PHHindi po, hindi totoo ang mga yan wala may nakasulat sa bible nang ganyan
-
Welcome to PHCorner Forums! Sign up for free to unlock full access and exclusive privileges, including:
- Asking questions about computer and mobile issues
- Discovering internet tips for your mobile network and computer
🕯️ Traditions Any questions about bible?
- Thread starter Ace106
- Start date
- Status
marcoramiro01
Honorary Poster
The great flood happened. But it's considered as a natural disaster and not the will of God. Ok. I will make it clear to you. Napakalinaw naman na hindi makatarungan ang ginawa ng Diyos kung Siya ang may gawa nito. Hindi makatarungan dahil pati mga bata, sanggol, at mga hayop na wala namang sala o inosente dinamay ng Diyos. Sasabihin ng mga experts daw sa Bible, ok lang kahit pinatay ng Diyos ang mga bata kasi sabi ni Cristo sa kanila ang kaharian ng Diyos, pag namatay sila ay sa langit naman ang punta nila. Anong klaseng reasoning yan? Lalabas pa ring hindi makatarungan dahil inalisan ng Diyos ng karapatan ang mga bata na mabuhay pa ng matagal sa mundo at siyempre wala naman silang sala. Kaya nasaan ang katarungan? Wala. Taliwas pa rin yan sa turo ni Cristo na makatarungan ang Diyos.
Para sa'kin, ang Noah's flood ay maituturing na isang natural disaster at hindi talaga gawa ng Diyos. Dahil may mga ganitong nangyari na rin sa mundo na katulad sa panahon ni Noah. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now..
Kaya maituturing na local at hindi global ang Noah's flood. Sa madaling salita sa lugar lang nina Noah nagbaha at hindi buong mundo. Sa kanilang lugar kung may distansiya na 160-320 km ang layo ay wala ng lupang matatanaw kaya aakalain talaga nilang bumaha sa buong mundo yun pala sa kanila lang nagbaha. At dagdag ko lang, nabanggit man ni Cristo ang great flood sa bagong tipan hindi naman Niya sinabing Diyos ang may gawa nito.
marcoramiro01
Honorary Poster
Ang mga bersikulo na gaya nito ay masasabi kong maling pagkaunawa ng mga propeta sa tunay na kalikasan o katangian ng Diyos. I'm not against sa mga propeta ng Diyos gaya ni Moises. But I have to say na hindi lubos na kilala ng mga propeta ang Diyos. Dahil kung pagbabasehan ko ang mga turo nila, lumalabas na mabuti ang Diyos at sa kabilang banda ay may kasamaan din. Masasabi kong ang mga propeta noon gaya ni Moises ay naniniwalang pumapatay ang Diyos, mapaghiganti sa Kanyang mga kaaway at sa masasama kahit may madamay pang mga inosente. Kaya may mga bagay na kahit hindi naman sinabi ng Diyos ay ipinahayag nilang sinabi ng Diyos dahil sa maling pagkaunawa nilang ganun ang Diyos. Alam ko some of the experts daw sa Bible ay sasabihing mali ako. Dahil ang mga propeta ay guided by the Holy Spirit of God kaya hindi sila maaaring magkamali. But if we look deeper, gaya sa 1 Samuel 15:1-3, napakalinaw naman na it doesn't represent a loving, pure goodness, merciful and just God. Paanong nakayang tanggapin ng mga kristiyano na magagawa ito ng isang mabuti at mapagmahal na Diyos? Ngunit ang Diyos na ipinakilala ni Cristo ay isang mapagmahal, mahabagin, mapagpatawad, makatarungan, at mabuti hindi lang sa mabubuti kundi pati sa masasama. Gaya sa Lucas 6:35, sinabi ni Cristo na ibigin ang aming mga kaaway at gawan sila ng mabuti upang kami ay maging mga anak ng kataas-taasan, sapagkat ang Diyos ay magandang-loob sa mga walang turing at sa masasama. Ito nga, ginawan na kami ng masama ng mga kaaway namin na masasama sa amin, dapat pa rin namin silang ibigin at gawan ng mabuti para maging mga tunay na anak ng Diyos dahil ganun din Siya sa masasama. Mabigat ang utos na ito sa aming mga kristiyano pero masasabi ko it's pure goodness. It shows how God treats bad people according to Jesus. Iba sa turo ng mga propeta kung paano ituring ng Diyos ang masasama. Kaya tama ang sinasabi sa Juan 1:18, "Walang taong nakakita kailan man sa Dios; ang bugtong na Anak, na nasa sinapupunan ng Ama, Siya ang nagpakilala sa Kanya." Si Cristo ang nagpakilala sa tunay na kalikasan o katangian ng Diyos dahil Siya ang lubos na nakakakilala sa Kanya.
Acts 10:10-13
and he became very hungry and would have eaten; but while they made ready, he fell into a rapture of understanding and saw the heaven opened and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners and let down to the earth, in which were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth and wild beasts and reptiles and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter, kill and eat.
Ts sino ang nagsasalita dito, at ano ang ibig sabihin nito, paki explain salamat
and he became very hungry and would have eaten; but while they made ready, he fell into a rapture of understanding and saw the heaven opened and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners and let down to the earth, in which were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth and wild beasts and reptiles and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter, kill and eat.
Ts sino ang nagsasalita dito, at ano ang ibig sabihin nito, paki explain salamat
Acts 10:10-13
and he became very hungry and would have eaten; but while they made ready, he fell into a rapture of understanding and saw the heaven opened and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners and let down to the earth, in which were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth and wild beasts and reptiles and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter, kill and eat.
and he became very hungry and would have eaten; but while they made ready, he fell into a rapture of understanding and saw the heaven opened and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners and let down to the earth, in which were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth and wild beasts and reptiles and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter, kill and eat.
[XX='homer_simpson, c: 66342, m: 1361956'][/XX]
Hindi natin kaya unawain, kaya ok yung genocide...hmmm. At kung capable yung god na magdala ng kapahamakan sa humanity, how is he different then from satan that the religious people despises?
-Is that true? Ok yung genocide? how do you prove the "ok ness" of genocide? Where do you based your set of moral reasoning?
-Is that true? How will you prove that God is the same as satan that the religious people despises? When you say kapahamakan sa humanity, does that equates to you being not able to understand his will and ways on why did such things happened? Or are you stating a truth claim based on your limited resources of claims, on such incoherent truth?
- Samakatuwid, paano mo mapapatunayan na ang ginawa ng Diyos ay hindi makaturungan kung ikaw mismo sa sarili mo e hindi mo maunawaan ang katarungan ng Diyos?
Not knowing the origin of the material univserse is a lot more acceptable and humbling than accepting your god's atrocities.
- Totoo ba na atrocities nga ito? By definition, Atrocity(ies): Appalling or atrocious condition, quality, or behavior; monstrousness. 2. An appalling or atrocious act, situation, or object, especially an act of unusual or îllégâl cruelty inflicted by an armed force on civilians or prisoners.
-How will you define atrocities in a view that makes a claim similar to all peoples view? In other words, opinyon mo yan, you are entitled to it, hindi nangangahulugan na batayan ito ng katotohanan, pero when it comes to accepting; tinatanggap mo nga yung hindi mo maipaliwanag at napakarami pang hindi kayang ipaliwanag, ngunit hindi mo matanggap ang sinasabi mong atrocities na naipaliwanag na at naisulat pa?
- Does your truth claims cohere with everybody else? Is that the basis of truth whereby everybody else could say it's true? Dahil kung hindi eh mas may bigat ng katotohanan yung coherence at correspondence na nakasulat sa bibliya.
Sabi mo "just let him in". Paano kung I don't let him in?
-Nasa sa iyo pa rin yan, binigyan ka nga choices eh. Choice na isipin mong may choice ka. O choice din na isipin mong wala kang choice. Both are true. So walang conflict jan.
He operates both the party house and the prison.
- Is that truth claim based on your experiences? or is that based on your propositions of not having a choice as a choice? So are you admitting na you have a choice given based on something you don't have any idea whatsoever? If so, does that cohere with all experiences of everybody to be considered as a truth claim? Sa madaling salita, masasabi mo lang totoo yang proposisyon na yan kung napatunayan mong mayroon ka ngang pagpipilian at nakapili kana.
Hindi natin kaya unawain, kaya ok yung genocide...hmmm. At kung capable yung god na magdala ng kapahamakan sa humanity, how is he different then from satan that the religious people despises?
-Is that true? Ok yung genocide? how do you prove the "ok ness" of genocide? Where do you based your set of moral reasoning?
-Is that true? How will you prove that God is the same as satan that the religious people despises? When you say kapahamakan sa humanity, does that equates to you being not able to understand his will and ways on why did such things happened? Or are you stating a truth claim based on your limited resources of claims, on such incoherent truth?
- Samakatuwid, paano mo mapapatunayan na ang ginawa ng Diyos ay hindi makaturungan kung ikaw mismo sa sarili mo e hindi mo maunawaan ang katarungan ng Diyos?
Not knowing the origin of the material univserse is a lot more acceptable and humbling than accepting your god's atrocities.
- Totoo ba na atrocities nga ito? By definition, Atrocity(ies): Appalling or atrocious condition, quality, or behavior; monstrousness. 2. An appalling or atrocious act, situation, or object, especially an act of unusual or îllégâl cruelty inflicted by an armed force on civilians or prisoners.
-How will you define atrocities in a view that makes a claim similar to all peoples view? In other words, opinyon mo yan, you are entitled to it, hindi nangangahulugan na batayan ito ng katotohanan, pero when it comes to accepting; tinatanggap mo nga yung hindi mo maipaliwanag at napakarami pang hindi kayang ipaliwanag, ngunit hindi mo matanggap ang sinasabi mong atrocities na naipaliwanag na at naisulat pa?
- Does your truth claims cohere with everybody else? Is that the basis of truth whereby everybody else could say it's true? Dahil kung hindi eh mas may bigat ng katotohanan yung coherence at correspondence na nakasulat sa bibliya.
Sabi mo "just let him in". Paano kung I don't let him in?
-Nasa sa iyo pa rin yan, binigyan ka nga choices eh. Choice na isipin mong may choice ka. O choice din na isipin mong wala kang choice. Both are true. So walang conflict jan.
He operates both the party house and the prison.
- Is that truth claim based on your experiences? or is that based on your propositions of not having a choice as a choice? So are you admitting na you have a choice given based on something you don't have any idea whatsoever? If so, does that cohere with all experiences of everybody to be considered as a truth claim? Sa madaling salita, masasabi mo lang totoo yang proposisyon na yan kung napatunayan mong mayroon ka ngang pagpipilian at nakapili kana.
jayendecastro
Forum Veteran
Ive read this before and just like then di ako satisfied sa sagot na yan... Thats even how some people think to justify their killings because they were "ordered by god"
Really?? Walang inosente sa mga yun?? Dont kid urself..
How about now sa mga tao na di same ang faith sayo?? Sa mga taong iba ang dios??
Really?? Walang inosente sa mga yun?? Dont kid urself..
How about now sa mga tao na di same ang faith sayo?? Sa mga taong iba ang dios??
jayendecastro
Forum Veteran
The verses about slavery..is it true now as it is back then??
jayendecastro
Forum Veteran
Nope...though i didnt drectly acknowledge what u said.. i mentioned na getting some facts right is not exclusive to the bible..madame books na ganon...Hehehe wala namang problema kung may masabi pa din brow. Ang natawa lang ako, ni hindi mo pinansin yung ibang PROVEN BY SCIENCE na facts na sinabi ko. Dun ka agad nag focus sa tingin mong may mahahanap kang butas. Sabi mo ano ang na prove ng bible outside it, then I gave you some, tas di man lang ni acknowledged haha
YUN nga ang point. NAUNANG sinabi ng bible yang mga bagay na yan VS sa ibang beliefs noon. It doesn't matter kung saan nagmula yung flat earth. The fact na yan ang ilang paniniwala sa shape ng Earth noon, malayo sa sinabi ng bible na bilog ito.
"that doesnt mean na the whole theme of any book is true or a fact."? Actually, ang kulang dito ay hindi niyo na kasi hinahanp yung talagang sagot o punto ng bible sa isang particular verse. Like I said many times, walang contradiction sa Bible. Kayo lang mga ganyang beliefs ang nagpupumilit na meron kasi naka stick kayo sa pov niyo.
Proof ng evidence ni Moses? Hmmm, yaan mo check ko. For now, tignan mo tong isa sa mga proof na naging ALIPIN SA EGYPT yung mga Israelita
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
And the bible also mentioned about the "four corners of the earth"... Guess either miscommunication yan or poor choice of words for the author descrbing a sphere to be having corners.
And many contradictions sa bible ang makikita... Within it and in relation to things outside of that book...
Which is a questionable character of a book na supposedly eh inspired by god...
Even ung explanation ni Carys about "killing/murder" will illustrate how a book inspired with divinity can be easily misinterpreted.
There is no misinterpretation in the context itself nor it is contradictory, only mistransliteration by poor equations of translated language. You have to go back to the Hebrew language to understand the context(for OT atleast), not using the context to misinterpret it yourself or giving misleading propositions. You are one of those who uses a.k.a. "facts" without knowing if it is the truth to the sense of coherence and correspondence of the Bible itself. Facts eh hindi substantial nor it will ever be perpetual, pero truth is.
Samakatuwid, dapat bago mo unawain yung konteksto eh unawain mo muna ang pagbibigay mo ng kahulugan doon sa konteksto. O baka naman kinuha mo lang din sa ibang konteksto; maaari mo din ilathala kung meron man hindi puro kuwestyon ka nalang na walang batayan, nang sa ganoon ay hindi ka maging walang kahulugan.
Dito oh my friend: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Subukan mong basahin at unawain.
Even ung explanation ni Carys about "killing/murder" will illustrate how a book inspired with divinity can be easily misinterpreted.
- misinterpreted by those who don't take time to understand it but just ask incoherent questions like you, without stating the basis of which you understand the context, in layman's term -- your own interpretation.
Samakatuwid, dapat bago mo unawain yung konteksto eh unawain mo muna ang pagbibigay mo ng kahulugan doon sa konteksto. O baka naman kinuha mo lang din sa ibang konteksto; maaari mo din ilathala kung meron man hindi puro kuwestyon ka nalang na walang batayan, nang sa ganoon ay hindi ka maging walang kahulugan.
Dito oh my friend: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Subukan mong basahin at unawain.
Even ung explanation ni Carys about "killing/murder" will illustrate how a book inspired with divinity can be easily misinterpreted.
- misinterpreted by those who don't take time to understand it but just ask incoherent questions like you, without stating the basis of which you understand the context, in layman's term -- your own interpretation.
jayendecastro
Forum Veteran
[XX='Carys, c: 67941, m: 461937']dapat bago mo unawain yung konteksto eh unawain mo muna ang pagbibigay mo ng kahulugan doon sa konteksto[/XX]
Huh?... What do u mean?? Unawain ko muna kung pano ko bibigyan ng kahulugan bago ko unawain ang konteksto??? Wait what??
So dapat may predisposition na ako??
So how shud i approach the contexts ng bible then??
Na its a book inspired by god for mankind to know his origins and for man to know god's will...thats how i see it and thats why i find it questionable..
Like what ur doing, u keep on explaining how the original words have this and that meaning before..and how its now misinterpreted or mistranslated...is that how a book about god supposed to be??? Prone to errors in translation?? prone to misinterpretation??
Thats bad authorship on god's part is how i see it.
And since u seem to know a lot about the bible..
Which version of the bible do u think is the most accurate in relation to the original texts??
Is the bible complete?
Do we have all of its books?
Are there any other books which are not included in our modern bible that shudve been there?
The authorship of the bible, who are they?
When were each of them written?
Are there other recorder events that occur which shares the same stories like the ones in the bible?
Pls do answer those with your "facts"
Provide multiple sources if u can, non religious ones too if available.
Huh?... What do u mean?? Unawain ko muna kung pano ko bibigyan ng kahulugan bago ko unawain ang konteksto??? Wait what??
So dapat may predisposition na ako??
So how shud i approach the contexts ng bible then??
Na its a book inspired by god for mankind to know his origins and for man to know god's will...thats how i see it and thats why i find it questionable..
Like what ur doing, u keep on explaining how the original words have this and that meaning before..and how its now misinterpreted or mistranslated...is that how a book about god supposed to be??? Prone to errors in translation?? prone to misinterpretation??
Thats bad authorship on god's part is how i see it.
And since u seem to know a lot about the bible..
Which version of the bible do u think is the most accurate in relation to the original texts??
Is the bible complete?
Do we have all of its books?
Are there any other books which are not included in our modern bible that shudve been there?
The authorship of the bible, who are they?
When were each of them written?
Are there other recorder events that occur which shares the same stories like the ones in the bible?
Pls do answer those with your "facts"
Provide multiple sources if u can, non religious ones too if available.
jayendecastro
Forum Veteran
Just try to explain it here..anjan nman mga tanong ko
Pag kini-question mo ba ang bibliya ibig sabihin ba 'non ay mahina ng paniniwala mo? Masama bang magkaroon ng ibang version ng paniniwala for example, naniniwala kang may diyos pero hindi gaya ng nasa bibliya? Dahil ang bibliya ay gawa ng tao at maaring napalitan ang pagkakahulugan ng mga salitang nais na ipabatid?
jayendecastro
Forum Veteran
Like i said...i accept the notion nga na there are "unknowns" pa... But for you the answer to that unknown is god, because of your faith.
And faith is not reliable nga.heres an example:
1. You have faith that your god of the bible is true.
2. A muslim have faith that Allah is the true god.
3. A hindu have faith that all his gods are true.
Can all of those three things be true??
Eto pa, lets say i have faith in my boss na ipropromote nea ko in 2 months....is that an assurance na i will promoted withim that period?
And pls stop asking me to read an entire book, u cited Shroeder's work so why dont u explain here what he found.
Minention ko na nga ung OEC stand nea as starting point eh ..u shud have provided the proof na tama sya... Or any other evidence na merom sya.
And its not a matter of pagtanggap lang or not... I have to ask questions and see how ur claim wi hold up....
So just give me one, kahit di na ung kay shroeder at ipapabasa mo lang sken ulet. Give me ur best evidence na everyone hir can test and will give one answer to.....
Tama ka somehow na depende sa pagtanggap... U accept things without evidence, or it being unkown eh "truth claim" na sayo.... I, look at the claims and see the evidence it offers, before i accept it.
jayendecastro
Forum Veteran
Apparently eh yun ang pananaw ng "faithful" sa bible.
- Status