Religion and rituality

[Bad Writer]

I don't know the answer, which is why I ask it. So your answer is no? Why don't you believe in them?

[Godscreated]

I don't know the answer, which is why I ask it. So your answer is no? Why don't you believe in them?

The book of Mormon was written by a conman, well know for his dishonesty. There is no historical records to back up any of the book. It is also called an addition to the Bible, the Bible states there shall be no additions. It also is in conflict with the Bible.

The Quran is a book calling men to make decisions on killing people out side of the law, the Bible calls for punishment for that type of behavior. When traced back the Islamic religion comes from a moon god, that's why they use the moon with a star inside the crescent. It is also in conflict with the Bible.

[Doubting Thomas]

The book of Mormon was written by a conman, well know for his dishonesty. There is no historical records to back up any of the book.

But yet the bible was written by God and there's plenty of historical records and scientific data to back it up.

[Bad Writer]

The book of Mormon was written by a conman, well know for his dishonesty. There is no historical records to back up any of the book. It is also called an addition to the Bible, the Bible states there shall be no additions. It also is in conflict with the Bible.

When does it state there should be no additions to the Bible? In Revelation? And yet the Gospel of John was written after the Book of Revelation... Realize that the Bible was compiled and put in order by men, not by God. Just because there's a warning about adding to the words of Revelation, and that just happens to be the at the end of the Bible, why the fuck would you interpret it that way? The prophets of that day sure didn't think it meant that.

Plus the Book of Mormon was supposedly started in 600 B.C. which puts it way before the Book of Revelation on our known timeline.

How do you know Joseph Smith was a conman? People get convicted all the time for things they didn't do...didn't Jesus get crucified for being the "King of the Jews"?

As for historical records backing up the Book of Mormon, you obviously haven't sat down and chatted with Glenn Beck.

So, again, why do you not believe in the Book of Mormon?

The Quran is a book calling men to make decisions on killing people out side of the law, the Bible calls for punishment for that type of behavior. When traced back the Islamic religion comes from a moon god, that's why they use the moon with a star inside the crescent. It is also in conflict with the Bible.

The Bible is in conflict with itself. That hasn't stopped people from believing in it. Plus, you just put Al-Quran in a nice little package, forgetting (or ignoring) everything else written in it except what it says about punishment. Why don't we call the Bible the Book on Israeli law?I mean, that's Leviticus and Deuteronomy are, but it's much more than that isn't it?

[Godscreated]

The book of Mormon was written by a conman, well know for his dishonesty. There is no historical records to back up any of the book.

But yet the bible was written by God and there's plenty of historical records and scientific data to back it up.

Hey stupid who said any thing about scientific data, here's a small bit of history, the names King Jehoiachin of Judah and his sons are found on a Babylonian clay tablet from around 585 BC, this was in regard to food rations for prisoners.

[Bad Writer]

King Jehoiachin of Judah and his sons are found on a Babylonian clay tablet from around 585 BC, this was in regard to food rations for prisoners.

The names Jesus of Nazareth and Mary Magdalene are found in Dan Brown's novel "The Da Vinci Code". I like this game, GC. Hit us with another!

[Godscreated]

The book of Mormon was written by a conman, well know for his dishonesty. There is no historical records to back up any of the book. It is also called an addition to the Bible, the Bible states there shall be no additions. It also is in conflict with the Bible.

When does it state there should be no additions to the Bible? In Revelation? And yet the Gospel of John was written after the Book of Revelation... Realize that the Bible was compiled and put in order by men, not by God. Just because there's a warning about adding to the words of Revelation, and that just happens to be the at the end of the Bible, why the fuck would you interpret it that way? The prophets of that day sure didn't think it meant that.

How do you know when the Book of John was written. How do you know when the Book of Revelation was written, no originals so an exact dating is impossible at this time. What prophets and exactly what did they think?

Plus the Book of Mormon was supposedly started in 600 B.C. which puts it way before the Book of Revelation on our known timeline.

Whaaaat! Where did you get that?

How do you know Joseph Smith was a conman? People get convicted all the time for things they didn't do...didn't Jesus get crucified for being the "King of the Jews"?

History records him and his dad as dishonest, dipping their fingers in things to deceive people for their money. They were run out of communities.
No, Jesus was crucified for being a threat to the religious rulers of the time, or so they thought.

As for historical records backing up the Book of Mormon, you obviously haven't sat down and chatted with Glenn Beck.

So, again, why do you not believe in the Book of Mormon?

You have my answer.

The Quran is a book calling men to make decisions on killing people out side of the law, the Bible calls for punishment for that type of behavior. When traced back the Islamic religion comes from a moon god, that's why they use the moon with a star inside the crescent. It is also in conflict with the Bible.

The Bible is in conflict with itself.

That's your opinion, I find it very much in agreement with itself.

Plus, you just put Al-Quran in a nice little package, forgetting (or ignoring) everything else written in it except what it says about punishment. Why don't we call the Bible the Book on Israeli law?I mean, that's Leviticus and Deuteronomy are, but it's much more than that isn't it?

Punishment, the Quran is calls for the killing of Christians and anyone who disagree with it, you call that punishment. The entire Bible goes hand in hand, the Torah shows use that living by the law is impossible for man and the prophets shows use the further man moves away from the law the more terrible man becomes. This is to show our need for a savior. The Quran is in direct conflict with the Bible, it teaches that one must live by the law, and it's founder was a man known for the great number of murders on his hands.

[Angrboda]

When does it state there should be no additions to the Bible? In Revelation? And yet the Gospel of John was written after the Book of Revelation... Realize that the Bible was compiled and put in order by men, not by God. Just because there's a warning about adding to the words of Revelation, and that just happens to be the at the end of the Bible, why the fuck would you interpret it that way? The prophets of that day sure didn't think it meant that.

How do you know when the Book of John was written. How do you know when the Book of Revelation was written, no originals so an exact dating is impossible at this time. What prophets and exactly what did they think?

This cuts both ways. If you don't know when Revelation and the other books were written, then you don't know when Revelation and its admonition about adding or subtracting was written.

For the sake of argument, not because it's plausible, ask what it would mean if Revelation were the first book of the New Testament written? If that were the case, all books except Revelation are heretical.

Since you can't demonstrate that a particular book or epistle was written before Revelation, you can't prove that any of them are consistent with the book of Revelation's admonition against additions or subtractions.


Anyway, this is rather moot, anyway, because the author of Revelations didn't specifically refer to "the bible," as the bible did not exist at that time. I must confess to being ignorant of Koine Greek, but even though it's not clear what the author is referring to in the text, because the bible didn't exist at the time Revelations was written, he most likely is referring to something else. (And no, it doesn't matter if God is the author of those words; the reference is still uncertain.)

The English word Bible is from the Latin biblia, from the same word in Medieval Latin and Late Latin and ultimately from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία ta biblia "the books" (singular βιβλίον biblion).

Medieval Latin biblia is short for biblia sacra "holy book", while biblia in Greek and Late Latin is neuter plural (gen. bibliorum). It gradually came to be regarded as a feminine singular noun (biblia, gen. bibliae) in medieval Latin, and so the word was loaned as a singular into the vernaculars of Western Europe. Latin biblia sacra "holy books" translates Greek τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια ta biblia ta hagia, "the holy books".

The word βιβλίον itself had the literal meaning of "paper" or "scroll" and came to be used as the ordinary word for "book". It is the diminutive of βύβλος bublos, "Egyptian papyrus", possibly so called from the name of the Phoenician sea port Byblos (also known as Gebal) from whence Egyptian papyrus was exported to Greece. The Greek ta biblia (lit. "little papyrus books") was "an expression Hellenistic Jews used to describe their sacred books (the Septuagint).

The word in the interlinear bible I'm looking at is βιβλίου, bibliou, and appears to be singular, likely referring to the book of Revelation itself. Maybe you or Drich can weigh in and explain the finer points of Koine Greek to those of us like myself who are ignorant of such things.

[Godscreated]

King Jehoiachin of Judah and his sons are found on a Babylonian clay tablet from around 585 BC, this was in regard to food rations for prisoners.

The names Jesus of Nazareth and Mary Magdalene are found in Dan Brown's novel "The Da Vinci Code". I like this game, GC. Hit us with another!

Your lack of historical knowledge is astounding, your example oozes of hypocrisy and shows me you can't argue history. Min might be disappointed in you for trashing history.

[Rahul]

The Bible is in conflict with itself.

That's your opinion, I find it very much in agreement with itself.

Maybe that's your interpretation.

How do you interpret this?

Proverbs KJV:

{26:4} Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
{26:5} Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Should we answer a fool, GC?

Oh wait...

Matthew KJV:

{5:22} But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Ok, well we might be supposed to answer a fool. We might not. But we better not say to him "Thou fool".

I know, I know. I don't have the right "interpretation".