Favourite Bible Quotes

finlma

I see the Christians have a favourite Bible quotations so thought we should have one of our own.

Mine has to be Genesis 19:4-8

4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." 6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

shoutman

finlma wrote:

I see the Christians have a favourite Bible quotations so thought we should have one of our own.

Mine has to be Genesis 19:4-8

Ha ha thats just sick. Crazy christians....

PDN

From this board's charter:

2. Respect those who do not share your beliefs (or lack thereof). Though many here will share certain atheist or agnostic views - it is not acceptable to ridicule the faith or beliefs of others. Something that would be seen as a direct insult in, say, the Christianity or Islam forums will be similarly treated here.

finlma

PDN wrote:

From this board's charter:

I'm quoting from the Bible - the Christian's holy book. I just find the text fascinating and open to discussion. I think there are many quotes from the Bible that are unusual like this and I'm interested to hear my fellow atheists favourites.

If its inflammatory then feel free to delete mod.

PDN, I'd be interested in your take on this quotation.

Schuhart

PDN wrote:

From this board's charter:

I’d read that as saying we can’t hang out here saying ‘All Christians are scum’. However, there has to be some space where people can say ‘look, these scriptural quotes are utterly ludicrous’ and wonder openly how anyone can give them credence. It does seem appropriate for the atheism forum to tolerate good, bad and indifferent arguments for saying the Bible is not divinely inspired.

Having started a thread here investigating if atheists should be put to death for the good of the many, you’ll understand I feel I have enough residual moral high ground to let my hair down and draw attention to the Bible passage that I see as most comically over the top.

I sort of get a kick out of Deuteronomy 25-11/12. I know other lines have a higher body count, but I love the immediacy of the situation.

If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.

It simply must have happened. I have a picture of a vengeful scribe, his nuts still throbbing from the twisting they’ve just received, hastily penning the passage before announcing ‘It is written that this woman’s hand is forfeit. How do like that, Missus.’.

I also love the way that an alternative translation for ‘genitals’ is ‘secrets’. I wonder if we’ll ever see a vernacular version that says ‘seizes him by the short and curlies’.

Possibly my biggest biblical disappointment was discovering that the quotation in ‘Pulp Fiction’ isn’t real. Ezekiel 25-17 just says

I will execute great vengeance on them with wrathful rebukes; and they will know that I am the LORD when I lay My vengeance on them

The stuff about

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children.

doesn’t appear there. If it did, it would genuinely be my favourite Bible quote.

PDN

finlma wrote:

PDN, I'd be interested in your take on this quotation.

My take is that Lot, like Plato when he wanted to suppress atheism, was being an ass. He was obviously a crap dad as well. One of the things I like about the Bible is that it shows people as they really are. Even the holiest & most revered figures are shown to be capable of stupidity, dishonesty and cruelty.

PDN

My quoting of your charter is in reference to the post that calls Christians crazy because of what Lot did. If Lot was a Christian then there might be some justification, but since he died centuries before Christ it just comes over as a gratuitous insult.

Dave!

PDN wrote:

From this board's charter:

Science H Logic... We're not allowed to ridicule or question Christianity in the forum for discussing Christianity -- but now you don't want us to do it in another forum?! Madness

edit:

PDN wrote:

My quoting of your charter is in reference to the post that calls Christians crazy because of what Lot did. If Lot was a Christian then there might be some justification, but since he died centuries before Christ it just comes over as a gratuitous insult.

That's fair enough then

Dades

I see where PDN is coming from, but if we can keep this thread mature then then I guess there's no issue with highlighting bible quotes.

Just keep any criticism to the quotes itself, without resorting to badmouthing bible followers. We are lucky that we have a few that drop by here to offer a different perspective.

Asiaprod

The Atheist wrote:

Just keep any criticism to the quotes itself, without resorting to badmouthing bible followers. We are lucky that we have a few that drop by here to offer a different perspective.

Agree totally, and will be watching this thread carefully

PDN wrote:

Even the holiest & most revered figures are shown to be capable of stupidity, dishonesty and cruelty.

I like that PDN, it is so true.

Zillah

The Atheist wrote:

I see where PDN is coming from, but if we can keep this thread mature then then I guess there's no issue with highlighting bible quotes.

Just keep any criticism to the quotes itself, without resorting to badmouthing bible followers. We are lucky that we have a few that drop by here to offer a different perspective.

Normally I'd argue with you but I know that its not some namby pamby tip toe around the crazies attitude; it is in fact an entirely selfish desire to lure them in here for our entertainment

2Scoops

Well, these are my faves:

• Proverbs 4.13
• Proverbs 18.15
• Job 33.3
• Job 34.4

They're all about the same thing: not closing your mind entirely to alternative ideas, seeking knowledge with a humble heart and, above all, being honest enough to consider evidence that goes against your beliefs.

I confess to using them in a slightly duplicitous manner - trying to use the scripture to help closed-minded individuals to look beyond the scripture. Never worked though:)

Asiaprod

Zillah wrote:

Normally I'd argue with you but I know that its not some namby pamby tip toe around the crazies attitude; it is in fact an entirely selfish desire to lure them in here for our entertainment

10 Brownie point to Zillah:)

Zombrex

Genesis 3

Pretty much all of my issues with the Judeo/Christian moral system can be summed up in that chapter

philologos

Woah, you guys are more obsessed with us than I originally thought. Just one question. Why don't you bother to analyse and discuss the texts of any other faith?

Sangre

they live in a country that has a 90% christian majority? they were only thought the bible in school? they don't know any other texts? christianity is the biggest religion in the world? christianity is the most powerful religion in the world? christianity is the most ridiculous?

Fallen Seraph

Jakkass wrote:

Woah, you guys are more obsessed with us than I originally thought. Just one question. Why don't you bother to analyse and discuss the texts of any other faith?

Because atheism is no more a faith than theism is. When one says they are an atheist they mean that they don't believe in god; not that they're a secular humanist or a scientist or anti-religion or anything like that. We're looking for answers too; and just because one doesn't believe in an entire book doesn't mean that there isn't good advice and wisdom in it.

Also, just because one doesn't agree with a religion is no reason not to hear what they have to say.

stipey

Jesus wept.

Dave!

Jakkass wrote:

Woah, you guys are more obsessed with us than I originally thought. Just one question. Why don't you bother to analyse and discuss the texts of any other faith?

Coulda sworn we've been through this a thousand times before.......

Sangre sums it up well!

philologos

Sangre wrote:

they don't know any other texts?

Sangre wrote:

christianity is the most ridiculous?

Hmm, you do realise that these 2 quotes contradict eachother? How can you claim that Christianity is the most rediculous of all the world's faith if you haven't read any other religious book. Maybe you have but I found that statement a bit wierd in that sense.

2Scoops wrote:

Well, these are my faves:

* Proverbs 4.13
* Proverbs 18.15
* Job 33.3
* Job 34.4

Proverbs 4:13 wrote:

Always remember what you have learnt. Your education is your life guard it well.

Proverbs 18:15 wrote:

Intelligent people are always eager and ready to learn

Job 33:3 wrote:

All my words are sincere, and I am speaking the truth.

Job 34:4 wrote:

It is up to us to decide the case.

There are the quotes incase anyone doesn't have a Bible handy. I look forward to some Bible debate here.

Crucifix

Jakkass wrote:

There are the quotes incase anyone doesn't have a Bible handy. I look forward to some Bible debate here.

I looked them up online myself and got tons of different phrasings. Is there a particular translation that is accepted?

BrianCalgary

Crucifix wrote:

I looked them up online myself and got tons of different phrasings. Is there a particular translation that is accepted?

I prefer the NIV for reading, but compare other translations and go back to Greek and Hebrew when doing study.

philologos

I prefer the Good News Translation. It shows differences between ancient translations and the original Hebrew and Greek using asterisks and footnotes.

Crucifix

BrianCalgary wrote:

I prefer the NIV for reading, but compare other translations and go back to Greek and Hebrew when doing study.

The NIV was one of the ones I stumbled across, it definitely had a nice flow/prose to it.

One of my favourite books is John Steinbeck's East of Eden, so the Cain and Abel story (Genesis 4) is probably my favourite bit in the bible.

finlma

How about these from the New Testament and not only that but from Jesus himself apparently. Maybe some of the Christians can give their interpretations but personnaly I can only see one meaning:

Matthew 10:34 (New International Version)

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Luke 14:26 (New International Version)

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple."

There's so much rape, homophobia, murder, racism and general hatred in the Old Testament that I could be here all year putting in quotes.

PDN

Sangre wrote:

they live in a country that has a 90% christian majority? they were only thought the bible in school? they don't know any other texts? christianity is the biggest religion in the world? christianity is the most powerful religion in the world? christianity is the most ridiculous?

Wow! I thought most of the posters lived in Ireland (except for Bonkey). So where is this country with a 90% Christian majority? The Land Before Time, perhaps?

Crucifix

PDN wrote:

Wow! I thought most of the posters lived in Ireland (except for Bonkey). So where is this country with a 90% Christian majority? The Land Before Time, perhaps?

And our survey says...a little over 90%.
According to the census anyway.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Wow! I thought most of the posters lived in Ireland (except for Bonkey). So where is this country with a 90% Christian majority? The Land Before Time, perhaps?

Hmm, the CSO thinks Ireland was 92% Christian in 2006. You're at liberty to claim their figures misrepresent the true position, but at risk of special pleading if you do...although of course the narrower and more sectarian the definition of Christian one uses, the smaller the numbers.

cordially,
Scofflaw

finlma

Crucifix wrote:

And our survey says...a little over 90%.
According to the census anyway.

That 90% includes children under the age of 18 whose parents get to decide what religion they are. Cause those youngsters really understand. I'm a national school teacher and a kid in junior infants told me the other day that Jesus had 8 eyes and a cape. I was going to tell him to ask his parents to read the Bible to him but I didn't want to frighten him.

Scofflaw

finlma wrote:

That 90% includes children under the age of 18 whose parents get to decide what religion they are. Cause those youngsters really understand. I'm a national school teacher and a kid in junior infants told me the other day that Jesus had 8 eyes and a cape. I was going to tell him to ask his parents to read the Bible to him but I didn't want to frighten him.

Hmm. Indeed. Perhaps that is an even better explanation of the atheist fascination with Christianity - it is taught to the children in our schools. Islam is not, Judaism is not. Whether it is taught well or badly is not really relevant.

Still, rather than quibble over exact percentages, are any of the Christian posters claiming that this is a non-nominally-Christian country? Smart remarks about how materialist Irish society is earn extra noodle points - the question is not of how Christian people are, but whether the majority of religious observance in this country is Christian in form.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sangre

Jakkass wrote:

Hmm, you do realise that these 2 quotes contradict eachother? How can you claim that Christianity is the most rediculous of all the world's faith if you haven't read any other religious book. Maybe you have but I found that statement a bit wierd in that sense.

You do realise I never claimed these positions as my own but was rather putting forward some of the most common reasons. I never said someone would contain hold all these views.

Wow! I thought most of the posters lived in Ireland (except for Bonkey). So where is this country with a 90% Christian majority? The Land Before Time, perhaps?

Yeah, way back in 2006.

Schuhart

Jakkass wrote:

Why don't you bother to analyse and discuss the texts of any other faith?

I think that's been well gone over. The concentration on the Bible is simply because mostly we're people who were raised in some Christian faith. The conclusions we've come to are that all religion is bunk, but we illustrate that with reference to the one we are most familiar with.

If you feel we're a tad virulent, then you could cast an eye at http://www.apostatesofislam.com/. On the scriptural front, they carry a changing random ugly quote from the Quran and from the Hadith that can be guranteed to illustrate much the same point as we make here.

DocNellie

Hi all. My favourite bible quote used to be this...

Proverbs 4:7 "Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding"

but then I read...

Corrinthians: 1:19 "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent"

rolled a spliff and went back to watching the tele

PDN

finlma wrote:

How about these from the New Testament and not only that but from Jesus himself apparently. Maybe some of the Christians can give their interpretations but personnaly I can only see one meaning:

Matthew 10:34 (New International Version)
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

It is always important to treat Bible verses in context, as part of a broader document, not to try to interpret them in isolation.

Matthew 10 records the calling of the 12 disciples. Then Jesus warns them that following Him is going to bring persecution. In effect He is saying,
"Forget your preconceptions that I, as the Messiah, am going to kill all the Romans and usher in a glorious Kingdom where the Jews are in charge. Following me is not going to be a walk in the park. You will face persecution and even death. My coming will not bring an immediate outbreak of world peace. In fact some people will hate Me so much that they will take up swords and commit unspeakable acts of violence against My followers."

And you know what? The Man was right!

aidan24326

"...so when he went into his brother's wife he spilled the semen on the ground...And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord and He slew him also."
..........Genesis 38:9

DocNellie

PDN wrote:

It is always important to treat Bible verses in context, as part of a broader document, not to try to interpret them in isolation.

Matthew 10 records the calling of the 12 disciples. Then Jesus warns them that following Him is going to bring persecution. In effect He is saying,
"Forget your preconceptions that I, as the Messiah, am going to kill all the Romans and usher in a glorious Kingdom where the Jews are in charge. Following me is not going to be a walk in the park. You will face persecution and even death. My coming will not bring an immediate outbreak of world peace. In fact some people will hate Me so much that they will take up swords and commit unspeakable acts of violence against My followers."

And you know what? The Man was right!

I wonder if Jesus added "But if yous hang in there, stick with it and keep spreading the word, in 2000 years My followers will run half the planet be armed to the teeth with nukes, rockets and tanks and they'll be the ones dishing out the unspeakable acts" Or did he wait till they had got to heaven and tell them then.

robindch

PDN wrote:

It is always important to treat Bible verses in context, as part of a broader document, not to try to interpret them in isolation. [...] In effect He is saying [...]

So why on earth didn't Jesus actually *say* what you believe he's saying "in effect"? Why the circumlocution?

And why would a "loving god" specifically come to earth to spread unhappiness anyway? Since the christian deity is supposed to have created everything, why did he create it so that it was necessary to "come not to bring peace" much later? Wouldn't that imply that he didn't create it correctly the first time around (implying non-omnipotence) or that he didn't know that it would go pear-shaped (implying non-omniscience) or that he knew that it would cause sword-play (implying non-omnibenificence)?

Scofflaw

Unfortunately, my own personal favourites are completely and utterly unrelated to my beliefs or lack thereof. I just like the language of the KJV - sonorous and poetic.

Of course, almost anything is good as interpreted by the Brick Testament.

cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos

robindch wrote:

So why on earth didn't Jesus actually *say* what you believe he's saying "in effect"? Why the circumlocution?

And why would a "loving god" specifically come to earth to spread unhappiness anyway? Since the christian deity is supposed to have created everything, why did he create it so that it was necessary to "come not to bring peace" much later? Wouldn't that imply that he didn't create it correctly the first time around (implying non-omnipotence) or that he didn't know that it would go pear-shaped (implying non-omniscience) or that he knew that it would cause sword-play (implying non-omnibenificence)?

Read the whole chapter before you select verses on their own, as they can mean something entirely different if you don't take the entire chapter they are based in into context.

PDN

robindch wrote:

So why on earth didn't Jesus actually *say* what you believe he's saying "in effect"? Why the circumlocution?

This reminds me of my daughter's comment when, as a little girl, she first saw opera on the TV: "Why don't they just speak the words in English? Then it would be easier to understand." Poetry rarely makes sense to a scientist!

Seriously, the Hebrews, like other ancient peoples, used poetry in a way that (while perfectly understandable to anyone who is half-way intelligent and not deliberately seeking to misunderstand) can be easily memorised. This ensured that Jesus' sayings would be repeated by word of mouth long before the manuscripts of the Gospels could be copied and distributed. Oral tradition.

In fact we do the same ourselves.
"Ich bin ein Berliner" (John F Kennedy)

Imagine someone in 2000 years saying, "Look, this Kennedy character was a liar. He said he was a Berliner, but he clearly came from an Irish criminal family in Boston."

Someobody who is better educated relies, "No, don't be silly. He was expressing solidarity with the people of Berlin who were being threatened by the Soviets. In effect he was saying, I support you and, even though I'm really an American, I feel like part of me belongs to Berlin."

The first person, who is determined to believe that Kennedy is a liar, says "So why on earth didn't Kennedy actually say what you believe he's saying 'in effect'? Why the circumlocution?"

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

In fact we do the same ourselves.
"Ich bin ein Berliner" (John F Kennedy)

Well are you going to deny that this is argument by analogy?
The problem with this analogy is that there is video and audio evidence of JFK saying that, there is no leap of faith.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

This reminds me of my daughter's comment when, as a little girl, she first saw opera on the TV: "Why don't they just speak the words in English? Then it would be easier to understand." Poetry rarely makes sense to a scientist!

Seriously, the Hebrews, like other ancient peoples, used poetry in a way that (while perfectly understandable to anyone who is half-way intelligent and not deliberately seeking to misunderstand) can be easily memorised. This ensured that Jesus' sayings would be repeated by word of mouth long before the manuscripts of the Gospels could be copied and distributed. Oral tradition.

Hmm...in the literate society of Roman Palestine? Why?

PDN wrote:

In fact we do the same ourselves.
"Ich bin ein Berliner" (John F Kennedy)

Imagine someone in 2000 years saying, "Look, this Kennedy character was a liar. He said he was a Berliner, but he clearly came from an Irish criminal family in Boston."

Someobody who is better educated relies, "No, don't be silly. He was expressing solidarity with the people of Berlin who were being threatened by the Soviets. In effect he was saying, I support you and, even though I'm really an American, I feel like part of me belongs to Berlin."

The first person, who is determined to believe that Kennedy is a liar, says "So why on earth didn't Kennedy actually say what you believe he's saying 'in effect'? Why the circumlocution?"

There's some important differences - JFK was a liar, as all politicians are, and he was making a political statement, not teaching humanity.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Woah, you guys are more obsessed with us than I originally thought. Just one question. Why don't you bother to analyse and discuss the texts of any other faith?

Well we do, but remember that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are very closely related. There is little exposure to religions like Hinduism.

Scientology gets its ass kicked around here all the time. As does "new age" religions and spiritualism.

Fanny Cradock

Scofflaw wrote:

Still, rather than quibble over exact percentages, are any of the Christian posters claiming that this is a non-nominally-Christian country? Smart remarks about how materialist Irish society is earn extra noodle points - the question is not of how Christian people are, but whether the majority of religious observance in this country is Christian in form.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I would argue that the 'how' in how Christian a person is essential to determining the actual percentage of Christians in Ireland. However, I feel that this true figure would never be truly attainable because what people say and what is in their hearts are two completely different things. I also realise that this line of thought could be considered at odds with what Jesus taught, and therefore not desirable.

Yes, that majority of religious observance would be Christian - insofar as they identify with a tradition they have been brought into - yet I feel that far fewer than 90% would in anyway espouse the teachings of Jesus and the Bible in any concious form.

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm...in the literate society of Roman Palestine? Why?

What was the percentage of literacy across all the classes? How prevalent were books? How likely that a commoner could afford one?

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Yes, that majority of religious observance would be Christian - insofar as they identify with a tradition they have been brought into - yet I feel that far fewer than 90% would in anyway espouse the teachings of Jesus and the Bible in any concious form.

I think you are touching on a very interesting point here. Christianity means different things to different people and can't really be objectively or precisely defined. Or at least, it's appears it's much harder to define what is Christian faith objectively than some of those who claim to have it think it is.

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I would argue that the 'how' in how Christian a person is essential to determining the actual percentage of Christians in Ireland. However, I feel that this true figure would never be truly attainable because what people say and what is in their hearts are two completely different things. I also realise that this line of thought could be considered at odds with what Jesus taught, and therefore not desirable.

Also, any such determination requires us to accept some specific opinion or other on what constitutes "true Christianity".

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Yes, that majority of religious observance would be Christian - insofar as they identify with a tradition they have been brought into - yet I feel that far fewer than 90% would in anyway espouse the teachings of Jesus and the Bible in any concious form.

Quite possibly so - but I think you'll find they think they do. Some of that is ignorance, some of that is interpretation. I suspect that most people would espouse most of the teachings.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

What was the percentage of literacy across all the classes? How prevalent were books? How likely that a commoner could afford one?

Sufficiently common that the Gospels were worth writing, and the Epistles etc. Books would not be necessary, as the Epistles show.

Also, are you or PDN claiming that God's message had to be delivered only in a form suitable for Roman Palestine? That's a bit of a slippery slope when we are dealing with the word of God to the people of Earth...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock

Scofflaw wrote:

Also, any such determination requires us to accept some specific opinion or other on what constitutes "true Christianity".

Quite possibly so - but I think you'll find they think they do. Some of that is ignorance, some of that is interpretation. I suspect that most people would espouse most of the teachings.

Yes, many would possibly consider themselves Christians, and I'm not one to determine if they are or not, but I would argue that the knowledge of Christianity often wouldn't go beyond the basics learnt in Mass. Bearing this in mind, I can't see how you can claim to be a Christian if you don't follow the teaching of Christ, know a great deal about Christianity or, for that matter, have any real desire to do so. Again, I will temper that by saying that I am not the one to judge.

Scofflaw wrote:

Sufficiently common that the Gospels were worth writing, and the Epistles etc. Books would not be necessary, as the Epistles show.

Also, are you or PDN claiming that God's message had to be delivered only in a form suitable for Roman Palestine? That's a bit of a slippery slope when we are dealing with the word of God to the people of Earth...

cordially,
Scofflaw

They were indeed worth writing, but at the time I would imagine that the oral tradition may have been a more effective way of spreading the word.

I'm not making any claims. You asked the question: why? I gave my answer... in question form

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Also, are you or PDN claiming that God's message had to be delivered only in a form suitable for Roman Palestine? That's a bit of a slippery slope when we are dealing with the word of God to the people of Earth...

That is a good point. It seems a little short sighted of God to write the Bible in a form suitable for a small handful of the potential people who would read it.

Was the Bible written for everyone, or just the people of the time?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well are you going to deny that this is argument by analogy?
The problem with this analogy is that there is video and audio evidence of JFK saying that, there is no leap of faith.

The video and audio evidence is neither here nor there. I am not debating the fact whether Jesus spoke these words or not, but rather how anyone would understand the words themselves.

Yes, it is an analogy. If you debate with me you'd better get used to it because I use lots of analogies.

Argument by analogy is only a fallacy if used in deductive logic. A deductive argument is an argument where if we assume the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. In contrast, an inductive argument is an argument where the truth of the premises provides reasons supporting the probable truth of the conclusion. Deductive logic rarely works in the areas of morals and ethics.

If you want to participate in debates about morals, ethics, history etc. then you will have to move beyond trying to rigidly apply rules of formal logic. For example, in a debate on history it is pointless to accuse your opponent of making an appeal to authority, for all of history is relying upon what another person closer to the situation has told us. If we rule out any appeals to authority then we can only talk about events to which we were eye witnesses.

Here is a useful link explaining the legitimate and illegitimate uses of the argument by analogy: http://www.radford.edu/~kzanelott2/analogy.htm

Formal logic is a useful tool, but it is inadequate for debate in many areas of life.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote:

That is a good point. It seems a little short sighted of God to write the Bible in a form suitable for a small handful of the potential people who would read it.

Was the Bible written for everyone, or just the people of the time?

Any Christian out there will tell you it was written for the benefit of everyone. The fact that we are currently discussing Jesus and events of the Bible would suggest that it was a most effective method. One that has spread throughout the world.

P.s. I'm assuming no one here is posting from Roman Palestine

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

That is a good point. It seems a little short sighted of God to write the Bible in a form suitable for a small handful of the potential people who would read it.

Was the Bible written for everyone, or just the people of the time?

The words spoken by Jesus would originally have been spoken in Aramaic, because they had to be understood by the original hearers. It would be a bit pointess Jesus speaking them in English to cater for a future audience centuries later.

Then the words were written down in Greek by Matthew, because that was the language that would most effectively reach his intended audience. The fact that the words had to be translated in no way invalidates their relevance for those readers who would not have understood the original Aramaic.

Once you allow that linguistic translation is necessary to reach a greater audience, then it is sensible to allow for cultural translation as well (in fact we see this in Mark's Gospel particularly, where Jewish phrases and customs are explained for the intended Gentile audience). The fact that translation, both linguistic and cultural, is necessary in no way indicates that Jesus did not intend His words to be spread to a wider audience.

The logic behind your objection would indicate that you think a revelation from God could only be given in a document where everything is explained explicitly and accompanied by translations into every language and dialect that has ever been devised. That is your slippery slope. Do you, or Scofflaw, really want to slither down it?