't take it mean it is not what you can't believe.
In the little you have read and believed, have you really do those things they are teaching you? are you a master in them yet? God is too large, mighty to understand in just the bible, there are things in the bible you don't need to understand because you are not meant to understand it and the ones you do understand are the ones God wants you to know period
we humans believe we are too wise and we all forget to all the wisdom of this world is just foolish in the eyes of God

@ KAG
You are judging based on the assumption that you are in a position to critically analyse the literary styles and thought patterns of writers who wrote thousands of years before your knowledge base was crystallised. just because stuff was written in poetic literary style doesnt make it untrue. just because some story doesnt comform to reality as you know it (remembering off course that your knowledge is limited - God is not) doesnt make it untrue.

If the writers of the bible interwovenly placed truth and untruth in it and then passed it off as divine, then they are not to be trusted. there is no point believeing any story in the bible at all.

If the writers of the bible actually make a claim that the entire book is divinely inspired, its either they are telling the truth or they are lying. If they are telling the truth, it means all the stories are true. there is no middle ground.

Truth is not subjective. Your idea of truth is dependent on what you want to believe. what you assume is believable. Note that truth remains truth wether you believe it or not.

the bottom line is that all of this is a matter of faith.

without understanding and knowing the various and VAST figures of speech used in biblical times, understanding of biblical times and cultures, we will continue to make mistakes in our understnding of the bible.

lafile:

@ KAG
You are judging based on the assumption that you are in a position to critically analyse the literary styles and thought patterns of writers who wrote thousands of years before your knowledge base was crystallised.

It's not just me. Scholars who have devoted their lives to the study of theology have come to the same conclusions; sholars who have devoted their lives to the study of the Bible have made assertions that are similar to mine; scholars who have studied the Old Testament/Tanakh extensively have said it as well.

just because stuff was written in poetic literary style doesnt make it untrue. just because some story doesnt comform to reality as you know it (remembering off course that your knowledge is limited - God is not) doesnt make it untrue. If the writers of the bible interwovenly placed truth and untruth in it and then passed it off as divine, then they are not to be trusted. there is no point believeing any story in the bible at all.

I think you're confusing allegory with untruth. Think of it like this, allegories are similar to the parables that were told by Jesus. It would be highly unusual and you probably be missiing the point if decided to read those parables as literal occurences; the same with allegories.

If the writers of the bible actually make a claim that the entire book is divinely inspired, its either they are telling the truth or they are lying. If they are telling the truth, it means all the stories are true. there is no middle ground.

While I don't believe the Bible is i#divinely inspired, I can appreciate the fact that the language used in some narratives show that the authors weren't writing for a literal interpretation and were most likely following the tradition of their times. In any case, feel free to claim all the stories are literal and we as humans can't really be sure about the truth of our world; I, on the otherhand, will stick with what the evidence has shown: that snakes don't talk, that our solar system isn't geocentric, the Earth isn't stationary and flat, the Universe and the Earth are billions of years old, a worldwide flood couldn't have occured, a wooden boat couldn't have held all the various species, etc.

Truth is not subjective. Your idea of truth is dependent on what you want to believe. what you assume is believable. Note that truth remains truth wether you believe it or not.

Which is why many Christians have had to revise their views.

the bottom line is that all of this is a matter of faith.

Not if it is observable and repeatably tested truth.

dont not follow the crowd, believe in God not in what people say or tell you, HELL IS REAL HEAVEN IS REAL, these are the main thing, prepare your way, you might never tell

i don't take EVERY single detail in the bible literally, but i know i AM a christian. so, yes!!

you were brought up with that same bible now you think you are too wise to adhere to it, well you are accountable to who ever you think you fate is based on, the muslims use the quaran and i have never heard them say its not all they believe, so if the christains are now saying this, what do you want the non christains should say about christainity?
think before you say things, its just that God has changed his action ways from the olden days where he would have sent down fire to consume blasphemers like most people here

that is why i'm not a fundamentalist!! i don't take EVERY single detail in the bible word fo word, whereas the muslisms do with their quaran. each to his own. 

look who's judging!

oh did the word hit at you? uhm, well if you like say anything, why not go join the muslims? sincde theirs is the right and complete one from God, you have the right to do that now, since you have been reading the bible, did you get to the stage where the bible said woe unto you that read, yet disbelieve? go and read again, maybe you were reading the bible as a novel and was only interested in the path you would use to back what ever palns you have in your head. UK people don corrupt you finish , after all they don chase all the churches under ground and gthe ones they have are mostly occupied by 90 years old people, maybe 10 in a 600 capacity seater church. God helps us all

@my good friend KAG,

KAG:

I, on the otherhand, will stick with what the evidence has shown: that snakes don't talk, that our solar system isn't geocentric, the Earth isn't stationary and flat, the Universe and the Earth are billions of years old, a worldwide flood couldn't have occured, a wooden boat couldn't have held all the various species, etc.

don't mix falsehood with truth. the bible doesn't teach that snakes talk, it says the serpent in the garden did. it doesn't teach that the solar system is geocentric or that the earth is stationary and flat; quite the opposite.
the universe and the earth are CANNOT be billions of years old, a worldwide flood could have occured and a wooden boat could have held all the various kinds of land animals (note, not species - that is mixing error with truth).
I believe in a literal reading of biblical HISTORY.
Bring your evidence to the contrary so we can trash them. Cheers.

ricadelide:

@my good friend KAG,don't mix falsehood with truth. the bible doesn't teach that snakes talk, it says the serpent in the garden did.

Potaeto; Potahto. In my opinion, the Eden narrative wasn't mean't to be read literally and the snake wasn't a literal talking snake.

t doesn't teach that the solar system is geocentric

Not unless you go a for a literal reading. Remember Joshua and the Sun standing still and Hezekiah and the Sun going back.

or that the earth is stationary and flat; quite the opposite.

In Psalm 104: 5

Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

1st Chronicles 16:30

Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Isaiah 40:22

the circle of the earth; and the Devil showing Jesus all the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain.

the universe and the earth are CANNOT be billions of years old,

You're kidding right?

a worldwide flood could have occured and a wooden boat could have held all the various kinds of land animals (note, not species - that is mixing error with truth).

Apart from where the water to cover the entire Earth could have come from and receded to, what is a kind?

I believe in a literal reading of biblical HISTORY.
Bring your evidence to the contrary so we can trash them. Cheers.

To the contrary of what? That the Eden account and several other aspects of the Bible should not be read literally? Or that if read literally many of the narratives are highly improbable?

Potaeto; Potahto. In my opinion, the Eden narrative wasn't mean't to be read literally and the snake wasn't a literal talking snake.

in YOUR opinion.

Not unless you go a for a literal reading. Remember Joshua and the Sun standing still and Hezekiah and the Sun going back.

perspective; relative to the earth,

In Psalm 104: 5

Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

1st Chronicles 16:30

Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Isaiah 40:22

the circle of the earth; and the Devil showing Jesus all the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain.

circle of the earth - earth is not flat. He took him in the spirit realm, there is no distance in the spirit realm.

You're kidding right?

when next i have time; i'd go into it.

Apart from where the water to cover the entire Earth could have come from and receded to, what is a kind?

explained in the bible. go to, www.drdino.com

To the contrary of what? That the Eden account and several other aspects of the Bible should not be read literally? Or that if read literally many of the narratives are highly improbable?

highly improbable for humans, not for God. the question is, who will you believe?

ricadelide:

in YOUR opinion.
perspective; relative to the earth,

I guess you're not as literal a reader as you suggested. However, a literal reading of those texts have been good enough for the geocentrists. Read literally, it becomes clear that in those two verses, the Sun did startling things that suggested a geocentric solar system. In the first, we are told that the "Sun stood still". Not the Sun looked like it was standing still , not from your perspective that's not happening and the Earth is rotating around the Sun. It was, "the Sun stood still". In the second, the Sun moves backwards. I'm sure that's self explanatory. Only a non-literal reading of those verses could satisfy the idea of an Earth that revolves around the Sun.

circle of the earth - earth is not flat. He took him in the spirit realm, there is no distance in the spirit realm.

A circle is flat and the verse says it took him up to a "high mountain", not the spiritual realm.

when next i have time; i'd go into it.

In your own time.

explained in the bible. go to, www.drdino.com

You're a biologist that uses Kent Hovind?! Maybe these are the last days. If it's Hovind's theory on the wter canopy etc you want me to look up, I'll have you know beforehand that he was wrong (even others that illogically hold to a worldwide flood because of their interpretation will tell you that). If it isn't then tell me what you want me to look up. In all honesty, though, that anyone is still taken in by Kent is testament to the staying power of bad information and blind ignorance (I have to say the weird illogic is all starting to make sense now).

highly improbable for humans, not for God. the question is, who will you believe?

Evidence or the suggestions of one.

my main issue was who will one beleive?

Evidence or the suggestions of one.

i don't know so much about geology or other fields, but i do beleive that there definitely was a literal flood, if there wasn't Jesus wouldn't have quoted it as well as Peter. (Luke 17;26-30, 2Pet. 3;3-7).
i've witnessed first-hand the propaganda in evolutionary biology, and i'm very sure the same people behind that can mastermind a counter theory in geology and other fields.
the question is 'if there was a flood, what will the evidence be?' massive erosions, fossilizations, oil etc. and those can be observed. so the evidence is not inconsistent with the flood.
i'm sure if we had honest scientists that were not influenced by other things, that would be the common knowledge.

As for your initial question

where the water to cover the entire Earth could have come from and receded to

if we are talking about the God of the bible, who is omnipotent, that is not an issue. if He could create the universe, a little water to cover just one of his planets shouldn't be an issue. If however, one is to believe evolution, then one can reject it happening; no wahala.

I believe the bible, even with the amount of attack that have been tried to use to discredit it, it still has the power to save and does. cheers.

ricadelide:

my main issue was who will one beleive?

Certainly not Kent Hovind and certainly not the person that can't even be consistent in their approach to the interpretation of the Bible and can't be honest about it.

i don't know so much about geology or other fields,

You should look into geology and the other fields. In fact, a global flood was falsified over a century ago by geologists that included Christians.

but i do beleive that there definitely was a literal flood, if there wasn't Jesus wouldn't have quoted it as well as Peter. (Luke 17;26-30, 2Pet. 3;3-7).

Their love is bound to end the way Romeo and Juliet's did. Alsa, it began to unravel when, like the Ancient Mariner, he shot and killed the albatross of their love: her career.

I guess Romeo and Juliet and the Ancient Mariner are all real too.

i've witnessed first-hand the propaganda in evolutionary biology, and i'm very sure the same people behind that can mastermind a counter theory in geology and other fields.

LoL, no doubt. I bet it's those pesky Evolution Mafia or the E.A.C. Who can doubt that those bastards planted ERVs in humans and apes just to make it look like evolution happened? To make matters worse, they also planted fossils like dinosaur bones, etc just to deconvert we the faithful. The cheek of it! As a final coup de grace, they made sure that we'd all suddenly believe that various branches of cosmology and theoretical physics (with their fancy telescopes, quantum physics and stellar calculations), geology (with their different forms of radiometric dating, varves, etc), biology and history, would all show that the Universe and the Earth are billions of years old and contradict literalism.

the question is 'if there was a flood, what will the evidence be?' massive erosions, fossilizations, oil etc. and those can be observed. so the evidence is not inconsistent with the flood.
i'm sure if we had honest scientists that were not influenced by other things, that would be the common knowledge.

No, we expect to see massive erosions, fossilisations, oil, etc without a [b]GLOBAL[/B] flood. What would we expect to see if there was a global flood? I suspect we'd expect to see uniform forms of erosion around the world, no uniform geologic column anywhere in the world, organisms that shouldn't be in the same time/layer fossilised together all over the world, no intact and long lastiing varves and, finally, the waters that flooded the entire Earth.

By the way, are you implying that the vast majority of scientists are not honest because they don't agree with what is clearly a flawed reading of the Bible?

As for your initial question if we are talking about the God of the bible, who is omnipotent, that is not an issue. if He could create the universe, a little water to cover just one of his planets shouldn't be an issue. If however, one is to believe evolution, then one can reject it happening; no wahala.

So, what you're essentially saying is that God magicked in the water to flood the Earth, put civillisations like the Egyptians and the Chinese into a bubble, and then after the flood was careful to remove the evidence that a flood occured? Interesting. And no, one doesn't have to accept evolution to reject lunacy.

I believe the bible, even with the amount of attack that have been tried to use to discredit it, it still has the power to save and does. cheers.

Good to know.

Dont call yourself a christian if you dont believe in those things because it is as good as not believing any story in the bible. it's either you believe it all or you dont believe any part of it. No sitting on the fence mate!

Tweetie:

Dont call yourself a christian if you don't believe in those things because it is as good as not believing any story in the bible. it's either you believe it all or you don't believe any part of it. No sitting on the fence mate!

But what does believing in those things entiail? also, does that mean that the vast majority of Christians are not Christians - even though they've done the whole Jesus and repentant sinner thing - simply because they don't interprete Old Testament myths literally?

even though they've done the whole Jesus and repentant sinner thing - simply because they don't interprete Old Testament myths literally?

i actually agree to SOME degree with this i think.

well, let me say it like this; am i not my father's child because i do not LIKE him?!?!?

thesilent1:

well, let me say it like this; am i not my father's child because i do not LIKE him?!?!?

It all depends on HOW you understand the Fatherhood of God. I haven't heard this argument raised as to someone being a child of the Father because they do not like Him!

you see how english want to put me in wahala; lets rephrase

am i no longer my father's son IF i do not like him?

to be honest, i think it is a BAD analogy but the first one that came to mind. i will try and rephrase this but still tryin to get the message across.