Joe, you are trying to prove God with bible scripture. Many of the people on this thread do not view the bible as proof of God's existence. I am one of those people.

That is because you are not willing to give serious consideration to the validation of scripture.

Exodus 20:13
Thou shalt not kill
Exodus 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live
Trust me I've read before and after both verses extensively...

Good! Now what is your point?

Validation by whom?

Did you not see the quote. About contradictions? The law was given to them in the ten commandments- yet there are contradictory laws written in chapter 22.

Where did you go? Hmmm...

There are many more contradictions as well Spydie.

I always find it amusing that people who believe in the bible also contradict that very book in their everyday lives.

Take for example:

Exodus 20:4,6: 4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

I have yet to go to a church that doesn't have a statue of Jesus on the cross. Isn't that a false idol, a graven image? Yet every church I've been to has one of these statues and sometimes more, and yes, the parish kneels in front of this idol and worships it as if it were God himself.

I really would like someone to explain that to me.

I totally agree Alty, I know a quite a few of the contradictions myself. But I wasn't raised Catholic. I was raised Protestant.
My family is still upset that I'm not a christian. But honestly, you really can't tell the difference between us (until they try to debate with me). I thought about what I truly believed and I found a religion that was my own.

I was raised Lutheran by two wonderful parents who always respected my right to make up my own mind. They wanted me to question things, they wanted me to find my own truth.

So, no, I don't believe in the bible, or organized religion, but I do believe in God. I'm a Deist, a very happy Deist. :)

And I believe in a god, and a goddess. But if your'e happy, I'm happy!

I guess we're both happy then. :)

We should get back to the topic. Sorry ClassyT, didn't mean to stray off topic. Forgive me? :)

God and Truth are convertible
That is what you and others BELIEVE Joe !

The linguistic meaning of the word truth lies clearly in the domain of REALITY.
A light is red or it is green. A person is somewhere or is not . A kilo feathers require more space than a kilo lead. (etc.)

In religion the word "truth" is however used as some misplaced format of "proof" for unsupported wild claims : without any OSE religious claims are suggested to be "true".

So the real (linguistic) truth is NOT convertible with the unreal religious "truth".

That "St. Thomas" claimed that does not provide a single iota of support for your statement.

Conclusion : God and Truth are NOT convertible

:)

.

.

God never intended for Abraham to kill Issac, so He didn't "lose His nerve".

To allow Issac to die at that time would have cut of the lineage of Christ, the promised "seed" of Eve.

God doesn't make mistakes and never has to change His plan. It is up to us to ask for understanding, and He will give it to us.

First you say that Bible represents Infallible Truth; now you tell me God Didn't Mean What He Said. How can you know what He was Thinking at the moment he told Abraham to kill his son? You either take Him at His Word, or you don't.

Also, was Isaac in on the pretense? Did He know he was not really going to be sacrificed and burnt as an offering to God?

Did Abraham know that God Didn't Mean It?

Unless, you can show they just went through the motions to indulge God's Whim, and that they knew all along that Isaac wouldn't have to be killed, then it's cruel. If father and son acted in good faith and in obedience to God's will, which I THINK is the point of the story, then God's demand is cruel. And I think obeying even the most unreasonable demands is also the point of the story, which is that True obedience means no exceptions and no questioning no matter what. Right?

The fact that in the end Isaac doesn't get killed is simply a way of making the story more palatable. It's a wuss ending to a tale of psychological cruelty. Killing one's own child goes against every instinct a healthy person has to preserve and care for his children. In real life, a person who is willing to violate that principle (even if they don't follow through) is considered mentally deranged. If my neighbor did what Abraham did, the whole neighborhood would be on the phone to child protective services. And if he claimed God told him to do it, he'd be inside a mental health facility in an hour.

Joe, you are trying to prove God with bible scripture. Many of the people on this thread do not view the bible as proof of God's existence. I am one of those people.

You may believe that this is indeed truth, but you haven't proven it.
Truth functions within the intellect and is the processes of knowing, weighing and dissecting both the essence and the accidents (contingent or nonessential attributes) of anything whatsoever. We know that truth is desirable in knowledge as good is desirable in nature, thus we see truth is convertible with knowledge as good is with nature; “so the true adds relation to the intellect.” Consequently we can see that, in any supposition, that seeking the truth adds weight to the idea that the proposition is good. The greatest of good is found in God's act of intellect, the measure and cause of all things, thus it “follows not only that truth is in Him, but that He is truth itself, and the sovereign and first truth.” Since truth mirrors the Divine truth and since God is one, we can conclude that there is one truth and that truth is immutable and eternal. Source: (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1016.htm#article2)

Actually I found your statement a bit puzzling. The question put forward on this thread is “what is truth”. Not prove God. In any event the proof is in the postulate, God is Truth or Truth is God. God and truth are convertible.


That is what you and others BELIEVE Joe !

The linguistic meaning of the word truth lies clearly in the domain of REALITY.
A light is red or it is green. A person is somewhere or is not . A kilo feathers require more space than a kilo lead. (etc.)

In religion the word "truth" is however used as some misplaced format of "proof" for unsupported wild claims : without any OSE religious claims are suggested to be "true".

So the real (linguistic) truth is NOT convertible with the unreal religious "truth".

That "St. Thomas" claimed that does not provide a single iota of support for your statement.

Conclusion : God and Truth are NOT convertible .

So what is truth? Define it.

JoeT

Did you not see the quote. About contradictions? The law was given to them in the ten commandments- yet there are contradictory laws written in chapter 22.

I saw no contradiction.

There are many more contradictions as well Spydie.

I always find it amusing that people who believe in the bible also contradict that very book in their everyday lives.

Take for example:

Exodus 20:4,6: 4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

I have yet to go to a church that doesn't have a statue of Jesus on the cross. Isn't that a false idol, a graven image? Yet every church I've been to has one of these statues and sometimes more, and yes, the parish kneels in front of this idol and worships it as if it were God himself.

That is not a contradiction in the Bible. That is a contradiction between the Bible and how a particular church or denomination (in this case Catholic) established their doctrine. This is what I said earlier, the Roman Catholic church does not use the Bible as it only source of doctrine, but uses others which are in many cases contradictory with scripture.

We are in agreement with the fact that the crucifix and especially the worship of the crucifix is contrary to scripture.

Tom, re-read my statement, I said
I always find it amusing that people who believe in the bible also contradict that very book in their everyday lives. in this case I didn't say that the bible is contradicting, but that people who read it are.

As for Spydies statement, yes, it is contradictory. To say that murder is against the rules and then to say that certain people should be killed, well that's contradictory.

Tom, re-read my statement, I said in this case I didn't say that the bible is contradicting, but that people who read it are.

As for Spydies statement, yes, it is contradictory. To say that murder is against the rules and then to say that certain people should be killed, well that's contradictory.

Not all killing is murder.

To kill someone because you assume she's a witch, well that's murder.

Besides, the bible says "Thou shallt not kill". So all killing is wrong, not just murder.

To kill someone because you assume she's a witch, well that's murder.

I missed the word "assume" in the Bible. Can you point out where you saw it?

As to whether it is right or not depends upon the context. It depends upon the context. Keep in mind that Israel was to be the people of God, a priestly nation who was to remain pure, so that they would be essentially God'/s messengers or representatives in the world and the nation through whom the Messiah would enter the world. Nothing is more important than the Messiah because without Him, and without the truth of the gospel, everyone goes to hell for eternity. Scripture speaks of such apostasy as whoredom against God. Not something to be taken lightly.

Further, as we seen the history of Israel, as well any other group, once heresy enters, it dopes not stop with one person, and because of the Holy nature of what Israel as a nation was to be, the danger of such false teaching cannot be overstated.


Besides, the bible says "Thou shallt not kill". So all killing is wrong, not just murder.

It says that in some English translations.

Others say:

Ex 20:13
13 "You shall not murder.
NKJV

"Murder" is a more accurate translation.

Nothing is more important than the Messiah because without Him, and without the truth of the gospel, everyone goes to hell for eternity. Scripture speaks of such apostasy as whoredom against God. Not something to be taken lightly.
Isn't it odd that even those who believe in the Messiah and acknowledge the truth of the gospel make no better world than those who do not acknowledge a messiah and do not lead their lives as per the Bible? Being a christian certainly does not make you a better person than a non-christian.

Isn't it odd that even those who believe in the Messiah and acknowledge the truth of the gospel make no better world than those who do not acknowledge a messiah and do not lead their lives as per the Bible? Being a christian certainly does not make you a better person than a non-christian.

Often those who profess to be Christians do indeed not follow or submit to God the way that they should, and too often you are right. This agrees with what the Bible says about the fallibility of men and women.

NK,

Unfortunately, we are still human and have that old human nature. I know I have failed as a Christian. Not always but I have. The best advice I have for you is to get your eyes off man and Look at GOD. I know you don't believe in him.. but have you ever reached out for him... just in case?

To kill someone because you assume she's a witch, well that's murder.
I missed the word "assume" in the Bible. Can you point out where you saw it?I missed the word "assume" in the Bible. Can you point out where you saw it?
No need to point that out or provide data on that specific issue.

THOU SHALL NOT KILL - the sixth out of the Ten Commandments. That does NOT require any interpretation !
Exodus 20:13 : Exodus 20:13 (King James Version) Thou shalt not kill. Clear also.
Deuteronomy 5:17 (King James Version) Thou shalt not kill. Clear just as well.

You may personally prefer the word "murder" above "kill" but that is your interpretation.

If "God" (if "God" exists and has the claimed qualities) wanted to make sure that we all clearly understood that "murder" was intended instead of "kill", I am sure that this super-natural omni-scient omni-potent entity had made sure we all would understand "murder" instead of "kill".
As "God" did not do so, the word "kill" is just as valid as the word "murder".
"Murder" is therefore NOT a more accurate translation.

If the bible was written by human beings with best-of-intentions, the same logic applies : if they intended to use the word "murder" they would have done so. I note that this was not done.

So "KILL" is just a VALID human interpretation of the original "word" (whoever wrote these texts !)

THOU SHALL NOT KILL !!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

TJ3 - Often those who profess to be Christians do indeed not follow or submit to God the way that they should ...

clT - Unfortunately, we are still human and have that old human nature.
That are both clinchers!!

At least some part of all Christians should show a tendency of being "superior" in the moral and ethical departments.

The actual facts are however different. Secular Humanists behave in many respects more moral and ethical than most Christians. You only have to inspect the data on the US penitentionary system for that.

Both clinchers exploded in your own face...

:rolleyes: :p :D :p :rolleyes:

THOU SHALL NOT KILL - the sixth out of the Ten Commandments. That does NOT require any interpretation !
Exodus 20:13 : Exodus 20:13 (King James Version) Thou shalt not kill. Clear also.
Deuteronomy 5:17 (King James Version) Thou shalt not kill. Clear just as well.

You may personally prefer the word "murder" above "kill" but that is your interpretation.

You are demonstrating that you know about as much about Hebrew as you do compass needles ;)

Let me fill you in on some things that you may not know.

1) The Bible was originally penned in Hebrew and Koine Greek, not English (this may come as a shocker to you)

2) The original word used in Hebrew gives the sense of murder, not general killing.

3) Some Bibles translate it as murder and some as kill. These tend to be the newer translations because the meanings of English words do vary over time (You may not be aware of this because English is not your first language). The NKJV, CEV, ESV, LITV, and RV for example, all translate it as murder.

You chose the KJV, which is almost 600 years old, and was translated into a form of English which is no longer in common use, and meanings of many words has varied by either small changes or in some cases major changes. In any case, what is most important is what the Bible says in the original language in which it was penned.

That are both clinchers!!

At least some part of all Christians should show a tendency of being "superior" in the moral and ethical departments.

Cred,

You do not understand what Christianity is. Christianity is indeed morally superior because it sets a moral standard, but men and women are fallible, and even as Christians we are not better than anyone else - we are only saved sinners. The Apostle Paul himself said:

1 Tim 1:15-17
15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. 16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.
NKJV


The actual facts are however different. Secular Humanists behave in many respects more moral and ethical than most Christians.

The difference is that for Christianity, there is a single unmovable standard of morality - for atheist, no such standard exists. That standard will vary by time, culture and geography.

Isn't it odd that even those who believe in the Messiah and acknowledge the truth of the gospel make no better world than those who do not acknowledge a messiah and do not lead their lives as per the Bible? Being a christian certainly does not make you a better person than a non-christian.

It certainly seems that way. Especially when you can decide either for yourself or in consultation with a well-placed associate when you are murdering someone, and therefore committing a sin, and when merely killing them.

Here's an academic discussion of whether the Bible says, "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thou shalt not murder."

Thou Shalt Not Murder (http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/001102_ThouShaltNotMurder.html)


In fact, some distinguished Jewish philosophers believed that "thou shalt not kill" is a perfectly accurate rendering of the sixth commandment. Maimonides, for example, wrote that all cases of killing human beings involve violations of the command, even if the violation happens to be overridden by other mitigating factors. It has been suggested that this tradition underlies the virtual elimination of capital punishment in Rabbinic law.

Viewed from this perspective, we may appreciate that the translation "thou shalt not kill" was not the result of simple ignorance on the side of Jerome or the King James English translators. Rather, it reflects their legitimate determination to reflect accurately the broader range of meanings of the Hebrew root.

"Murder," of course, is merely illegal killing of humans. So if one decides that the correct translation is "murder," then the Bible is saying only that killing that is illegal is wrong and killing that is not illegal is not wrong--making "Thou shalt not murder" a mere repetition of human law, which of course varies from place to place. This would make God's commandment exceptionally wishy washy and subject to change.

On the other hand, if the correct translation is "Thou shalt not kill," then the Bible indeed contradicts itself and if It is treated as God's True Word, an indication that He has trouble making up His Mind.

Either way, I'm getting the impression He doesn't have very strong objections to killing people, either by His own hand or through the agency of others.

Of course, if you don't take the Bible as the literal truth but only a poetic expression of commonly held beliefs, stories, and learning, then no one has to split hairs like this.

The difference is that for Christianity, there is a single unmovable standard of morality - for atheist, no such standard exists. That standard will vary by time, culture and geography.
Tj3 :

As I stated : the proof is in the "eating of the pudding" : The FACTS show us that Christians score lower in the application of their moral and ethical values than Secular Humanists.

I wonder why...

:rolleyes: :p :D :p :rolleyes:

.

.

On the other hand, if the correct translation is "Thou shalt not kill," then the Bible indeed contradicts itself and if It is treated as God's True Word, an indication that He has trouble making up His Mind.

Note this quote from the article that you posted:

"Indeed, "kill" in English is an all-encompassing verb that covers the taking of life in all forms and for all classes of victims. That kind of generalization is expressed in Hebrew through the verb "harag." However, the verb that appears in the Torah's prohibition is a completely different one, " ratsah" which, it would seem, should be rendered "murder." This root refers only to criminal acts of killing."

So the argument is against what the Bible actually says, versus opinions of some people who would prefer to read it as "kill".

I'll stick with the actual text.

BTW, just consider how I could claim that you meant something entirely different by applying alternate meanings to the words that you using other than what definition of the word is, and what the context is. Using an approach like that, where you alter what is actually said, you could make anything say whatever you wanted, but that would not be dealing honestly with the text.

Tj3 :

As I stated : the proof is in the "eating of the pudding" : The FACTS show us that Christians score lower in the application of their moral and ethical values than Secular Humanists.

Ho hum - facts made up by the Cred Institute no doubt, where research on the west pointing compass is underway by engineers who got their licences in high school :p

I missed the word "assume" in the Bible. Can you point out where you saw it?

As to whether it is right or not depends upon the context. It depends upon the context. Keep in mind that Israel was to be the people of God, a priestly nation who was to remain pure, so that they would be essentially God'/s messengers or representatives in the world and the nation through whom the Messiah would enter the world. Nothing is more important than the Messiah because without Him, and without the truth of the gospel, everyone goes to hell for eternity. Scripture speaks of such apostasy as whoredom against God. Not something to be taken lightly.

Further, as we seen the history of Israel, as well any other group, once heresy enters, it dopes not stop with one person, and because of the Holy nature of what Israel as a nation was to be, the danger of such false teaching cannot be overstated.



It says that in some English translations.

Others say:

Ex 20:13
13 "You shall not murder.
NKJV

"Murder" is a more accurate translation.

In the OLD KJV it says thou shalt not kill, which IS the more accurate translation. My bible is also an open bible and I have a strong's dictionary as well, which goes into depth about the meaning of words in the bible.

In the OLD KJV it says thou shalt not kill, which IS the more accurate translation. My bible is also an open bible and I have a strong's dictionary as well, which goes into depth about the meaning of words in the bible.

The KJV was an accurate translation 600 years ago, and I would no doubt recommend it if your first language was AD1611 English, but it is not the best translation if you are trying to understand what it says in today's vernacular.

It is the best translation because it is MORE pure. And like I said I have other sources for interpretation.

It is the best translation because it is MORE pure. And like I said I have other sources for interpretation.

"More pure" is not a term used to describe the accuracy of a translation.

If you wish to argue your opinion or likes against what it actually says, then we are not likely to come to common ground. Have you been reading Riplinger's writings?

Sure it is, the bible used today whether it be KJV, NKJV etc. is by no means pure. And of course I continue to support my opinions until I drop dead. However, my opinions are subject to change.

He that never changes his opinions, never corrects his mistakes, and will never be wiser on the morrow than he is today.
Author: Tryon Edwards

Sure it is, the bible used today whether it be KJV, NKJV etc. is by no means pure. And of course I continue to support my opinions until I drop dead. However, my opinions are subject to change.


You are welcome to your opinions, but in no case do your opinions become the standard by which we translate.

Well, I agree to disagree. I like to debate so much disagreeing agrees with me. :)
Later, I'm crashing another thread, until our next 'disagreement' lol

So the argument is against what the Bible actually says, versus opinions of some people who would prefer to read it as "kill".

That's fine,although the same article said there was some reason to think that Hebrew scholars of the time interpreted it more broadly than as just a prohibition of technical murder, but a more general prohibition against killing human beings. I'm sure you read the whole article, just as I did.



I'll stick with the actual text.

Fine. But then you are stuck with the problem that "murder" is a legal definition that varies with time, culture, and geography. Why would God prohibit something that's only illegal if a human says it is? Is he just seconding human laws and doesn't care if they say you can kill women who don't float in this century, but not in this one? Is He saying you can kill a runaway slave in this country but not in that? What kind of commandment is that?


BTW, just consider how I could claim that you meant something entirely different by applying alternate meanings to the words that you using other than what definition of the word is, and what the context is. Using an approach like that, where you alter what is actually said, you could make anything say whatever you wanted, but that would not be dealing honestly with the text.


Not sure what you are driving at. The Bible is clearly not a precision document, hence the need for so many layers of human interpreters like yourself. If really smart priests and rabbis (with no internet or back episodes of The Wire to distract them) can spend literally millennia arguing about what it means, I am certainly not going to sort it out, nor you, I'll hazard, with all due respect. :)

You are demonstrating that you know about as much about Hebrew as you do compass needles ;)

Let me fill you in on some things that you may not know.

1) The Bible was originally penned in Hebrew and Koine Greek, not English (this may come as a shocker to you)

2) The original word used in Hebrew gives the sense of murder, not general killing.

3) Some Bibles translate it as murder and some as kill. These tend to be the newer translations because the meanings of English words do vary over time (You may not be aware of this because English is not your first language). the NKJV, CEV, ESV, LITV, and RV for example, all translate it as murder.

You chose the KJV, which is almost 600 years old, and was translated into a form of English which is no longer in common use, and meanings of many words has varied by either small changes or in some cases major changes. In any case, what is most important is what the Bible says in the original language in which it was penned.

Ah, Tom, this is where you aren't accurate.

Yes, The old testament was written in Hebrew, and the New testament in greek. There are some verses written in Armaic which is closely related to Hebrew, but not enough that it would be easy to translate.

No, I didn't look on the internet for this info, this was taught to me in Catholic school. I can give you the verses that were originally written in Armaic if you want, but unless you have an original bible handy, it won't do you much good.

The bible has been translated so many times into so many languages that the original text has probably been lost along the way.

After all, if, and I do say if, the bible was written by God, surely we can agree that it was translated by fallible men, and goodness knows they probably missed a lot when translating this book.

Also, there are bibles out there that are written in plain english, easy to understand. These are the bibles that most religious schools have today. Most children cannot begin to understand the text of the older bibles.

So, how much has been lost in translation? I'd venture to say that most of what is written is very far removed from the original text.

Still, does that make it the work of God? Not in my opinion. If I were to write a book today, I'd write it in English. If it was a good book and my publishers decided to translate it, I'm sure that a lot of my original words would be lost in the translation.

That's fine,although the same article said there was some reason to think that Hebrew scholars of the time interpreted it more broadly than as just a prohibition of technical murder, but a more general prohibition against killing human beings. I'm sure you read the whole article, just as I did.

Once again, opinions are fine, but I'll stick what was the text actually says.

Remember sound exegesis of the Bible requires that we allow the Bible to interpret itself, rather than for men to interpret it for us.


Fine. But then you are stuck with the problem that "murder" is a legal definition that varies with time, culture, and geography.

The Old Testament included the law for the OT. The definition insofar as it pertained to ancient Israel is defined in the Bible. In addition, scripture requires that we abide by the laws of the land insofar as they do not restrict our ability to worship the true God. Therefore what is included in the scripture definition is the minimum - but it may be more restrictive as the l,aw of the land provides. Lastly, keep in mind that the context of scripture refers to killing as authorized by the state in alignment with the law of the Bible.

So your argument that it varies over time does not carry weight.

So if killing a witch is okay because it was the 'law of the land' (even though it's says thou shalt not kill)
Does that mean since abortion is legal, and it is the 'law' of the land that abortion is okay?

Ah, Tom, this is where you aren't accurate.

Yes, The old testament was written in Hebrew, and the New testament in greek. There are some verses written in Armaic which is closely related to Hebrew, but not enough that it would be easy to translate.

That is a claim, generally put forward by the RCC, but whether or over time any evidence comes forward in support of that position does not in any way assist your position.


The bible has been translated so many times into so many languages that the original text has probably been lost along the way.

Have you studied the history of the manuscripts? You should. The evidence of the accuracy of the text that we have today has been established to be greater than any other ancient text by orders of magnitude. And yet the secular world accepts other ancient documents as accurate historic documents.

Remember sound exegesis of the Bible requires that we allow the Bible to interpret itself, rather than for men to interpret it for us.

Do you read hebrew? If not, then you need man to translate it for you, which they've done. What makes you so certain that the men that translated the bible from hebrew to english, did it right? Or where they inspired by God as well?

Have fun on here Alt, tj
Night

So if killing a witch is okay because it was the 'law of the land' (even though it's says thou shalt not kill)
does that mean since abortion is legal, and it is the 'law' of the land that abortion is okay?

See why I say that these claims of contradictions are timewasters? As you said, you are in this for the argument, and in this post you have completely ignored all the evidence and all our previous discussions, coming up with a logical fallacy argument known as a strawman.

Prov 26:21
21 As charcoal is to burning coals, and wood to fire,
So is a contentious man to kindle strife.
NKJV

If you wish to have a discussion, that is fine, but if you are just going to ignore whatever is said, facts that are established so that you have have an argument, then go find someone who has time to waste.

Do you read hebrew? If not, then you need man to translate it for you, which they've done. What makes you so certain that the men that translated the bible from hebrew to english, did it right? Or where they inspired by God as well?

The interesting thing is that if you go to the experts in translation of the verses in the Bible which deal with the essentials, there is very little disagreement about what the meaning is. Differences are on points which do not alter the meaning of what is said.

The key points where there is disagreement is on points which are not essential.

So your point does not hold water.

Have you studied the history of the manuscripts? You should. The evidence of the accuracy of the text that we have today has been established to be greater than any other ancient text by orders of magnitude. And yet the secular world accepts other ancient documents as accurate historic documents.

Funny you should ask. Actually I have studied the history of the manuscripts.

I will not say that what I learned is fact, but I did find some interesting things when doing my research.

What I found is that two brothers translated the original text of the bible. You see, it was translated at a time when no one understood the original language of the bible. Two men had the task of translating, and they understood much of the original hebrew in the bible, but they did not understand the Aramaic. They lived far apart from each other and kept in contact by mail (which in those days took months). When they came to a part of the original book that was in Armaic they made up what was said because they couldn't translate it. They wrote extensively to each other, wondering if it was okay to do this. They decided that it was better to make something up then to omit those portions of the bible, because it would be noticeable that those portions where missing. Because of the distance between them the information didn't always reach them in time to amend what they had written, but they each sent each other copies of what they had translated. In the end they both agreed that their translation (even those that were accurate as far as they knew) where contradictory to each other and they both agreed that the bible was the work of man, not God.

I will have to look up the books where I got this info, it's been many years and I don't remember the titles off hand. But yes, that is what I read.

Is it true? I can't say, after all, like the bible, it was written by man. Who knows if they wrote the truth?

Funny you should ask. Actually I have studied the history of the manuscripts.

I will not say that what I learned is fact, but I did find some interesting things when doing my research.

What I found is that two brothers translated the original text of the bible. You see, it was translated at a time when no one understood the original language of the bible. Two men had the task of translating, and they understood much of the original hebrew in the bible, but they did not understand the Aramaic. They lived far apart from each other and kept in contact by mail (which in those days took months). When they came to a part of the original book that was in Armaic they made up what was said because they couldn't translate it. They wrote extensively to each other, wondering if it was okay to do this. They decided that it was better to make something up then to omit those portions of the bible, because it would be noticeable that those portions where missing. Because of the distance between them the information didn't always reach them in time to amend what they had written, but they each sent each other copies of what they had translated. In the end they both agreed that their translation (even those that were accurate as far as they knew) where contradictory to each other and they both agreed that the bible was the work of man, not God.

I will have to look up the books where I got this info, it's been many years and I don't remember the titles off hand. But yes, that is what I read.

I don't know where you got this from, but either the book is off base, or your memory has forgotten some(or maybe most) key details over the years.


Is it true? I can't say, after all, like the bible, it was written by man. Who knows if they wrote the truth?

You will continue to believe that because you refuse to believe anything that disagrees with what you want to believe, as we discussed previously.

You will continue to believe that because you refuse to believe anything that disagrees with what you want to believe, as we discussed previously.

Ditto!


I don't know where you go this from, but either the book is off base, or your memory has forgotten some key details over the years

My memory is sound, have no doubt of that. The accuracy of the book I cannot say, but did I read it and was my depiction of those words accurate? Yes.

Ditto!

The difference is that I have valid evidence for what I have stated. You refuse to accept anything that disagrees with what you want to believe, whether it is Biblical or historical.


My memory is sound, have no doubt of that. The accuracy of the book I cannot say, but did I read it and was my depiction of those words accurate? Yes.

I cannot even think of any incident which might have been distorted which resembles what you have described. So if you are accurately reflecting what the book said, I would suggest that the book was not worth the money, nor the time spent to read it.

I would suggest that the book was not worth the money, nor the time spent to read it.

And that's how I feel about the bible.

Tom, can't you just accept that I don't believe in the bible? Can't you just accept that I believe in God without the so called evidence you have?

Think about it. I don't think the bible was written by God, or inspired by God. I don't believe in organized relgion. I do believe in God. That in itself should be pretty amazing to someone like you.

Why the need to make me believe what you believe?

And that's how I feel about the bible.

That is circular reasoning. You believe that about the Bible because you refuse to consider the evidence for the Bible if it disagrees with what you want to believe.

You are welcome to believe what you wish, but rejecting facts just because you don't like where they lead is just fooling yourself.


Why the need to make me believe what you believe?

You are welcome to believe as you wish, but if you keep pushing your views about the Bible which are contrary to the truth, expect to be challenged.

I should ask you - if you really feel that the Bible is not relevant, why do you keep pushing your opinions?

I must say, I just do not understand why anyone would want to close their eyes to facts just because they might disagree with what they believe. That simply ensures that you are believing something which is not true through self-deception.

As I say, you are welcome to believe what you wish, but why would anyone want to believe something when that believe can be supported only by rejecting facts?

And that's how I feel about the bible.

Tom, can't you just accept that I don't believe in the bible? Can't you just accept that I believe in God without the so called evidence you have?

Think about it. I don't think the bible was written by God, or inspired by God. I don't believe in organized relgion. I do believe in God. That in itself should be pretty amazing to someone like you.

Why the need to make me believe what you believe?

Alty,

I am going to answer... I am sure tj3 will have his own. As a Christian we are given a command by the Lord himself to go out a preach the good news to everyone. I am a Christian... I believe there is ONE way to the Father through Jesus Christ his son. It takes faith plus NOTHING. Anyone who does not believe this the Bible clearly teaches will be sent to a devils hell. This is why I want people to believe. I don't want to see ANYONE go to hell and I really do believe this will happen if you or anyone dies in their sins and doesn't accept Jesus Christ.

Course no one can MAKE you believe this... it has to be your free will. I don't think tj3 wants to MAKE you believe. I think he would like to give you compelling evidence that the Bible is indeed the Word of God and absolute truth.

And just one last thought... EVERYONE has the right to believe what they want to. I don't think I am forcing my beliefs down anyone's throat. :)

ClassyT, I do understand that as a Christian it is your mission to spread the word, and no, you aren't forcing your beliefs down anyone's throat.

I was a Christian, but I'm not anymore. I've told my reasons for that many times. I'm happy being a Deist, and I do accept God into my life, I just don't accept the bible as the "word of God".

My belief is this; if you are a good person, good in this world, treat people kindly and compassionately, then you will go to heaven, even if you don't believe in God.

I don't know who's right and who's wrong, I guess we won't find out until we die, but I don't think that God is going to punish me because I'm not Christian.

The God I believe in is a kind, caring, loving, forgiving God, therefore he will not judge because I don't believe in a book.

You do have a right to your beliefs, and if they bring you comfort then I'm happy for you. My beliefs bring me comfort as well. :)

Fair enough... :)

Fair enough ...:)

:)

And just one last thought...EVERYONE has the right to believe what they want to. I don't think i am forcing my beliefs down anyones throat.

Everyone may have rights to think as they please, but not everyone thinks right.

JoeT

Everyone may have rights to think as they please, but not everyone thinks right.I think we all agree on that.

Alty,

I am gonna answer ...i am sure tj3 will have his own. As a Christian we are given a command by the Lord himself to go out a preach the good news to everyone. I am a Christian....i believe there is ONE way to the Father thru Jesus Christ his son. It takes faith plus NOTHING. Anyone who does not believe this the Bible clearly teaches will be sent to a devils hell. This is why I want people to believe. I don't want to see ANYONE go to hell and i really do believe this will happen if you are anyone dies in their sins and doesn't accept Jesus Christ.

course no one can MAKE you believe this...it has to be your free will. I don't think tj3 wants to MAKE you believe. I think he would like to give you compelling evidence that the Bible is indeed the Word of God and absolute truth.

And just one last thought...EVERYONE has the right to believe what they want to. I don't think i am forcing my beliefs down anyones throat. :)


Good answer.

Everyone may have rights to think as they please, but not everyone thinks right.

JoeT


I agree. But even though I don't think you're right, you still have the right to believe what you want.

Peace.

I agree. But even though I don't think you're right, you still have the right to believe what you want.

Peace.

I agree.

As my father used to say to people he disagreed with, "You're entitled to your stupid opinions." He was usually grinning, and I always thought it was funny. :)

I agree. But even though I don't think you're right, you still have the right to believe what you want.
That seems to be the general line of thought here, except for a very few creationist exceptions.

From me everyone may BELIEVE whatever he/she prefers.

Elevating BELIEFS to a level of "truth" without OSE, I will however always oppose !

:)

.

.

From me everyone may BELIEVE whatever he/she prefers.

As long as they don't mind being abused for their beliefs. :D


Elevating BELIEFS to a level of "truth" without OSE, I will however always oppose !

Agreed - show us the OSE for Atheism.

As long as they don't mind being abused for their beliefs.

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

I note that you choose to make accusations without backup. That is so often the alternative that people choose rather than deal with the issues at hand. Why can we not simply deal with the facts?

Why is not possible to stay on the topic?

Tom, you've harassed and abused me many times on many different posts, just because I don't agree with you.

I'm not willing to go back and find all of the posts, I don't have the time or the desire, but you know it's true.

It never ceases to amaze me that a person such as yourself, a Christian, a believer in the bible, doesn't even follow the ten commandments. Whatever happened to love thy neighbor? Or did they change it to "Love thy neighbor but only if he agrees with you" ?

Ho hum. :(

Tom, you've harassed and abused me many times on many different posts, just because I don't agree with you.

If you really believed that, you could at least come up with some evidence of your accusations.


I'm not willing to go back and find all of the posts, I don't have the time or the desire, but you know it's true.

Yeah, I did not think that you would - yet you claimed that it happened "many time on different posts". That is the problem with false accusations - hard to find evidence. Easy to make unsubstantiated accusations, but really hard to actually back them up. So might as well just post the false accusation and then refuse to come clean. It is also easier to try to smear another person than to deal with the issue if things go against what you want to believe. That is why you find Cred always making false accusations and engaging in name-calling.

Is this one of your "good works"?

Why don't you deal with the issue?

Now, let's see if we can get back on topic:


Elevating BELIEFS to a level of "truth" without OSE, I will however always oppose !

Agreed - show us the OSE for Atheism.

If you really believed that, you could at least come up with some evidence of your accusations.

Fine, I'll compile a list of evidence if that's what you really want, give me a few days, it's late and I don't want to search tonigh. Of course, knowing you, you'll say something like "of course it sounds bad, if you read the verse before and after what was quoted then it wouldn't be bad at all".

I know your games Tom, you never play fair. Sadly, I'm now going to your level, and I hate that.


Is this one of your "good works"?

No, this is me at my worst, and I'm not proud of it, but alas, I am human. When goaded I usually fight back. And your excuse?

Fine, I'll compile a list of evidence if that's what you really want, give me a few days, it's late and I don't want to search tonigh. Of course, knowing you, you'll say something like "of course it sounds bad, if you read the verse before and after what was quoted then it wouldn't be bad at all".

I know your games Tom, you never play fair. Sadly, I'm now going to your level, and I hate that.

I see more false accusations.

Let's see what you claim as abuse. Let;'s see if it amounts to abuse like the name calling and false accusations that we see on here, or whether the standard chnages and what you come up with is simply disagreement.


No, this is me at my worst, and I'm not proud of it, but alas, I am human. When goaded I usually fight back. And your excuse?

I do not need an excuse because I have done; nothing that needs an excuse. If you know that you are being nasty, then why don't you grab a coffee, calm down and come back and stop attacking the person, and rather engage the topic. How about it?

I'm done. This is a never ending battle and I'm done fighting. I don't know why I keep coming to the religious discussions threads to fight the same battle with the same people and still end up getting no where.

I don't wish any ill will towards you Tom. I don't agree with you, but I do wish you all the best.

If I'm correct then this thread will soon be closed down because of the two of us, so what's the point in continuiing to argue? What was the point to begin with, neither one of us are going to change our minds.

Good luck.

I'm done. This is a never ending battle and I'm done fighting.

Why fight in the first place? Why can we not just discuss the topic?


I don't wish any ill will towards you Tom. I don't agree with you, but I do wish you all the best.

Then why not drop the hatchet and discuss the topic respectfully, and be willing to accept the fact that I do not need to agree with you, and yes, I may strongly disagree with you.


What was the point to begin with, neither one of us are going to change our minds.

My attitude towards discussions differs from yours apparently. I never see the outcome of a respectful discussion to be a loss because no one's mind was changed. I love truth. If I am challenged respectfully in my beliefs, and if after examination, I find that I am in the wrong, then it is a win, because I have learned more about truth. (That is, BTW, why I would never say that I would reject evidence for the sole reason that it disagrees with me - that is why I said that I did not understand why you would take that approach).

If I find that I am right after the challenge, then the fact that I have been forced to do more study and research means that I now am better able to defend the truth and have learned more.

How can you lose if you focus on truth?

It is not, therefore, a matter of who wins or loses, or if someone's mind is changed - often people are unwilling to change their minds. But it is a matter of our focus in life - are we focused on truth and willing to follow it wherever it leads - even if the evidence leads someplace that we wish that it did not.

Yet nonetheless, as I said, you are perfectly welcome to believe as you wish, but if you wish to discuss doctrine/beliefs publicly or you challenge the beliefs of others, you should expect that your opinions will be challenged. If you have problems with others disagreeing, then perhaps religious discussions are not a good place for you. You will have to decide that for yourself.

The topic is : " What is truth? "

Certainly the truth is NOT lying and cheating...

:rolleyes:

.

.

The topic is : " What is truth? "

Certainly the truth is NOT lying and cheating ....

:rolleyes:

.

.


Right - so get back on topic.

Then why not drop the hatchet and discuss the topic respectfully, and be willing to accept the fact that I do not need to agree with you, and yes, I may strongly disagree with you.


Drop the hatchet? Respectfully?

Tj, I find Alty to be one of the most polite and rational people on this forum. Your graphic and goading words seem strikingly inappropriate and untrue.

Tj, I find Alty to be one of the most polite and rational people on this forum.I second that. I would be more partial to her way of life than to TJ's.

>Thread Closed<
I don't think I need to say why!