Attitudes Toward the Bible

[MCWAY]

I'd rather have babies not die at all in mothers wombs and men use there common sense and stop following a book of stories of a vain murdering jealous deity.

You mean the common sense that shows that, had the Amalekites left Israel alone, and not continued to attack them for 300+ years, God would have spared them.

[overcome]

MCWAY, you quite using that common whats-ama-thing, these guys wont understand

[columbusdude82]

McWay, Israel stole the Amalekites' land... They seem to have a habit of doing that

[MCWAY]

McWay, Israel stole the Amalekites' land... They seem to have a habit of doing that

Then what exactly was Saul attacking in 1 Sam 15?

And Saul came to a city of Amalek, and laid wait in the valley.

If Saul comes to the city, that would mean that the Amalekites were in their own land; and this all started, because the Amalekites attacked the Israelites as they were leaving Egypt, not having settled anywhere. And the Amalekites continued this mess for over 300 years.

Again, had the Amalekites left Israel alone, their getting pummeled by king Saul and crew never would have occured.

[columbusdude82]

Oh boy your reasoning skills are phenomenal... such mighty powers of logic and critical thinking... are you sure you don't have a PhD in mathematics or theoretical physics?

[loco]

Oh boy your reasoning skills are phenomenal... such mighty powers of logic and critical thinking... are you sure you don't have a PhD in mathematics or theoretical physics?

columbusdude82,
MCWAY is right.  Israel did not steal their land.  Where did you get that?

[columbusdude82]

Israel wasn't living there... their god supposedly told them that the land was theirs for the taking, so they decided to take it.

[loco]

Israel wasn't living there... their god supposedly told them that the land was theirs for the taking, so they decided to take it.

columbusdude82,
The Amelekites did not attack Israel because Israel stole land from them.  Israel did not take any land from the Amalekites.  Open the Bible and read it for yourself.

[columbusdude82]

I was talking about the others...

Incidentally have you read "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrmann?

[loco]

I was talking about the others...

No, you said

McWay, Israel stole the Amalekites' land... They seem to have a habit of doing that

Incidentally have you read "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrmann?

No, I haven't read it.  But here is just part of one of the many long reviews:

Before I conclude, I would like to point out a couple of annoyances with the book that should be of concern to any reader, whether or not he agrees with the author's thesis. First, much of the author's thesis is based upon statements such as "we have reason to think" or "scholars believe" or "studies have shown." These statements may move his argument along quickly and logically, but they are hardly convicting or satisfying. There are very few citations for a book of this depth and potential magnitude. This may be necessary simply because of the intended audience who may be intimidated by a dense bibliography and by many pages of endnotes, but it becomes difficult to truly believe in Ehrman's thesis when he seems so unwilling to offer convincing proof. Finally, the book is filled with statements presented as fact that are, in reality, hotly disputed. Ehrman believes, for example, in the existence of the document known as "Q" and that Luke and Matthew both copied liberally from the book of Mark. He believes that the book of 1 Timothy was not written by Paul and that several important passages throughout the gospels and epistles were not original but appended to the documents at a later date by people with a specific agenda. If the reader does not agree with these presuppositions, much of the book's argument disolves.

Needless to say, I found the book disappointing and unconvincing. Throughout the book, I was continually struck by one nagging thought. If we cannot know with any certitude what parts of the Bible are original, how can we know which parts were changed? If we have no confidence in the original text, how can we have confidence that a particular passage has been tampered with? Ehrman's thesis seems to hinge on the belief that we can know which passages were changed, even while we have no confidence in the original text. This is, quite simply, untenable. His thesis also casts doubt on all of ancient history, for surely the problems with transmission of documents is not unique to Christianity (even if, as he suggests, it is particularly pronounced among those who used amateur scribes).

Ehrman is a skilled writer and creates an argument that has already proven convincing to many people. However, should those who read it choose to dig deeper and to find knowledgeable scholars who reject his thesis, they will soon realize that there is much more to the story than this author is presenting.

[columbusdude82]

Yeah I haven't read it either, I just wanted to see if you had, and if you did read it, whether you would recommend it.