Facebook Activity



Teen Ink on Twitter

Home > Forums > Teen Ink Forums > Philosophy and Thought > Angels & Miracles anyone?

Teen Ink Forums

Lively discussions with other teens
   
Next thread » « Previous thread

Angels & Miracles anyone?

NimWallaceThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Dec. 21, 2016 at 10:29 am

That's awesome, warrrior, I've always been jealous of people with the Tongue :P I'm told my spiritual gift is translation, though...

 And I agree, if you're going to critize, reject, or make assumptions on the Bible, you should at least study it first.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Dec. 21, 2016 at 10:30 am

I don't really believe in miracles like regrowing limbs or the little kids that claim they have seen heaven (and later have a movie made about them). If there are miracles now, it's not parting the Red Sea or speaking in tongues- it's simple stuff, like winning the fight against cancer or reuniting with your family after being separated by a devastating event. On a different note, as someone who has read the Bible cover-to-cover for the sake of knowledge, it does contradict itself... many, many times. Part of that is New Testament vs Old Testament, but it does sometimes contradict itself (or science) in ways that can't really be waved off. Examples of contradicting itself: the issue of whether He.ll exists. "... into he.ll, into the fire that never shall be quenched.Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." That indicates that it does. But if you look at this quote: "They shall be as though they had not been." We'll, that suggests just removing them and any record of them from existence. It contradicts itself- and that's one issue, and two quotes only. Now for science. While people have discovered some evidence for an ark, I'm not sure how reliable it is. But a 40-day flood and a boat big enough and sturdy enough to fit two of every creature on the planet when half the world hadn't even been discovered yet? By that logic, the Americas should have had no animals that Europe, Asia, and Africa didn't have. So, contradictions are definitely not something that can just be waved away.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
NimWallaceThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Dec. 21, 2016 at 10:36 am

Hmm. Well, the story of the ark raises lots of contraversy among Christians and atheists alike--some believe it was simply a metaphorical story, others believe it really happened. 

 There actually is a fair amount of evidence that a dramtic flood definitely could've happened.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Dec. 21, 2016 at 10:54 am

What is the context of that second scripture? The Bible never denies the existance of He.ll. Please cite that scripture. Also think for a moment. The flood was a very long time ago. I want to research this topic more but until I do, even if the animals were dispersed into the world after the flood, that doesn't mean there would be equal distribution. And species evolve, locations make them evolve differently and genetic drift causes certain changes and all that stuff, what I'm trying to say is your two examples don't prove the Bible contradicts itself.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Dec. 21, 2016 at 10:59 am

Unrelated question that I've had for a while: exactly how reliable is the Bible? To start with, it was translated (which is why Jesus had nails through his hands rather than his wrists), the oldest version we have is from the 4th century, written in the era of Constantine. This is centuries after the death of Jesus (estimated 30 AD). There's also the KJV, which I use for most of my quotes because it is one of the older English bibles which means it is likely to lose less from translation than modern bibles but it's still not entirely reliable, considering that when it was written, it was done with a political basis: King James didn't like the Geneva Bible (Puritan Bible) because it didn't show enough respect for kings. He wanted the translation to support hierarchical structure. It was translated from Greek, but most of the translators didn't know common Greek. When it came to disputes over a correct translation, the translators favored the translation in bibles approved by King James and not the other copies of bibles that he didn't approve of. And from the KJV, you get modern versions that get rid of the archaic speech, but it's still based on the KJV- which roughly 55% of people who read (consistently) use. Along with this is the scientific and self-contradictions. So as anything other than spiritual text, how reliable is it? I've been curious for a very long time.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
CNBono17 replied...
Dec. 21, 2016 at 11:03 am

It depends on which translation you use. I like the NIV and HCSB, because both are based not on the KJV, but on the original Greek and Latin and Hebrew text, and they are still translated using modern language rather than King James speech. And while the first full Bible wasn't compiled until that time, the texts that went into it date much farther back; Mark's gospel was written within 30 years after the death of Christ.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Dec. 21, 2016 at 11:07 am

@Warriorwritergirl- Obadiah 16, KJV. Also, yes, the flood was a long time ago- so long ago that Noah wouldn't have known about half of the world and couldn't get to some areas he did know about. Plus he would have had to build a ship big enough and strong enough to hold two of every animal (including elephants, giraffes, other heavy animals) and all the food and fresh water to sustain them for 40 days. He would have had to control all of these animals to keep them from eating each other. It's likely just a metaphor, because it would be scientifically impossible to get all of those animals, control them, and survive with them for 40 days.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Dec. 21, 2016 at 11:08 am

I hear you about translations. I like to look at a version translated directly from Hebrew text. Also Youngs Literal Translation. But yes, the Bible is very very reliable. Hasn't this whole debate been about if its reliable or not?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Dec. 21, 2016 at 11:11 am

Btw, just saw your post above. Please give me sec to respond

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Dec. 21, 2016 at 11:18 am

I don't know, it's just a question I've had for a while. Given the reliability of translators and the scientific contradictions, is it historically and scientifically reliable? I won't argue it as a spiritual text; people can find God in anything. So this isn't a religious reliability question so much as one about its reliability in an empirical basis.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Dec. 21, 2016 at 11:26 am

@wolves So I checked out Ob. 1.16 and I think you might have misread it. So the scripture does not imply that he.ll doesn't exist. It merely talks about the heathens after punishment, there will be no remains or remembrance of them. Also, Noah didn't gather all the animals himself. They came to him. God guided two of every animal to him. Also, yes it had to be big. That is why God gave him the exact measurements for a ship big enough. And it took years to build it, Im sure they used that time to store up. Also, if God can calm some lions in a den, I'm sure he could still the rest of the animals. Who knows, it could of been a difficult 40 days but I don't see it as a metaphor. I believe it to be true.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Dec. 21, 2016 at 12:04 pm

Okay, maybe I did. It sounded like it spoke of He.ll to me- after death, there are no remains and no memory of existence (just wiped away). How about this one: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." That's from Ephesians. This quote is from James: "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." There is a clear contradiction there.
Just all the variables of the ark story makes me a bit skeptical, especially considering that the flood story is not unique to Christianity. I believe it's a metaphor.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Dec. 21, 2016 at 12:11 pm

Wow. I go away for a few days and this thread blows up. Please allow me to interject for a moment:
 
@stuntddude
I completely agree with CN. I would read the bible all the way through before you seek to disprove it.
 
@warriorwritergirl77
Is that how Christians interpret the gift of tongues? Speaking in a language the devil can't understand? My religion interprets it as something else entirely...
 
Okay, sorry. Just had to interrupt for a second. Please continue on with the discussion.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
CNBono17 replied...
Dec. 21, 2016 at 12:12 pm

There's a difference between "saved" and "justified." To be saved--ie to accept Christ--requires nothing but faith. Justification is the aftereffects. Ideally, once a person is saved, good works for others are a natural effect. Doing works doesn't save you, but if you're saved, you tend to do good works.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Lucy-AgnesThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Dec. 21, 2016 at 12:22 pm

The whole issue about Biblical accuracy is one of the biggest reasons I'm Catholic. The Bible is 100% true, the Word of God given to men. But if it's up to men to interpret it, they're going to make mistakes. They're going to see things as contradictory that aren't really contradictory, to take things literally that aren't supposed to be taken literally, to take things symbolically that aren't supposed to be taken symbolically. That's why Jesus instituted one, holy, catholic (universal), apostolic church and infused it with the Holy Spirit -- so that the Bible would have a guardian. Thanks to the Church, we don't have to wonder what the Bible means when it says this or that. We know how to read and understand it in the light of solid Church teaching.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Lucy-AgnesThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Dec. 21, 2016 at 12:27 pm

@wolvesandwilderness:
On the faith and works thing. Human beings can do nothing good on their own. If I do something good, it's because God gave me the grace to do it. I can't take credit for anything I do. God gets all the glory. So that's what the quote from Ephesians means. At the same time, "faith alone" isn't enough to save us. By that I mean we can't just say "I accept Jesus as my savior" and then expect instant salvation even though we don't change at all. A faith based solely on words isn't faith at all. If someone really has faith, good works will come with it. If someone really accepts Jesus and takes Him  into into his or her life, then they're going to perform good works. If they don't perform good works, that means they don't really have faith. Does that make sense?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Dec. 21, 2016 at 12:36 pm

@wolves So by justified it is different then being saved. We believe that we should back up our faith with action. Works have nothing to do with our being saved. For example, its like saying faith without works is dead. Different kinds of topics. Did I answer your question?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Dec. 21, 2016 at 1:28 pm

Oh btw, my post uploaded late so I didn't see others already answer wolves question. And @mormom, we believe that the gift of tongues is one of gifts of the Holy Spirit. It helps us communicate with God when we don't know what to dsy, the devil doesn't understand, its powerful, it helps eith healings, basically it enhances prayers. What did you hear about it?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
CNBono17 replied...
Dec. 21, 2016 at 1:38 pm

I've never seen it, but I've always understood that speaking in tongues meant speaking in a way so no matter the language, you can understand. That's what pentecost was, wasn't it?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Dec. 21, 2016 at 2:16 pm

Welp, that's not what my religion believes. We believe that the gift of tongues is simply the ability to speak in other languages (languages like spanish and french and other ones). Usually, one of our missionaries is able to speak a language fluently after only a few weeks of training. And on a few very rare occasions, a person who has never learned a foreign language is able to communicate fluently with someone in that foreign language. These are both manifestations of the gift of tongues. I knew other Christian churches had a different take on it, I just didn't know what it was. 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread

Launch Teen Ink Chat
Site Feedback