(March 4, 2018 at 9:06 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

---

(March 4, 2018 at 8:07 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: It's best if you do your own research.  It's very easy to use Google and search for vintage Bibles and topics like "why were 14 books removed from the Bible?"  You can also search the NYTimes archives, which has a lot of articles on religion from that time period (1860s-1890s).  You can read them for free in a PDF format.  

But if you're lazy here's a start = http://rockingodshouse.com/why-were-14-b...e-in-1881/

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/157/157_08a.asp

There's a ton of info on Westcott & Hort so you can Google them at your pleasure.  It will keep you busy for at least a month.

https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesma...421826.pdf

https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesma...015309.pdf

https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesma...739859.pdf

https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesma...626516.pdf

https://www.etsy.com/listing/498450054/a...llery-2-24

http://www.greatsite.com/ancient-rare-bi...-leaf.html

You can build your own research program off of these sources if you are really interested.

---

Quote:Thanks. I read the first article. (BTW, it would have sufficed, but thanks for the other links.)

Sorry for doubting your claims. (I simply thought you got the dates mixed up--that's why I asked you for a citation.) It's certainly something worth taking a closer look at.

Why is this not more widely-known? I'm certainly going to look into this further.

On a side note, this has been quite the "learning" thread for me today. I've had two incorrect assumptions corrected. I'd say I'm getting my money's worth.

Anytime you want to know the history of American politics or religious issues some good sources are the American Presidency Project site http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29630 or  the New York Times archives.  You can trace the progress of an issue through the years on an almost daily basis.  

BTW, when you see people claiming that the Bible was originally written in Greek they are full of shit.  The Bible as a complete book that we today wasn't written until the 690s and it was written in Latin.  All of the so-called Greek Bibles were written in the modern Greek alphabet.  And if you want to have some fun get a copy of a Greek Bible like the so-called Codex Sinaiticus http://www.jacksonsnyder.com/yah/manuscr...iticus.pdf and copy some verses and put them into a translator program. n   https://www.bing.com/translator/ = one of many.

(March 4, 2018 at 8:19 pm)stretch3172 Wrote: I guess I'll throw in my two cents. According to the evangelical view, there are certain core beliefs on which Christianity simply must stand,

What exactly is the evangelical view regarding the Catholic Church's insistence that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ?

Quote:(1 Cor 15:17)

Aren’t you shooting yourself in the foot?

1 Corinthians 15:17 New International Version (NIV)

Quote:And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins

This to me is one of the most confusing utterances Paul ever spake and is diametrically opposite to the words of the gospels. You can't have it both ways. If Paul's words are true then the words of the gospels are wrong. So which is it?

Quote:...The authority of Scripture...

What is this authority of scripture of which you speak?
On who's authority am I condemned to suffer everlasting indescribable agony for having a quick one of the wrist after listening to me sister and her boyfriend upstairs giving it plenty. Song of Songs?

Quote:The death and resurrection of Christ...

Dude, the universe operates according to a set of rules. You can't turn fish into bread, or whatever it was,  and if you're dead for three days you're staying dead. There’s no way around this.

Quote:Without which Christianity itself is meaningless.

We are stardust. Every atom in your body was once part of a star that exploded. There is no greater wonder than this.

Quote:...Christians must still adhere to basic principles of deductive and inductive logic as well as science...

Tell me again how this god of yours didn't give clear instructions as to how to spell 'yours' or is it 'your's'.  

An enquiring mind needs to know.

(March 4, 2018 at 11:57 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: BTW, when you see people claiming that the Bible was originally written in Greek they are full of shit.  The Bible as a complete book that we today wasn't written until the 690s and it was written in Latin.  All of the so-called Greek Bibles were written in the modern Greek alphabet.  And if you want to have some fun get a copy of a Greek Bible like the so-called Codex Sinaiticus http://www.jacksonsnyder.com/yah/manuscr...iticus.pdf and copy some verses and put them into a translator program. n   https://www.bing.com/translator/ = one of many.

Who claimed the Bible was originally written in Greek?

Obviously the Old testament which is part of the Bible wasn't written in Greek, but the New testament was, being mainly a compilation of letters to various different Churches throughout Asia Minor, to Rome, seeing how Greek was the lingua franca at that time.

I think I'm starting a thread about this 1881 shit

(March 2, 2018 at 6:24 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(March 2, 2018 at 3:27 pm)Drich Wrote: I read this an ask myself how does this differ from my very own core beliefs? Very little in the way I have approached God and the bible. Which is indeed how/why I have been able to reconcile so many different paradoxes that most can not see past.

Then I ask why is it that others do not see this in me.

While I know the answers could be very diverse I think the primary reason is, it is far easier to try and pin me as a bigoted person rather than someone unique or understand the differences between what I believe and those in whom you your self are trying to outline.

Well if that describes the way you see yourself then I'll have to take you off ignore and give you another look.  Maybe I was hasty.

Thank you. I have always taken thess 5:21 to heart which says question all things and hold onto what is Good. For most this means to question the questionable. to me this always meant question the foundation. meaning the foundations of what we as Christians believe and why the church now does not operate like it did. The answer I found has put many in the church off, but it seems to be truth as I have found God right where the bible says he is to be found.

So why can't others 'see him?" 

What are they looking for? What if what they are looking for is not the picture of God found in the bible would they recognize Him? The obvious answer is no. Otherwise most of you would acknowledged God. Which is what I think you've backed yourself into by saying you should follow what the bible says or what we can accurately translate from it. Most of us has created a version of God loosely based on the bible, and when we test this God we find out he does not exist and simple pride then says because "I" was wrong about God there is no room for any God.

(March 5, 2018 at 10:40 am)Drich Wrote: ......I have found God right where the bible says he is to be found.

So why can't others 'see him?" 

Anyone can look at any book to claim to have "found" a particular character within. In the end, the book character remains a product of fiction merely anthropomorphized for the comfort of the reader in his delusional escape from reality and reason.

(March 5, 2018 at 10:45 am)Lutrinae Wrote:

(March 5, 2018 at 10:40 am)Drich Wrote: ......I have found God right where the bible says he is to be found.

So why can't others 'see him?" 

Anyone can look at any book to claim to have "found" a particular character within.  In the end, the book character remains a product of fiction merely anthropomorphized for the comfort of the reader in his delusional escape from reality and reason.

Proof is what separates me from others.

(March 5, 2018 at 10:59 am)Drich Wrote: Proof is what separates me from others.

You don't have "proof" that qualifies as a means of proper empirical validity. What you have, instead, is "personal proof" that holds no logical sway over the reasonable mind. Anyone can have "personal proof" of absolutely any concept, yet the belief is in no way inseparable from someone who has been psychiatrically diagnosed as delusional.

(March 5, 2018 at 11:11 am)Lutrinae Wrote:

(March 5, 2018 at 10:59 am)Drich Wrote: Proof is what separates me from others.

You don't have "proof" that qualifies as a means of proper empirical validity.  What you have, instead, is "personal proof" that holds no logical sway over the reasonable mind.  Anyone can have "personal proof" of absolutely any concept, yet the belief is in no way inseparable from someone who has been psychiatrically diagnosed as delusional.

ALL "empirical validity" is a never ending game of moving goal posts. Why? because it is based on the senses. it is COMPLETELY dependent on the idea non sentient observation. meaning the subject being observed will behave the same way every time. What happens when the subject/object simply will not behave the same way each time it is poked or prodded?

Are we sooooo foolish to think that the whole universe, time, different dimensions all can be cataloged by the 7 steps of the scientific method?

Now riddle me this... You followed the God path in the bible and found God yourself. would you need 'science' to tell you what to think about what you found?

(March 5, 2018 at 11:28 am)Drich Wrote: Now riddle me this... You followed the God path in the bible and found God yourself. would you need 'science' to tell you what to think about what you found?

Your gross misconception of science notwithstanding, we should be reasonably capable of understanding that a character in a book, a character created merely from fallible man's overactive imagination, is only a product of fiction. To fancy that a fictional character is in any way a representation of reality, existing outside the conceptual paradigm, is logical folly of the highest disorder.