Divine Inspiration

[Darkstar]

---

again 'translation' does not change the content of the orginal text does it. Your arguement supports my orginal assertion. In that the errors assoceiated with the bible are a matter of our personal understanding of it.

How about this:

Tea simply translated one word in a text to change the meaning while retaining the rest of the translation. Smoke and mirrors.

---

Actually, it did change the meaning.

---

Yeah, actually, it does. These aren't god's standards because god doesn't exist.

So you have said.. which seems to be predicated on your faith.

---

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

---

These are the archaic moral values of the ancient people who wrote the bible.

Actually they are not. That is why these 'values' have always been met with rebellion and opposition.

---

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

---

In other words, evil is only that which opposes god, and good is only that which god permits. Too bad he isn't real and those values were recorded by morally backward people.

is this what you believe?

---

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

---

Nope, not a specific command, but a general and standing one.

to whom?

---

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

---

Spiritual war=kill people of other religions

actually no. Spiritual war means to fight your sin nature. again we (Meaning Christians) are not called to physically harm anyone. If you believe otherwise then show me book Chapter and verse that directs any Christianity to harm another.

---

Did you ignore the previous bible passage?

---

You know, god hasn't told anyone to do anything for 2000+ years, so without a specific command, we cannot interpret his past words to mean anything. Doesn't that mean the whole bible is invalid by your logic?

How do you know what God has or has not said? You said that He does not exist. so doesn't that invalidate your question by your logic?[/quote

---

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.

---

By My logic God has established a set of instructions in the bible, and has made promises to indewell all who ask, seek and knock as he has instructed. To which once God indwells a person said person receives direction from God directly. How do we know these are God's words? Because they conside with what has been written in the cannon of scripture.

---

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.

---

Finding contradictions does not mean I have a flawed understanding, it means the bible is flawed.

which is exactly why i ask you to provide your 'contradictions' So that we shall see where the flaws are.

---

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

---

Funny, because some people on this forum were christian for decades before deconverting and never got any sign. You talk of seeking, asking, and knocking, but this is only a metaphor; a metaphor that you have repeatedly failed to define.

Have you asked for a defination?

---

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

---

The seeking and asking can be inferred, but what is this metaphorical knocking? How long must one wait after doing these things beforew they can understand anything?

We ask in prayer. Not petition but actual prayer. In Luke 11 where we are told we must knock we are also told how to pray. We seek in the bible, church, and in questions like this. We knock as the parable in luke 11 outlines. Meaning we repeat this process TILL we get what our Hearts have asked and sought after. (just like in the parable) Once you put a time frame on what or how you will ask and seek you wander from the perscribed path outlined in luke 11. Asking and seeking is less about the effort but the humlity it takes to wait and persue after God. One can go through the motions for 20 years and find nothing, or someone could start in an afternoon and have found God by the end of the day. It all depends on the heart doing the asking and seeking.

---

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.

---

So what you expect me to believe is that traditional Jewish storytellers told two versions of a story that deliberately contradicted each other?

What I am expecting you to do is do your own reasearch. Then you will find the model of story telling I have left for you. In that stories are not told in chroniclogical order. They want to know the high points of the story and then the details. Kinda like wanting to see the 'previews' of a movie before deciding to listen.

---

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).

---

You clearly don't understand, or else you would have explained it, rather than dodging the question (again).

Or perhaps you have asked the wrong question (again.) I answer only the questions you all ask. Once you are ready to know more you will ask for more (Just like with the bit on "ask seek and knock.") I did not explain it to you simply because you did not ask. To explain it before you were ready to hear it would have been a complete waist of time.

---

...?

---

You know what, Drich? Why don't you go and learn everything the human race has ever learned from scratch. Don't read history books, go to the places where these events happened, do some archeology, and then give me your findings. Or better: look in the bible to confirm these. I could have found contradictions myself, or I could have posted a link to someone who already did. Which is more time efficient, and which will find more contradictions? The websites.

Then I could just as easily post a link to the answers.. Or do you honestly think that the major 'contradiction websites' have gone unanswered. I am only putting in the effort into this conversation that you yourself are willing to expend. If you can not be bothered to simply take what seems to be a contradiction to you and follow up with a simple google search, then why should I be bothered to blindly answer 1000 contradictions that you have little to no interest in. I simply askedyou to provide one or two absolute contradiction you felt that their was no comming back from... Or are you saying that you have put total faith in someone elses work to see you through your final judgement? Do you not see the irony in that? You have faith in a muslim website to help you determine your eternity, but no faith in God?

---

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.

---

Maybe there is no conflict. Maybe you didn't do anything wrong, and the church has you brainwashed. That much is abundantly obvious to everyone here by now, I'm sure (except for you).

The church has nothing to do with this. Most churches do not care who asks questions in a bible class. In fact the one I was teaching encouraged it. That is why I fell into conflict.

---

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

---

Peers, as in plural. Not everyone agrees on what is right and wrong (allthough there are some basic points of agreement, such as murder, etc.). The golden rule is a good start for morality, likewise, it is good to determine if an action will hurt others/what will cause the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people, etc. We are allowed to make moral choices, you are not.

Baaaaa[/quote]

---

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

---

So, by sinning, you are able to be confident in your understanding of the bible?

Yes I am. As Paul was in romans 7 verse 7 through the end of the chapterhttp://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+7&version=NIV

In short he says we are all sin all of the time even after we have been saved (as he was when he wrote Romans 7)

---

More shaming

---

In whoever made up god with such bad morals.

The fact that God has never lined up with our 'Morals' proves He is not of us.

---

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...god made the ten commandments. That was his understanding of morality.

That understanding is called Righteousness. Which was extended to include our thoughts and Heart felt desires in Mt 5. to further prove that 'self righteousness/morality' is not a valid standard in which to merrit eternal life.

---

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".

[FallentoReason]

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.

[Drich]

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.

[Whateverist]

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?

[Drich]

[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.

[FallentoReason]

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'?

[Drich]

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

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

Indeed.

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.

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.

[Darkstar]

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:

---

[quote='Darkstar' pid='343744' dateline='1349064240']

Actually, it did change the meaning.

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.

---

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...

---

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

You do not have the evidence you seek because your faith tells you not to bother to look.

---

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?"

---

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

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.

---

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...

---

Did you ignore the previous bible passage?

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?

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Or you might have confirmation bias...

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'

---

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,

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.

---

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:

---

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.


28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

---

excerpt from Genesis 2:

---

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done....
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

---

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.

---

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).

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.

---

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

[FallentoReason]

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".

[Drich]

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.

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

you would like to think so.

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.

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?

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?

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."

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

---

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.


28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

---

excerpt from Genesis 2:

---

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done....
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

---

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.

---

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.