The bible is not OUTDATED.

The bible itself is not outdated just like the others believe, but rather say that it is very dated from the old times up to present times and absolutely up forward to the future. If we have a lot of Knowledge that it is written in the bible, before we existed here on earth, almost things that are discovered from our times are already written in the bible, and i will Dare say also that almost QUESTIONS that most of the Discoverers ask, are already answered by the Bible. Also there are lot questions that needed an answer on our present times that the Bible have an ANSWER..especially when it comes to religious belief. All the necessary things that we need an answer are already written in the Bible and that makes the BIBLE authenticated to ask.

olive 2: So none of the Bible is outdated? You think Leviticus 20, which among other things says we should stone gay people, remains relevant in today's world?

This is a really confusing post. The way it's grammar is I mean.

Pinkie: Agreed. (Although I'd have to say, Olive's english is better than my Philipino!)

Here's how I make what he's saying...

"Despite what others say, the Bible is not outdated. It was relevant in the old times, is relevant today and will be relevant for the future.
The Bible contains a lot of knowledge - from before we were even on this earth. Almost all the things that have been discovered in our time, were already written in the Bible; and I would say that almost all the things science has not yet been able to explain have already been explained in the Bible.
There are also a lot of questions people ask today, especially spiritual ones. All of the questions we need an answer for have already been answered in the Bible and that makes the Bible still relevant for today"

A fair bit of creative license taken there but that's the way I read it.
I'd agree with some of that, I'd probably just phrase it a little differently. Maybe water down some of the claims about it being a book of "all things to all people". Christians get into trouble with claims like that. We need to remind ourselves WHY the Bible was written. It was not written as a science textbook, so although it contains things which can be tested by science, it never explains how fire is made or what molecules make up water.

I'd be happy to answer the Lev 20 question, but we already kind of covered this in that other thread and I'm keen to let Olive take a stab at it.
Admin's picked the History section of the Bible so I'd pick the Prophesy section... if none of the Bible dates - why is does it contain specific prophesies which have already come to pass? Surely those have dated and are no longer relevant for today?

nzlockie: Oh, that makes a lot more sense. ^^

nzlockie: thanks.. you got my point exactly...i do apologize with my grammar pizza..... Well actually i didn't write a lot of being specific to the topic, the intention is to start up a conversation in this website (although my grammar is not good )...and also to start up of being specific to the topic, because my statement is all in GENERAL view. And im glad Addmin did the job...im happy to look at the already covered topic about the Lev 20.

Nzlockie..this is for your question.......you'd pick the prophecy section, i just want to ask which prophecy your trying to ask that is not relevant today? Well, in general points of view i would say that all prophecy that already come to pass are still relevant for today in order for us to have knowledge about the things that happened in the past and how we can be relate from them in this present time ( i hope you understand what i'm trying to figure out) my proof is that written in........1 Cor.10:1-10 ( i pick history to be specific)

olive 2: I'm actually interested in what your answer to Lev 20 is. Nzlockie has his view, but so far as I can tell his view is itself not in the Bible. If the book needs explaining outside of itself, then it does not have everything we need to know inside.

olive 2: It's okay! I don't mind your grammar now that Jerimy explained it. Haha, I wouldn't do well at Tagalog or Ilocano. Or what dialect you speak.

The bible is still relevant today as a whole, meaning it should not be taken aside as like others believe when we are going to look for a TRUTH. But we have to be careful of using it that might leads us to wrong doing and wrong thinking. Meaning we must to understand first that it came from somewhere that the WORDS itself cannot be easily understood by human being.

Don't be confuse! If there are Truth (e.g. LAW ) in the bible that is not an option to follow in this present times just like LEV 20 said, doesn't mean there is no relevant in today's issue. As i told before "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." The Laws in Lev 20 is for Israel at that times and its not for us. Meaning, things that happened in the past, whether Prophecies or not since prophecy is part of the History is that These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come.

In addition. we must reminded that - In specific time there are specific laws to obey, not all laws that is written in the Bible are opt to follow. For example the law that given to Adam and Eve are intended for them, like a commandment to Noah that he must make an ARK is intended for them in their times, etc etc.. Therefore in this present times there are set of Laws that intended for us and that is The Laws of Christ. That Law is fit to follow in times of the Apostles up to present times because the Promises are extended to us.

That Makes the Bible is very updated especially when it comes to set of Laws that is fit in our times. The Law of Christ is Complete when it comes to good ethics, morally, medically, spiritually, mentally and physically.

olive 2: Didn't Christ once say "I come not to change the law" or something? Matthew 5:17 I believe. If the old laws are not changed or abolished in favor of new ones, doesn't that invalidate what you're saying?

I don't think the law of Christ is medically complete by any standards. Christian science is controversial because a lot of people have died needlessly after substituting medicine for prayer.

I think what you're driving towards is that the overall message of the bible remains relevant in this day and age, and I would actually agree - that message is that there is a God, he is pretty awesome, he died and got resurrected, and one day he shall come in triumph (which I think was just as wrong in the past as it is today). Then there's large swathes of the bible which are history, human reflections on life, poetry, wise sayings, laws of ancient Israel, and so forth (which remain relevant as aspects of our culture). The same is true of pretty much any religious book.

admin: I would disagree with your 2nd point, I won't quote it because I'm mobile but I would disagree because there is no proof they would have lived with the medicine.

admin: I would disagree with your 2nd point, I won't quote it because I'm mobile but I would disagree because there is no proof they would have lived with the medicine.

Pinkie: I bet I can find more people cured through homeopathy than prayer. People were praying like crazy during the middle and dark ages, and life expectancy is much higher now that hospitals actually know what is happening.

One thing that bugs me about the world is that people looking to attack/mock Christianity seem to be allowed to compile a list of extreme views held by small groups from within Christendom and form them into some all-encompassing Christian stereotype.
(I've re-read what you wrote Lars, and on reflection, I not actually sure that I got the right end of it on the first read, so feel free to disregard the following rant. I still want to post it because sometimes I just get frustrated.)

The vast majority of Christians I associate with have exactly zero problem with western medicine. I know that there are some Christians who practice faith healing but in my experience, again, these are few and far between. And I think those that do have a mistaken view of scripture.

Other stereotypes I would class as offensive would be all Christians are homophobic, judgemental, holier-than-thou and intolerant.

I realise that there are many Christians that would fall into some or all of these categories but I'd suggest no more than a statistical human average and any who think these things have a flawed understanding of the Bible anyway.
My sister came out last year and is getting married this year and exactly none of my church leaders or friends have even hinted at severing ties with her, it's very hard to be judgemental and feel righteously superior to others when you have a real understanding of where you yourself stand morally and, finally, people seem to have a very confused idea of what tolerance is these days. As stated above, I see no greater ratio of intolerance among my bible believing friends than I do among my non-Christian friends.

Sorry, rant off now.

nzlockie: Fair point, and I don't intend to attack Christianity at all. I'm just saying the bible is not an answer to absolutely everything (there's a great scene in the Simpsons to this effect). Medicine is just one of those things it so happens not to cover. Nor do I believe it is complete musically, astronomically, ornithologically or in many other ways.

Similarly, with homophobia, I know that I personally understand that Jesus explained not to stone gay people (at a stoning he said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - I'm shocked that people were surprised when the pope echoed this with his "who am I to judge" thing). What I'm trying to get at, though, is that you can't always take the bible at literal face value. The whole "God created everything in seven days" thing is the best example of that.

But before Jesus offered those kinds of rather important clarifying details, I kind of don't blame the ancient Israelis for thinking they had to literally stone gay people. Similarly it was not too long ago that people could be forgiven for thinking the world was literally made in seven days. It's one of those books that you just have to read in the context of your understanding of the world. So yeah, some passages are slightly out of date, like that one where it gives pi as being 3, or I dare say Leviticus 20 (so far as I'm concerned a law that is no longer enforced by man is out of date for man).

admin: Thanks, for the record, I agree with your assessment. I 100% believe that the Bible contains everything we NEED to understand God and His plans for us - that was the purpose of the book. It has never claimed to be everything man needs to function, and Christians who claim the contrary are mistaken.

Also for the record, given the above stated purpose of the book, I don't think it's outdated at all. I remain hopelessly deluded in that I still accept the 6 day literal creation - just as I remain suitably impressed with a large percentage of the public that is so ready to claim that there is no mystery in science any more and that they categorically KNOW anything.

All I'm saying is that, IF the supernatural DOES exist - then completely discounting something because it doesn't conform with natural law seems a little illogical doesn't it?

nzlockie: All other things being equal my answer to your question would be yes, I agree with that. But I think you have to look at the weight of evidence. On the one side I have an old Hebrew poem, and on the other, a huge body of scientific evidence from multiple sources indicating that the universe took some billion years to take shape as opposed to a couple of days. I happen to believe that countless pieces of observational evidence confirmed by multiple sources independently and thoroughly for many years than a very old poem.

Karen Armstrong, probably the religious scholar I most respect, explains it like this, which I really like. After exploring the many key themes of the text as it would have appeared to people reading it 3000 years ago, she concludes:

"The first chapter of genesis, therefore, was not intended to be a historical account of the beginning of life but a meditation upon the nature of being itself. [The author's] poem is supremely a work of imagination. There were obviously no eyewitnesses to God's creative activity; nobody could know what he thought or said. Some Jews and Christians, in an effort to explain how the biblical authors came by this information, have insisted that God himself dictated the text to Moses. Yet the editors of the Bible did not seem concerned with the literal viability of this creation account, since they placed immediately after it an earlier story that contradicts [the author] in several significant respects." ( from In the Beginning: A New Interpretation of Genesis)

admin: So if you agree that natural law does not preclude "impossible" events IF the supernatural exists, then surely the most important question that needs answering is whether the supernatural exists?

When considering that question we have some issues. Primarily, trying to find evidence of the supernatural when we don't even understand what all of the natural laws and mechanics that make up our universe are...is like looking for needle in a haystack when we don't know what a needle looks like! Or a haystack for that matter!
When science finds something unexplainable or contradictory to previously held beliefs does it say, "aha! Evidence of the supernatural!" or does it shelve it for the future or rework old conclusions to make the new belief fit?
Of course it will be the latter! To claim otherwise is crazy! You can't look to science to find evidence of the supernatural. The old Hebrew poem kicks your big pile's butt in that regard.

Science "fact" has been rewritten so many times, even in my short lifetime. And it will continue to do so because by definition, science can never make allowance for the supernatural. There is not a single miraculous work that God could do to satisfy science.
Someone waiting for "proof" will never find it. Think about it. What possible sound and light show could He put on that would convince you?

I respect that you're still looking for the evidence you need to convince you that the supernatural is real, all I'm asking is for you to respectfully tolerate my acceptance that it IS real. I have just as much scientific evidence to support my viewpoint as you do for yours.

Maybe even more, since my evidence is that there are things we can't explain and yours is that we'll probably be able to explain those later.

nzlockie: Kind of floating away from the original topic here but it's an interesting point you bring up.

Even if there were a supernatural, I would not automatically ascribe everything I could not explain to God. I would look at the evidence that God did it, and the evidence that God did not do it, before jumping to any conclusions. Even when I believed in God, I did not believe in a week-long creation. The evidence that the poem was supposed to be allegorical was far greater than that it was supposed to be literal, and that scant evidence was again outweighed by the massive volumes of evidence that the creation is much more spread out.

Let me put this to you another way. Suppose I told you I had been inexplicably visited by three ghosts in the night. Would you a) believe I was probably dreaming at the time, b) blame an alien spaceship for raising the dead, or c) think that God had sent the 3 ghosts. I'd choose A. To anyone who answers C I have to ask, why not B? And if B, why not C?

You're right about your key point though. Science is a process, and this process cannot conclude God. I don't disbelieve in God because of science, cool though science may be. God could, I don't know, write me a little note detailing some impossibly neat and irrefutable logic proving that he must exist. I'd believe that because logic is a basic premise for pretty much everything. But I want to make this very clear - just because science does not describe something that you believe to be real (God) does not mean it is necessarily wrong about everything it says in the bible taken literally (creation). It could be that God is real but the creation myth is allegorical. This interpretation fits with both natural and supernatural evidence, as opposed to the alternative which requires both the rejection of the natural hypothesis and, in my view, pretty big supernatural leaps of faith, particularly when you understand the context in which the story is told (which was the point of me citing Karen).

The way you frame it allows you to claim equal scientific support for any claim or viewpoint at all. Look at your claim - there's equal scientific support for 7-day creation as 13-billion-year creation, because there is nothing God, the architect of 7-day creation, could do to prove to science he is real. I could say that there's equal scientific support for cheese sandwiches curing cancer as there is for chemotherapy, because there is not a single thing cheese sandwiches could do to convince you that they taste great (you have to decide that for yourself). I'm not a doctor, but yummy though cheese sandwiches may be, I'm pretty sure they don't cure cancer.

By the way, I'm not doing this to mock your viewpoint at all. I understand that faith is one of those things that kind of defies logical description, and this clearly is a matter of faith. I mean, psalm 16 states "my heart is glad". Literally, hearts cannot be glad. It's a metaphor for "I am feeling glad". I suppose this King David might have supernaturally developed a magic heart literally capable of emoting, but it requires pretty big leaps of faith and a rejection of a ton of evidence, including the fact that the psalms were a collection of songs from all Israel, and I'm pretty sure if everyone had magic hearts then it would be noted somewhere other than in an obscure psalm. So I have very strong faith, both on natural and supernatural evidence (the message the psalm is trying to convey) that reading it like a metaphor is the best interpretation. The same is true of the start of Genesis, now that we understand the historical context a bit more and have pretty definitive evidence the universe was created over a longer period.

There is literally just as much evidence in both the bible and in science that the world was created in a week with an appearance of age, as there is evidence is was created just before breakfast yesterday morning with an appearance of age.

admin: You're right we're derailing the thread so I'm going to leave this here, except for one point. I just want to clarify my cheekily provocative claim that i have as much scientific evidence to support my claim that the world was created supernaturally as you do for your claim that it was done through evolution or any other theory.

My point is that both of us have no scientific evidence to prove it. Me because science can't prove god didn't intercede, since it can't accept or speak to something happening outside of the natural laws, and you because the theory you support still has parts missing and unless you can disprove the supernatural, (which you can't) the possibility that those missing parts might never come together is very real.

We're doing one of those nasty jigsaws with no edge bits. In our case the pieces are unique but they have no image on them. I'm saying there are pieces missing and you'll never solve it; and you're saying there's not and you're almost there. But the fact is, "almost there" means nothing if you get to the last piece and it doesnt fit.
Until science has proven the connection between every process, (which will never happen) both sides are equally valid. Given how little we KNOW about some of the fundamental mechanics of our world, despite years of research, I don't see why my position is weaker. In my eyes, the longer this goes on without a definitive answer, the stronger my position gets!