Actually, it did change the meaning.



0.00001% faith vs. 99.99999% lack of evidence
You have a lot more faith



Really? I'd like some examples, because it seems like the people in the bible were fine with it.



From what you've given me, that is the only logical conclusion. You haven't denied it.



To everyone, of course. You said that the bible was a tool to be used by believers. This is part of that tool.



Did you ignore the previous bible passage?



Of course! That is my point! God has not issued any commands, and you said that people shouldn't do things in the name of god unless he specifically commands it, so that invalidates the whold bible, then.



Your logic fails then. You still haven't told me what this metaphoricl knocking is, so if you refuse to define the terms then of course you can say that I'm not knocking properly when god doesn't answer.



Why do you refuse to look at the websites I provided?



Other people have, maybe not to you. I am asking for one now.



Correction: It all depends on the [willingness to delude oneself] of the heart doing the asking and seeking. By the same method, a credulous person could eventually convince themself that the Flying Spaghetti Monster existed.



Well, you won't even look at the sites I've provided and yet you expect me to do reserch? I'll take your word for it then. That still opens up two problems: 1. Why do the accounts contradict each other, and 2. Why does only the creatio have two accounts, and none of the other stories do? (Other than the gospels, but that is from different points of view, and they also contradict each other).




...?



Ahhh...I think I see what you're getting at.
Why is 'thou shall not kill' a commandment when god repeatedly orders his followers to exterminate other groups? (and animal sacrifices)

This is the first 'contradiction' I could find: this page only talks about one particular contradiction. If you re-interpret something enough, almost any contradiction can be resolved.

However, even if one moves out of the realm of contradictions, there are still errors to be found. For example, we know that the world is not flat, and yet the bible says that it is, along with a number of other scientific errors that reflect the scientific knowledge and worldview of the people of the time. Earth form errors discussed here.



I see. Well if there is some sort of conflict, maybe then you will genuinely question it, even once. The definition of god given to you says that god must always be right. If he appears to be wrong, then you must simply not understand his greatness. If you considered the possibility that he could be wrong (i.e. if he didn't actually exist) everything would make sense



There isn't a rulebook, there is a decison making process.



More shaming



I don't think that these morals have never lined up with ours. Sure, they don't now, but they are 2000+ years old.



But the ten commandments are clearly incomplete, and they place extra emphasis on worshipping god. If morality is not a valid standard for earning eternal life, then what is? Accepting Jesus?

It reminds me of the saying "When I was a child, I prayed to god for a bike. But I quickly found out he didn't work that way, so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness".

I find it quite comical Drich that you think morality counts for nothing. Upon being asked what commandments were the most important, Jesus replied with 'treat others how you would like to be treated' and 'love your neighbor'. Those are moral rules that he upheld.

On the topic of the Bible being fallible:

The oldest surviving copy of the entire Bible is the Codex Vaticanus which dates to the mid 4th century. Sadly, it puts to shame the people involved in passing on the Bible as it reveals how much that version differs to what we have today.

Passages missing in the Codex
Matthew 12:47; 16:2b-3; 17:21; 18:11; 23:14;
Mark 7:16; 9:44.46; 11:26; 15:28;
Mark 16:9–20; —The Book of Mark ends with verse 16:8, consistent with the Alexandrian text-type.
Luke 17:36, 22:43–44;
John 5:4, Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11);
Acts 8:37; 15:34, 24:7; 28:29;
Romans 16:24.
1 Peter 5:3.

Phrases not found in the Codex
Matthew 5:44 – εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωμένους ὑμᾶς, καλῶς ποιεῖτε τοῖς μισοῦσιν ὑμᾶς (bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you);
Matthew 10:37b – καὶ ὁ φιλῶν υἱὸν ἢ θυγατέρα ὑπὲρ ἐμὲ οὐκ ἔστιν μου ἄξιος (and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me) as Codex Bezae;
Matthew 15:6 – ἢ τὴν μητέρα (αὐτοῦ) (or (his) mother);
Matthew 20:23 – καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα ὂ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι βαπτισθήσεσθε (and be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with), as in codices Sinaiticus, D, L, Z, Θ, 085, f1, f13, it, Syriac Sinaiticus (syrs), syrc, copsa.
Mark 10:7 – καὶ προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ (and be joined to his wife), as in codices Sinaiticus, Codex Athous Lavrensis, 892, ℓ 48, Sinaitic Palimpsest (syrs), Gothic Codex Argenteus.
Mark 10:19 – μη αποστερησης omitted (as in codices K, W, Ψ, f1, f13, 28, 700, 1010, 1079, 1242, 1546, 2148, ℓ 10, ℓ 950, ℓ 1642, ℓ 1761, syrs, arm, geo) but added by a later corrector (B2).
Luke 9:55–56 – και ειπεν, Ουκ οιδατε ποιου πνευματος εστε υμεις; ο γαρ υιος του ανθρωπου ουκ ηλθεν ψυχας ανθρωπων απολεσαι αλλα σωσαι (and He said: "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of; for the Son of man came not to destroy men's lives but to save them) — omitted as in codices Sinaiticus, C, L, Θ, Ξ, 33, 700, 892, 1241, Old Syriac version (syr), copbo;
Luke 11:4 – αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου (but deliver us from evil) omitted. Omission is supported by the manuscripts: 75, Sinaiticus, L, f1 700 vg syrs copsa, bo, arm geo.
Luke 23:34 – "And Jesus said: Father forgive them, they know not what they do." This omission is supported by the manuscripts 75, Sinaiticusa, D*, W, Θ, 0124, 1241, a, d, syrs, copsa, copbo.

Notable wording differences in the Codex
Judges 18:30 it reads υἱὸς Μανασση (son of Manasse), Alexandrinus reads υἱοῦ Μωυσῆ (son of Mose);
Ezra 10:22 (9:22 LXX) it reads Ωκαιληδος (Alexandrinus – Ωκειδηλος) for Jozabad;
Matthew 5:22 — it lacks the word εικη (without cause), a reading supported by 67, Sinaiticus, 2174, manuscripts of Vulgate, and Ethiopian version;
Matthew 17:23 — τη τριημερα (the third day) for τη τριτη ημερα (the third day), it is singular reading;
Matthew 21:31 — ὁ ὕστερος (the last) for ὁ πρῶτος (the first), ὁ ἔσχατος (the last), or ὁ δεύτερος (the second); ὁ ὕστερος is a singular readings;
Matthew 23:38 — word ερημος (desert) is omitted, as in manuscripts Codex Regius, Corbeiensis II, Syriac Sinaiticus, copsa, bo;
Luke 4:17 — it has textual variant καὶ ἀνοίξας τὸ βιβλίον (and opened the book) together with the manuscripts A, L, W, Ξ, 33, 892, 1195, 1241, ℓ 547, syrs, h, pal, copsa, bo, against variant καὶ ἀναπτύξας τὸ βιβλίον (and unrolled the book) supported by א, Dc, K, Δ, Θ, Π, Ψ, f1, f13, 28, 565, 700, 1009, 1010 and many other manuscripts.
Luke 6:2 — οὐκ ἔξεστιν (not lawful) for οὐκ ἔξεστιν ποιεῖν (not lawful to do); the reading is supported only by 4, (Codex Bezae), Codex Nitriensis, 700, lat, copsa, copbo, arm, geo;
Luke 10:42 — ολιγων δε χρεια εστιν η ενος (few things are needfull, or only one) for ενος δε εστιν χρεια (one thing is needfull);
John 12:28 — it contains the unique textual variant δοξασον μου το ονομα. This variant is not supported by any other manuscript. The majority of the manuscripts have in this place: δοξασον σου το ονομα; some manuscripts have: δοξασον σου τον υιον (L, X, f1, f13, 33, 1241, pc, vg, syh mg, copbo).
John 16:27 — it has πατρος (the Father) instead of θεου (God);
Acts 27:16 — καυδα (name of island), this reading is supported only by 74, 1175, Old-Latin version, Vulgate, and Peshitta.
Romans 15:31 — δωροφορια for διακονια; the reading is supported by D and Ggr.
Ephesians 2:1 — αμαρτιαις ] επιθυμιαις.
Hebrews 1:3 — it has singular readings φανερων τε τα παντα τω ρηματι της δυναμεως αυτου (revealed the universe by his word of power); all of the rest manuscripts have φερων τε τα παντα τω ρηματι της δυναμεως αυτου (upholding the universe by his word of power).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus

The Bible is fallible.

(October 1, 2012 at 12:05 am)FallentoReason Wrote: I find it quite comical Drich that you think morality counts for nothing. Upon being asked what commandments were the most important, Jesus replied with 'treat others how you would like to be treated' and 'love your neighbor'. Those are moral rules that he upheld.

On the topic of the Bible being fallible:

The oldest surviving copy of the entire Bible is the Codex Vaticanus which dates to the mid 4th century. Sadly, it puts to shame the people involved in passing on the Bible as it reveals how much that version differs to what we have today.

Passages missing in the Codex
Matthew 12:47; 16:2b-3; 17:21; 18:11; 23:14;
Mark 7:16; 9:44.46; 11:26; 15:28;
Mark 16:9–20; —The Book of Mark ends with verse 16:8, consistent with the Alexandrian text-type.
Luke 17:36, 22:43–44;
John 5:4, Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11);
Acts 8:37; 15:34, 24:7; 28:29;
Romans 16:24.
1 Peter 5:3.

Phrases not found in the Codex
Matthew 5:44 – εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωμένους ὑμᾶς, καλῶς ποιεῖτε τοῖς μισοῦσιν ὑμᾶς (bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you);
Matthew 10:37b – καὶ ὁ φιλῶν υἱὸν ἢ θυγατέρα ὑπὲρ ἐμὲ οὐκ ἔστιν μου ἄξιος (and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me) as Codex Bezae;
Matthew 15:6 – ἢ τὴν μητέρα (αὐτοῦ) (or (his) mother);
Matthew 20:23 – καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα ὂ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι βαπτισθήσεσθε (and be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with), as in codices Sinaiticus, D, L, Z, Θ, 085, f1, f13, it, Syriac Sinaiticus (syrs), syrc, copsa.
Mark 10:7 – καὶ προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ (and be joined to his wife), as in codices Sinaiticus, Codex Athous Lavrensis, 892, ℓ 48, Sinaitic Palimpsest (syrs), Gothic Codex Argenteus.
Mark 10:19 – μη αποστερησης omitted (as in codices K, W, Ψ, f1, f13, 28, 700, 1010, 1079, 1242, 1546, 2148, ℓ 10, ℓ 950, ℓ 1642, ℓ 1761, syrs, arm, geo) but added by a later corrector (B2).
Luke 9:55–56 – και ειπεν, Ουκ οιδατε ποιου πνευματος εστε υμεις; ο γαρ υιος του ανθρωπου ουκ ηλθεν ψυχας ανθρωπων απολεσαι αλλα σωσαι (and He said: "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of; for the Son of man came not to destroy men's lives but to save them) — omitted as in codices Sinaiticus, C, L, Θ, Ξ, 33, 700, 892, 1241, Old Syriac version (syr), copbo;
Luke 11:4 – αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου (but deliver us from evil) omitted. Omission is supported by the manuscripts: 75, Sinaiticus, L, f1 700 vg syrs copsa, bo, arm geo.
Luke 23:34 – "And Jesus said: Father forgive them, they know not what they do." This omission is supported by the manuscripts 75, Sinaiticusa, D*, W, Θ, 0124, 1241, a, d, syrs, copsa, copbo.

Notable wording differences in the Codex
Judges 18:30 it reads υἱὸς Μανασση (son of Manasse), Alexandrinus reads υἱοῦ Μωυσῆ (son of Mose);
Ezra 10:22 (9:22 LXX) it reads Ωκαιληδος (Alexandrinus – Ωκειδηλος) for Jozabad;
Matthew 5:22 — it lacks the word εικη (without cause), a reading supported by 67, Sinaiticus, 2174, manuscripts of Vulgate, and Ethiopian version;
Matthew 17:23 — τη τριημερα (the third day) for τη τριτη ημερα (the third day), it is singular reading;
Matthew 21:31 — ὁ ὕστερος (the last) for ὁ πρῶτος (the first), ὁ ἔσχατος (the last), or ὁ δεύτερος (the second); ὁ ὕστερος is a singular readings;
Matthew 23:38 — word ερημος (desert) is omitted, as in manuscripts Codex Regius, Corbeiensis II, Syriac Sinaiticus, copsa, bo;
Luke 4:17 — it has textual variant καὶ ἀνοίξας τὸ βιβλίον (and opened the book) together with the manuscripts A, L, W, Ξ, 33, 892, 1195, 1241, ℓ 547, syrs, h, pal, copsa, bo, against variant καὶ ἀναπτύξας τὸ βιβλίον (and unrolled the book) supported by א, Dc, K, Δ, Θ, Π, Ψ, f1, f13, 28, 565, 700, 1009, 1010 and many other manuscripts.
Luke 6:2 — οὐκ ἔξεστιν (not lawful) for οὐκ ἔξεστιν ποιεῖν (not lawful to do); the reading is supported only by 4, (Codex Bezae), Codex Nitriensis, 700, lat, copsa, copbo, arm, geo;
Luke 10:42 — ολιγων δε χρεια εστιν η ενος (few things are needfull, or only one) for ενος δε εστιν χρεια (one thing is needfull);
John 12:28 — it contains the unique textual variant δοξασον μου το ονομα. This variant is not supported by any other manuscript. The majority of the manuscripts have in this place: δοξασον σου το ονομα; some manuscripts have: δοξασον σου τον υιον (L, X, f1, f13, 33, 1241, pc, vg, syh mg, copbo).
John 16:27 — it has πατρος (the Father) instead of θεου (God);
Acts 27:16 — καυδα (name of island), this reading is supported only by 74, 1175, Old-Latin version, Vulgate, and Peshitta.
Romans 15:31 — δωροφορια for διακονια; the reading is supported by D and Ggr.
Ephesians 2:1 — αμαρτιαις ] επιθυμιαις.
Hebrews 1:3 — it has singular readings φανερων τε τα παντα τω ρηματι της δυναμεως αυτου (revealed the universe by his word of power); all of the rest manuscripts have φερων τε τα παντα τω ρηματι της δυναμεως αυτου (upholding the universe by his word of power).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus

The Bible is fallible.

Nice try, but no. The Vaticanus codex is one high used example of A (orginal text) Bible. but is not the only one. We may not have any older complete (OT and NT) bibles avaiable but we do have indivisual manuscripts of indivisual books that are as old if not older than what is found in that particual codex. Outside of the R/C Church Christianity is not bound by any specific codex or version of the bible. So to say this codex is not consistant with your particular version of the bible therefore the bible is flawed is a logical fallacy. For again not all bibles not all versions/translations conform to the single source you have listed.

Having read the first and last page of this thread, I'm confused. Drich was open to erring in his understanding of the bible on page one, but by page four is quibbling over translational issues with the bible.

So even if you can't necessarily understand it correctly the bible is still a perfect, inerrant gift from God?

[quote='Darkstar' pid='343744' dateline='1349064240']
[quote]Actually, it did change the meaning.[/quote]
I agree it did change the meaning beacuse Tea only retranslated one word out of the entire text. If He were honestly approaching the task all of the words in the chapter would have need to be retranslated, if not the book to maintain contextual consistancy.

[quote]0.00001% faith vs. 99.99999% lack of evidence
You have a lot more faith[/quote]You do not have the evidence you seek because your faith tells you not to bother to look.

[quote]Really? I'd like some examples, because it seems like the people in the bible were fine with it.[/quote] so Jesus wasn't crusified because He was correcting the religious leaders of His day. They didn't have Him beaten first because He made them and their understanding of God law look foolish? Go back to moses while he was getting the commandments from God the people rebelled and created an idol even after all that they had seen. Litterally one or two generations after God had delivered these people into the promise land they had forgotten God and began to worship false Gods offering their first born sons to their false gods. (which is what this thread or the other one was orginally about/ The Passage in Judges) God's Laws have always been frown upon and reviled by people. This is not something new.

[quote]Did you ignore the previous bible passage?[/quote]Do you not understand there are two seperate religions being respersented in the bible? OT judisim and NT Christanity? You do understand we are discussing NT Christianity right?

[quote]Your logic fails then. You still haven't told me what this metaphoricl knocking is, so if you refuse to define the terms then of course you can say that I'm not knocking properly when god doesn't answer.[/quote]I have several times now I will make it more clear for you this time To Knock is to repeat the asking and seeking aspect as in the parable (the persistant neighbor knocked till He got what He needed) In turn you are to knock till you get what you Heart is asking and seeking after. Their can't be a time limit on your willingness to knock. Otherwise know God will run out your clock.

So Again to Knock as in the story/parable of Luke 11 you are to repeat the asking and seeking process till you get what your heart wants. now go back to my last post and see that i told you the same thing there. Appearently God has allowed this to be hidden from you, for you have eyes and yet do not see.

[quote]Other people have, maybe not to you. I am asking for one now.[/quote]One what now?

[quote]Well, you won't even look at the sites I've provided and yet you expect me to do reserch? I'll take your word for it then. That still opens up two problems: 1. Why do the accounts contradict each other,[/quote]They don't they are just not in the order you as a person who lives several thousand year from the recording of these events and born a several cultures away would expect to read a story.

[quote]and 2. Why does only the creatio have two accounts, and none of the other stories do? (Other than the gospels, but that is from different points of view, and they also contradict each other).[/quote]This phenoma is recorded through out Genesis. Not just in the creation account. All you need to do is look to your contradiction website and you will find other 'continuity errors' as well.

will have to finish up the rest later.

Drich Wrote:Nice try, but no. The Vaticanus codex is one high used example of A (orginal text) Bible. but is not the only one. We may not have any older complete (OT and NT) bibles avaiable but we do have indivisual manuscripts of indivisual books that are as old if not older than what is found in that particual codex. Outside of the R/C Church Christianity is not bound by any specific codex or version of the bible. So to say this codex is not consistant with your particular version of the bible therefore the bible is flawed is a logical fallacy. For again not all bibles not all versions/translations conform to the single source you have listed.

It took us a while, but you finally admitted the Bible has been edited. You may have said it implicitly, but I'll take it.

I just find this whole concept of humanity being a piece of scum (which was the whole plan all along, otherwise there's no need for Jesus) and needing redemption which can be read about in a book edited so much to be rather tedious and ludicrous. Really? My 'soul' can only be saved through a procedure that is found within the pages of a book written by fallible men, which then has undergone absolute chaos in translation, which produced 30 000+ ways of explaining the truth (note, SINGULAR) and somehow this is all ok to you?! How can you possibly say any of this has been 'divinely inspired'?

(October 1, 2012 at 9:47 am)whateverist Wrote: Having read the first and last page of this thread, I'm confused. Drich was open to erring in his understanding of the bible on page one, but by page four is quibbling over translational issues with the bible.

So even if you can't necessarily understand it correctly the bible is still a perfect, inerrant gift from God?

The bible is as God intended for it to be, Without error. However, our understanding of it is not without error, and said contradictions are a result of a flawed understanding.

---

(October 1, 2012 at 11:03 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

Drich Wrote:Nice try, but no. The Vaticanus codex is one high used example of A (orginal text) Bible. but is not the only one. We may not have any older complete (OT and NT) bibles avaiable but we do have indivisual manuscripts of indivisual books that are as old if not older than what is found in that particual codex. Outside of the R/C Church Christianity is not bound by any specific codex or version of the bible. So to say this codex is not consistant with your particular version of the bible therefore the bible is flawed is a logical fallacy. For again not all bibles not all versions/translations conform to the single source you have listed.

It took us a while, but you finally admitted the Bible has been edited. You may have said it implicitly, but I'll take it.

I just find this whole concept of humanity being a piece of scum (which was the whole plan all along, otherwise there's no need for Jesus) and needing redemption which can be read about in a book edited so much to be rather tedious and ludicrous. Really? My 'soul' can only be saved through a procedure that is found within the pages of a book written by fallible men, which then has undergone absolute chaos in translation, which produced 30 000+ ways of explaining the truth (note, SINGULAR) and somehow this is all ok to you?! How can you possibly say any of this has been 'divinely inspired'?

Because Christianity is not a method based religion. That is biblical Christianity does not hinge on Methodistic worship. The Focous of biblical Christianity is based on ones personablities and what that person has been exposed to. a primise that is repeated over and over again. Only those who look to the method of Christian worship as having to be a certain way or follow a certain formula would have issue with what you are trying to point out. If you take issue then you do not understand the bible.

---

(October 1, 2012 at 12:04 am)Darkstar Wrote: Ahhh...I think I see what you're getting at.
Why is 'thou shall not kill' a commandment when god repeatedly orders his followers to exterminate other groups? (and animal sacrifices)

Thoushalt kill is not a commandment. If one looks at the orginal hebrew you will see the command is thou or you shall not Murder. Murder is the unsanctioned taking of life. Meaning God has not commanded the taking of life, and yet you did so anyway. The act of killing someone has no intrinisic righteous/moral value in of itself. It is the circumstance that justify or condemn that act.

Quote:This is the first 'contradiction' I could find: this page only talks about one particular contradiction.[/url] If you re-interpret something enough, almost any contradiction can be resolved.

Exactly. why? Because the bible was not written in english nor was it written in this time. Meaning it is subject to interpertation, for there were all manner of issues that have to be taken into consideration. that are not appearant in a litteral translation.

Quote:But the ten commandments are clearly incomplete, and they place extra emphasis on worshipping god.

Indeed.

Quote:If morality is not a valid standard for earning eternal life, then what is? Accepting Jesus?

That is just it one can not ever "Earn" eternal life. It is a gift ("So no man can boast") All anyone must do is humbly accept what has been offered.

Quote:It reminds me of the saying "When I was a child, I prayed to god for a bike. But I quickly found out he didn't work that way, so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness".

Unfortunatly it does not work that way either. More religious nonsense.

Glad to see that you condensed your post first, I was going to say that our posts were becoming ridiculously long. I mosunderstood what you meant when you originally said 'your own research', which I apologize for.
Now:


True, but what is the consistency? How do we know for sure that the whole text wasn't mistranslated to remain consistent with an single error? We don't, although this would not be the most logical conclusion to come to...



The problem is, scientists don't look for evidence of god, nor do they avoid it. We simply look at everything they know and ask ouselves "does what they have discovered suggest that there must be a god?"



Okay, that isn't what I thought you meant. The thing is, is there archeological evidence that Moses even existed? Take Noah's Ark, for instance. This is perhaps the least believeable story in the whole bible. Many people, even pastors, have re-interpreted it as simply metaphor. Where, then, do we draw the line at what is and isn't metaphor? Surely they would agree that Jesus wasn't metaphor, but perhaps Jesus was wrong, and everyone else was right about god after all...



We were? Well, I guess, sort of... I mentioned the ten commandments, which were part of the OT. Of course, we can skip over the OT as simply metaphor if you would like to.



Can't there? What if your time limit is till death? Will god never supply an answer until you die? If we consider the mere possibility, even for a moment, that god might not exist, you will realize why that reasoning fails for the same reason telling someone they will know when they die fails. We cannot verify this. For someone who believes, they can easily convince themselves that any sign is god contacting them, whereas a skeptic would write it off as a natural event. People as for 'a sign' instead of something specific because if they asked for something specific (that wasn't likely to happen in the near future) then the sign might not come. You can predict anything and get your 'prophecy' fulfilled if you wait long enough.



Or you might have confirmation bias...

Drich Wrote:

Quote:Other people have, maybe not to you. I am asking for one now.

One what now?

That was a typo. I meant to say 'I, for one, am asking now'



From what I understand, you said that in traditional jewish storytelling, the story is recounted in its main points, and then a more detailed summary is goven, correct? I don't understand why the two accounts disagree on chronology.
excerpt from Genesis 1:
excerpt from Genesis 2:

So, at the beginning of the chapter, it says that it was the seventh day. Later in the chapter, Adam is created. In genesis 1, Adam was created on day six.



Okay, but maybe it would be better to focus the debate, rather than going point by point, because that is getting kind of messy.

Drich Wrote:Because Christianity is not a method based religion. That is biblical Christianity does not hinge on Methodistic worship. The Focous of biblical Christianity is based on ones personablities and what that person has been exposed to. a primise that is repeated over and over again. Only those who look to the method of Christian worship as having to be a certain way or follow a certain formula would have issue with what you are trying to point out. If you take issue then you do not understand the bible.

I find that all these explanations avoid the issue and simply say "nevermind that issue, it's the truth because it just is".

(October 1, 2012 at 11:38 am)Darkstar Wrote: True, but what is the consistency? How do we know for sure that the whole text wasn't mistranslated to remain consistent with an single error? We don't, although this would not be the most logical conclusion to come to...

this is where you spend the next 20 or so years studying these texts for yourself or have faith that those who have were faithful to their charge.

Quote:The problem is, scientists don't look for evidence of god, nor do they avoid it.

you would like to think so.

Quote: We simply look at everything they know and ask ouselves "does what they have discovered suggest that there must be a god?"

God is the God of the known universe and put into place all of the processes that science is just now beginning to explain. Just because you have been able to figure out what God has done doesn't mean God didn't orginally do it in the first place.

Quote:Okay, that isn't what I thought you meant. The thing is, is there archeological evidence that Moses even existed?

Take any random person of that time period (not a king/pharroah or anyone of clout) and ask the same question. Does it mean that only the well to do existed then?

Quote: Take Noah's Ark, for instance. This is perhaps the least believeable story in the whole bible. Many people, even pastors, have re-interpreted it as simply metaphor. Where, then, do we draw the line at what is and isn't metaphor? Surely they would agree that Jesus wasn't metaphor, but perhaps Jesus was wrong, and everyone else was right about god after all...

Many more pastors believe that the ark was an actual event. Why should we look to the minority to set the standard of what this religion stands for?

Quote:We were? Well, I guess, sort of... I mentioned the ten commandments, which were part of the OT. Of course, we can skip over the OT as simply metaphor if you would like to.

Or we can look at it as a seperate religion "Old Testament Judisim."

Quote:Can't there? What if your time limit is till death? Will god never supply an answer until you die?

Then one can go before God with a life well spent.

Quote:If we consider the mere possibility, even for a moment, that god might not exist, you will realize why that reasoning fails for the same reason telling someone they will know when they die fails

..And subsequently if you consider the mere possiablity that I have found what it is I was told to ask, seek and knock for the you will understand why your reasoning fails.. Because the promises that are found in the bible as still a valid way of discovering God. Why is it do you think this religion is still in practice after so many years? It is because we find what it is we are looking for.

Quote: We cannot verify this. For someone who believes, they can easily convince themselves that any sign is god contacting them, whereas a skeptic would write it off as a natural event

One event maybe, but a series of these types of events over a life time is

Quote:That was a typo. I meant to say 'I, for one, am asking now'

What are you asking for. I know you want an example of something but do not remember what it is.

Quote:From what I understand, you said that in traditional jewish storytelling, the story is recounted in its main points, and then a more detailed summary is goven, correct? I don't understand why the two accounts disagree on chronology.
excerpt from Genesis 1:So, at the beginning of the chapter, it says that it was the seventh day. Later in the chapter, Adam is created. In genesis 1, Adam was created on day six.

Again in the orginal format there wasn't a "Genesis 1, nor a Genesis2 nor any numbers denoting verses. It was just the story of creation. The numbers denoting Chapter and verse were added several thousand years later to make study easier, subsequently these numbers also suggest a chronology that the orginal message did not contain. There are bibles avaiable without Chapter and verse notations. If you can over look this study aid you can get a feel of how the orginal text was written.

excerpt from Genesis 2:

Quote:Okay, but maybe it would be better to focus the debate, rather than going point by point, because that is getting kind of messy.

I go line by line because in reality there is little to debate if you saw the error in your understanding of what is being discussed. Going line by line I can show you where your understanding and logic is in error. I can not responsiably debate these points because your points do not accuratly reflect the scripture you want to discuss.
No offense intended.

---

(October 1, 2012 at 11:45 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

Drich Wrote:Because Christianity is not a method based religion. That is biblical Christianity does not hinge on Methodistic worship. The Focous of biblical Christianity is based on ones personablities and what that person has been exposed to. a primise that is repeated over and over again. Only those who look to the method of Christian worship as having to be a certain way or follow a certain formula would have issue with what you are trying to point out. If you take issue then you do not understand the bible.

I find that all these explanations avoid the issue and simply say "nevermind that issue, it's the truth because it just is".

Actually I am saying never mind the issue you bring up because it does not reflect the topic you claim you want to discuss. What you have done is approached biblical Christianity from a roman catholic foundation. Which only accounts for about 1/3 of the world Christian population. You are tring to compare apples to oranges. The primary reason being is a biblical based Christianity starts and stops with in the pages of the bible. The R/C church starts and stops on what the men who wear the biggest hats in that religion thinks. Not really the same thing.