Do Christian right wingers really have nothing better to worry about than this?

[bennylava]

Not to mention, scholars have found that stories in the Bible such as Job predate the era of Abraham by possibly thousands of years. A lot of these stories were around before writing was even invented, or before the vast majority of people could write or had access to writing materials. Much of those stories were orally transmitted over many generations.

I have to say Ally, it's fine that you believe in god and Christ or what have you. I can't say that anyone would say you are unwise for that. But the fact that you literally believe everything in the Bible is just silly.

 

[AllieBaba]

That's called "conceit". Your conceit is that you think you know things that really you don't.

 

[Shogun]

well THAT sure did prove her wrong, didnt it!


dingdong.

 

[Taomon]

That's called "conceit". Your conceit is that you think you know things that really you don't.

Were you looking in the mirror as you typed that?

 

[AllieBaba]

It's not conceit to recognize there's a force more powerful and righteous than man.

It's conceit to say, "If it doesn't make sense to me, then it must not be true."

 

[bennylava]

Hmmm...well I do believe in a higher power/intelligence kind of thing, but don't believe in the Bible although there are some fairly useful and interesting things in it. However a lot of those useful things aren't at all original and were in fact stolen from other cultures and religions.
I get the feeling you were raised on some kind of megabaptist cult that taught you that logic is wrong and just believing what they say is right. God gave you a brain and the ability to think for yourself for a reason Allie.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, I was raised in an atheist household, and let me tell you, you want to talk about power issues, hatred and disdain for others, it's all there in atheism.

I wasn't raised in the church at all, and my eyes are open. I recognize the fact that humans are fallible and imperfect. I find it laughable that people who are calling me stupid say they're calling me stupid because I'm judgmental. Isn't calling me foolish being judgmental? Not only calling me foolish because of any stupid thing I've done, but calling me foolish for believing the Bible?? Are you missing the irony here? Hmmm...I'm foolish because I think people who don't believe as I do are foolish?

That's about the most foolish thing I've ever heard.

 

[bennylava]

Oh you're a boomeranger. That makes sense too.

It's just that with all you know about translations, people taking things out and putting it back in, the age of the stories, the writing errors that might have happened, how can you literally believe in everything in the bible? How is that even logical at all?

 

[Ravi]

No, I was raised in an atheist household, and let me tell you, you want to talk about power issues, hatred and disdain for others, it's all there in atheism.

I wasn't raised in the church at all, and my eyes are open. I recognize the fact that humans are fallible and imperfect. I find it laughable that people who are calling me stupid say they're calling me stupid because I'm judgmental. Isn't calling me foolish being judgmental? Not only calling me foolish because of any stupid thing I've done, but calling me foolish for believing the Bible?? Are you missing the irony here? Hmmm...I'm foolish because I think people who don't believe as I do are foolish?

That's about the most foolish thing I've ever heard.

Ah, your parents abused you. It's all more understandable now.

 

[AllieBaba]

Lol. Good grief, no. My mother was intolerant of other beliefs, that's all. Like most of the zealots here who attack me.

It's taken me 40 years, but I'm bringing her around. I hope to have her saved by the time she dies.

 

[Ravi]

No one attacks you. They just ask you to back up your claims. I haven't seen you back up even one.

Your parents didn't mistreat you because they were atheists, by the way. They'd probably have been the same no matter what their spiritual beliefs.

 

[Shogun]

Lol. Good grief, no. My mother was intolerant of other beliefs, that's all. Like most of the zealots here who attack me.

It's taken me 40 years, but I'm bringing her around. I hope to have her saved by the time she dies.

hey.. and if using reason don't work you can always remind her that she will die soon. That always seems to work when the tithing coffer runs low.


It is another layer of comedy that you, of all people, speak of intolerant people refusing to consider the beliefs of others.

TRULY.

 

[AllieBaba]

Oh honey.....no. Just no. Please do some research on the history of the Catholic church before you start saying things like that. It's not a scientific theory, it's a FACT that
a) When the Bible was originally put together, certain books were left out.
b) When the Bible was originally put together, parts of certain books were left out
c) The Catholic church has repeatedly decided to take out parts of the Bible that were contrary to their agenda, before the protestant split.
d) There are parts of the Bible that the Catholic church has that protestants don't.
e)Some books of the Bible were originally written in Hebrew. Unfortunately there are no vowels in Hebrew, leaving people to guess at some of the words. Things like the Red Sea vs. The Reed Sea, that kind of thing.
f) If you've never learned a foreign language, you have no idea how easy it is to mistranslate something, try putting some bible verses into babelfish and then translate them into two languages and see what you come up with.
g)The Bible was translated and rewritten by hand in the West by monks. All it takes is for one monk to screw up the original rewriting and then everyone else is going to include that mistake in their versions too.

Books that were not divinely inspired were left out. Books that were inaccurate, untimely or out and out hoaxes were left out.
The men who translated the Bible were scholars in the languages they were dealing with. Don't assume they were stupid because it was a long time ago, or because they were believers. The Bible is not a fluid document that has changed over the ages. It is the same as it was, and things like the Dead Sea scrolls affirm that. Our King James Bible is not a bastardized version of the original KJ bible. It wasn't distorted by monks. It's the same as was translated many years ago by the 50 scholars (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek scholars, btw) commissioned to create a version for the masses. They used original transcripts and ancient documents. They didn't get together and take this monk's scribblings, and that monk's scribblings, then decide to come somewhere in the middle and meet.

I know the Catholics use a different Bible, and include text that isn't recognized by anybody else as holy. The scholars who put together the KJ had a set of criteria which was very strict, and they pruned out the texts which were contradictory or which were too new.

 

[AllieBaba]

hey.. and if using reason don't work you can always remind her that she will die soon. That always seems to work when the tithing coffer runs low.


It is another layer of comedy that you, of all people, speak of intolerant people refusing to consider the beliefs of others.

TRULY.

You don't get on me because I refuse to consider the beliefs of others. You get on me because I believe.

I don't personally attack people who don't believe in Jesus as the Savior. You do. So turn that rapier wit back on yourself.

 

[Shogun]

You don't get on me because I refuse to consider the beliefs of others. You get on me because I believe.

I don't personally attack people who don't believe in Jesus as the Savior. You do. So turn that rapier wit back on yourself.

Ah.. looks like modern christians can read minds and predict the future now too.. Gosh, to think that some jebus jedi's only get to speak in tongeus and cast out demons..

Hey, once you leap into martyr mode there is no sense keeping you from feeling like a victim. I could clarify that i pounce on your faith because it is an ignorant bastardization that is typical of self righteous, fake ass christians but who needs reality when allie's got her thump on

 

[AllieBaba]

It's not reading your mind to say you attack me because I believe. Look at your posts. I don't have to read your mind, it's all out there.

 

[Angel Heart]

Books that were not divinely inspired were left out. Books that were inaccurate, untimely or out and out hoaxes were left out.
The men who translated the Bible were scholars in the languages they were dealing with. Don't assume they were stupid because it was a long time ago, or because they were believers. The Bible is not a fluid document that has changed over the ages. It is the same as it was, and things like the Dead Sea scrolls affirm that. Our King James Bible is not a bastardized version of the original KJ bible. It wasn't distorted by monks. It's the same as was translated many years ago by the 50 scholars (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek scholars, btw) commissioned to create a version for the masses. They used original transcripts and ancient documents. They didn't get together and take this monk's scribblings, and that monk's scribblings, then decide to come somewhere in the middle and meet.

I know the Catholics use a different Bible, and include text that isn't recognized by anybody else as holy. The scholars who put together the KJ had a set of criteria which was very strict, and they pruned out the texts which were contradictory or which were too new.

And who chooses what's divinely inspired? And who chooses them? A church?

 

[AllieBaba]

The mistake you're making is the assumption that today's bible varies radically from the ancient texts.

When bible manuscripts are compared to other ancient writings, they stand apart as the best-preserved literary works of all time. There are thousands of existing Old Testament manuscripts and fragments copied throughout the Middle East, Mediterranean and European regions that agree phenomenally with each other. These texts substantially agree with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which was translated from Hebrew to Greek some time during the 3rd century BC. The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls showed us how incredibly accurate our bible today is.

The manuscript evidence for the NT includes around 25,000 ancient manuscripts discovered and archived so far, at least 5,600 of which are copies and fragments in the original Greek. Some manuscript texts date to the early second and third centuries, with the time between the original autographs and our earliest existing fragment being a remarkably short 40-60 years.

When you trivialize the accuracy of the translations, you really show that you don't know much about the subject because the one thing non-believers and the faithful alike who have studied the bible agree on is this...the Bible is remarkably unadulterated from the ancient texts. The other sticking point is the existence of thousands upon thousands of pieces of manuscript, all generated in approximately the same time in different areas, and all remarkably alike in their content and version of Christ's life and teachings. This isn't in the time of the internet, and these teachings and documents were circulated during a time when people were alive who could contest the veracity of the documents. But nobody came forward to discount them. Nobody.

 

[Taomon]

The mistake you're making is the assumption that today's bible varies radically from the ancient texts.

When bible manuscripts are compared to other ancient writings, they stand apart as the best-preserved literary works of all time. There are thousands of existing Old Testament manuscripts and fragments copied throughout the Middle East, Mediterranean and European regions that agree phenomenally with each other. These texts substantially agree with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which was translated from Hebrew to Greek some time during the 3rd century BC. The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls showed us how incredibly accurate our bible today is.

The manuscript evidence for the NT includes around 25,000 ancient manuscripts discovered and archived so far, at least 5,600 of which are copies and fragments in the original Greek. Some manuscript texts date to the early second and third centuries, with the time between the original autographs and our earliest existing fragment being a remarkably short 40-60 years.

When you trivialize the accuracy of the translations, you really show that you don't know much about the subject because the one thing non-believers and the faithful alike who have studied the bible agree on is this...the Bible is remarkably unadulterated from the ancient texts. The other sticking point is the existence of thousands upon thousands of pieces of manuscript, all generated in approximately the same time in different areas, and all remarkably alike in their content and version of Christ's life and teachings. This isn't in the time of the internet, and these teachings and documents were circulated during a time when people were alive who could contest the veracity of the documents. But nobody came forward to discount them. Nobody.

Says who? Who is making these bold assumptions? There are entire schools of thought that have proven otherwise.

 

[Taomon]

It's not conceit to recognize there's a force more powerful and righteous than man.

It's conceit to say, "If it doesn't make sense to me, then it must not be true."

Are you implying that I do not believe in God? Or are you judging me for not believing in Jesus?