 |
I have noticed than in translation the Red Sea was mentioned and later found out it was the Reed Sea.These miss translated words make a big difference.What is to say that people haven't changed the bible to hide the truth.Even God knew people would try to change it or he would have never stated it at the end of the Bible.
Many people try and say the Bible contradicts itself.
I think it is more like our limited comprehension and maybe some translation problems but as a whole I don't see contradictions. Look at how all the countries that have changed their names from 50 years ago so maybe an e was dropped from the name.
I never saw it written as the reed sea before though.
Reed and red are nothing alike in Hebrew. Anyway, what is the practical difference in a depth of 6 feet and 100 feet if your nose is only 5 feet above the bottom?
You are reading and sadly believing too many of the myth teachings that try at times to disprove the bible.
The people who do not believe that God has power wants to find man made ways things could have happened.
They try and show it was not the true Red Sea that Moses crossed but he crossed further up stream in a area of Reeds.
The difference is if you wish to believe that God has all power and can do miricles or if you believe that they new were all the stones were to walk across the shallow areas in a swamp area.
Of course the horsemen chasing would not have drown in the swamp??
So in general what you have are the same type of people who believe in the novel books like the Divinci Code and other stories made to destroy the truths of the bible.
With all respect for Christianity : the Bible is anything BUT accurate ! It is full of mistakes, inaccuracies, contradictions, "corrections", mistranslations, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRISTOPHEROBIN
Isn't it strange that a deity - who is claimed to be the "creator" of the entire universe with everything in it in only 6 days - needed human beings to write his Christian manual for humanity ? The Bible is claimed to be God's word , but it seems more that it was written by many different wellwilling human beings who were claimed to be guided by God.
You can only BELIEVE that the Bible is what Christians say it is.
:>)
.
I amQuote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
Only looking for the truth in a world of lies.If Satin in tempting the children of God then there is always a possibility for the truth to be covered up.Satin tries to separate Gods children from God.What better way then to steer them in the wrong direction.
But there you have the problem : what is "the truth" and what are "the lies"?Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRISTOPHEROBIN
There does not seem to be one "truth", or "truth" at all.
What you mean with "truth" is YOUR perception of what you BELIEVE, without any Objective Supporting Evidence for that.
The topic is : "Is the bible accurate?".
Reality is that it is not. The bible is full of mistakes, inaccuracies, contradictions, "corrections", mistranslations, etc.
Lets continue on that, and leave "Satin" out of it. That's an entire different topic.
:>)
.
I agree with your statement.How can you honestly trust man who has sinned from the beginning. Remember, this is satans playground and he misleads many.Translators even agree that certain gospels are missing parts.I believe these people made up endings for some gospels were there was none to be found because they were destroyed to hide the truth.I also find it hard to trust mans sayings when there is only one true God and so many denominations of churches.Jesus taught Judaism, now there seems to be everything but that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Most people are roman Catholics, wasn't Jesus tortured and killed by the hands of the romans?Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRISTOPHEROBIN
I do not think the bible is true, I am an atheist and there is no proof whatsoever that the bible is accurate.
Hmmmmmm.. .Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRISTOPHEROBIN
"roman Catholics" and "the romans"
I assume you did not go to school but received private tutoring at home from family...
Roman Catholic is a Christian denomination, unrelated to the roman empire.
"the romans" were the "world" rulers for many hundreds of years, including the period -50 to +50 AD.
:>)
.
Indeed! However : anyone is free to believe whatever they like! As long as they do not claim or suggest that whatever they believe is "true", because that has to be proved first (OSE).Quote:
Originally Posted by Apologisenow
:>)
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
I never said they were'nt, this user has asked if the bible is accurate and I have given my opinion.
Correct. I did not suggest that you did. I added that in view of the general intolerance here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Apologisenow
:>)
.
That's good, it is just that you quoted me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
For Chris' benefit. The rest of you don't have to look if you don't want to.
PROPHECY PROOF OF BIBLE
Prophecy Fulfillment Prophecy Fulfillment
1. Gen 3:15 (virgin birth) Mat 1:20 2. Isa 11:1 (descendent of Jesse) Mt 1:1-16
3. Micah 5:2 (place of birth) Lu 2:15,16 4.. Jer 31:15 (Herod's attempt) Mt 2:16
5. Isa 42:1 (ministry area) Mt 4:13-15 6. Zech 9:9 (grand entry) Lu 19:30-35
7. Ps 41:9 (Judas' betrayal) John 13:18 8. Zech 11:12 (betrayal price) Mt 26:15
9. Zech 11:13 (money for field) Mt 27:9,10 10. Gen 3:15 (“heel” bruised) John 19:18
11. Isa 53:3 (Jesus rejected) John 1:11 12. Ps 2:2 (council against Jesus) Mk 15:1 13. Zech 13:7 (arrest, deserted) Mk 14:27,50 14. Isa 53:8 (unfair trial) Mk 15:1-25
15. Ps 35:11 (perjured witnesses) Mk 14:56 16. Isa 53:5,6,10 (our penalty) Rom 5:6,8
17. Ps 69:19 (Jesus mocked) Mt. 27:28,29 18. Isa 50:6 (beaten, spit on) Mt. 26:67
19. Isa 53:7 (no defense offered) Mt 26:62,63 & Mt 27: 13,14
20. Isa 53:12 (with transgressors) Mk 15:27,28
21. Ps 22:16 (hands, feet pierced) Jn 19:18 22. Ps 22:1 (cry to Father) Mt 26:46
23. Ps 38:11 (friends view) Lu 23:49 24. Ps. 22:18 (gambling, clothes) Mt 27:35
25. Ps 22:6,7,8 (reproached) Mt 27:39-44 26. Ps. 69:21 (gall, vinegar) Mt 27:34
27. 109:25 (enemies shake heads) Mt 27:29 28. Ps 22:17 (watch Him die) Mt 27:36
29. Ps 31:5 (He yields spirit) Lu 23:46 30. Zech 12:10 (side pierced) Jn 19:34
31. Ex 12:46, Ps 34:20 (no bones broken) John 19:32,33,36
32. Amos 8:9 (sun darkened) Mt 27:45 33. Isa 53:9 (rich man's tomb) Mt 27:57-60
All above prophecies are from the Old Testament
Additionally, Jesus made some prophecies about Himself.
Mt 20:18,19 Eight separate details
1. I will be betrayed at Jerusalem.
2. I will be betrayed to the chief priests and scribes.
3. The priests and scribes will condemn me to death.
4. The priests and scribes will deliver me to the Romans. (gentiles)
5. The Romans will mock me.
6. The Romans will scourge me.
7. The Romans will crucify me.
8. I will rise from the dead on the third day.
The 33 details from the Old Testament plus the 8 details that Jesus gave in the New Testament make a total of 41 definite events perfectly fulfilled.
First no there is actually no such church called "Roman Catholic" there is a catholic church, and its current main office is in Rome. One of their major RITES is the Roman rite which shows what rules of orders and services they are to use There are several other rites in place.
The Bible is inerrant. But if you have evidence of an error in the Bible, please show us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Where did you get the impression He needed anyone to write the Bible? Please give me the evidence of God's NEED.Quote:
Isn't it strange that a deity - who is claimed to be the "creator" of the entire universe with everything in it in only 6 days - needed human beings to write his Christian manual for humanity ?
The Bible has been examined more than ANY OTHER BOOK ever written for at least 2000 years. And it is proven inerrant to this day.Quote:
The Bible is claimed to be God's word , but it seems more that it was written by many different wellwilling human beings who were claimed to be guided by God.
You can only BELIEVE that the Bible is what Christians say it is.
So lets see your evidence.
Sincerely,
De Maria
The Bible has been examined more than any other book in history and is proven inerrant.Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRISTOPHEROBIN
Sincerely,
De Maria
I did here on this board. Several times already. Up to 150 different examples out of a total of several hundreds. I showed all kinds of mistakes, of incorrectness, of wrong statements, of inconsistences, and of contradictions. It is clear and beyond any doubt that the Bible is full of - specially - contradictions.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
The evidence is in the Bible itself. A true perfect being that can create an entire universe in 6 days only would not need 60+ different imperfect human beings to write, hundreds of imperfect human beings to select which are the "real" bible books (various synodes), and millions of imperfect human beings to translate and re-translate, print, and distribute bibles.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Where can any OSE be found on that inerrancy ? Or is that only what you BELIEVE ?Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
So lets see YOUR evidence.
:>)
.
One at a time will be fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Again, you have used the word "need". Where did you get the impression that God needs anything?Quote:
The evidence is in the Bible itself. A true perfect being that can create an entire universe in 6 days only would not need 60+ different imperfect human beings to write, hundreds of imperfect human beings to select which are the "real" bible books (various synodes), and millions of imperfect human beings to translate and re-translate, print, and distribute bibles.
I haven't seen any errors.Quote:
Where can any OSE be found on that inerrancy ? Or is that only what you BELIEVE ?
My evidence is that you haven't provided any examples of errors in the Bible.Quote:
So lets see YOUR evidence.
:>)
.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Red Sea and Reed sea are my examples. They are not the same therefore one is wrong.That would be a mistake, correct? My point is if the Bible had been translated wrong it would take on a whole new meaning, as in not the original that it once was.If people had left out gospels which I believe they did, it would not be technically correct. The gospels I believe that were left out are the gospel of Phillip, Mary,Thomas,Judas,Apocrypha and the most important the gospel of Jesus.If these were missing would you call it accurate?And these are to state a few.
I've never seen this Reed sea version. Where is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRISTOPHEROBIN
Correct.Quote:
They are not the same therefore one is wrong.
Correct.Quote:
That would be a mistake, correct?
That is correct.Quote:
My point is if the Bible had been translated wrong it would take on a whole new meaning, as in not the original that it once was.
What makes you think they left out Gospels?Quote:
If people had left out gospels which I believe they did, it would not be technically correct.
What is your criteria for a true Gospel?Quote:
The gospels I believe that were left out are the gospel of Phillip, Mary,Thomas,Judas,Apocrypha and the most important the gospel of Jesus.
Yes.Quote:
If these were missing would you call it accurate?
That is also true.Quote:
And these are to state a few.
The Church used the criteria of known Apostolic authorship. If a Gospel was not written by an Apostle or one of the Disciples, the Gospel was not included in the Bible.
The books, which we call the Apocrypha, (not the same books which Protestants call the Apocrypha)were not discarded however and were kept for study by Bible Scholars as they could give details of life in Biblical times. However, the Church does not guarantee their inspiritation as She does not know who were the true authors.
Sincerely,
De Maria
On Bible inconsistencies / faults / contradictions / etc.
Sorry, but I already did that several times. Long lists of hundreds of inconsistences. Just read back !Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
:>)
.
Parts of these gospels have already been found. A monastic order hid some of these at Nag Hammadi.
As I said, the Catholic Church kept the Gospels which were proved authentic writings of the Apostles and the Disciples.Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRISTOPHEROBIN
What is your criteria for authenticity?
All that can be stated is that the Gospels were the writings of these men. There never was any proof that the essence of what these men wrote was more than belief. Neither was there any proof that their belief was correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Back to square one.
:>)
.
One of the main proofs that the Bible is the Word of God is the fact that it was penned by so many different men over such a great period, yet is in agreement with itself. The Bible is a miraculous book, and contains records of many miracles, written by the people who observed them. Do you believe history books? Why? Do you have OSE for them? All of them? Some of them? Any of them? Or do you just BELIEVE?
No it is not. The Bible is full with mistakes, historical faults, and - specially - inconsistencies and contradictions. I have posted about that extensively here on this board in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
Observation is no OSE, but hear-say. You have to accept that the observer was correct with his claim without any OSE, i.e. you have to BELIEVE him/her. The contradictions in the Bible indicate that much that was written in the biblebooks was based on hear-say. Besides that : many stories are just PLAGIARIZED COPIES of existing local mythical reginal stories of that time. The "great flood" is a perfect example of that, being a copy of the Gilgamesh Epos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
No I don't. You always must scrutinize the provided details for correctness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
German history books about WW2 are different to English history books.
US history books about the Vietnam war are different to Russian/Chinese history books.
Etc.
:>)
.
You are the first one clamoring for proof and the first one to admit you have none.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
You are wrong however, these Gospels weren't written in a vaccuum. They were written in the midst of people who had seen and heard exactly what is depicted in the Gospels. And there are no denials. Even from those who are Jesus' enemies.
So, if you want to discount the evidence, that is your business, but the evidence of the Gospels would stand up in any court today.
Sincerely,
De Maria
You keep saying that but I don't see any such things posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Horse hockey! All you are doing is repeating anti-Christian propaganda without even looking into the facts. The fact is that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses who lived with Jesus for approximately three years. He taught them and they witnessed his miracles and then later produced miracles themselves.Quote:
Observation is no OSE, but hear-say. You have to accept that the observer was correct with his claim without any OSE, i.e. you have to BELIEVE him/her. The contradictions in the Bible indicate that much that was written in the biblebooks was based on hear-say. Besides that : many stories are just PLAGIARIZED COPIES of existing local mythical reginal stories of that time. The "great flood" is a perfect example of that, being a copy of the Gilgamesh Epos.
Of course, you don't want to believe in miracles, but you are the man who would rather believe that lifeless, unintelligent matter spontaneously becomes living organisms with more complexity than a super computer.
So I think your stance is a bit, to say the least, inconsistent.
You claim to believe only what you see, but as I explained before, you must believe in gravity. And you can only see the results of that invisible force.Quote:
No I don't. You always must scrutinize the provided details for correctness.
German history books about WW2 are different to English history books.
US history books about the Vietnam war are different to Russian/Chinese history books.
Etc.
Sincerely,
De Maria
If I write a story about a miracle I witnessed, and I swear that this story is true, and I have a witness that will swear that the story is true, would you believe it's true?
That's all the bible is, stories written by mortal men, fallible men, only men, not God.
To say that these men were "inspired" by God to write this book, well show me proof of that. If I told you I was inpsired by God to write a book would you believe me? Of course you wouldn't, you'd think I was crazy.
The bible is just a book written by men. Yes, it's interesting, yes, the stories are fantastic, but fact, word of God, no, it's not, there's no proof of that.
Sure. I have no reason to believe you are lying. And if you have a witness, I have no reason to believe that both of you are lying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Altenweg
But men who lived with Christ and were inspired by God.Quote:
That's all the bible is, stories written by mortal men, fallible men, only men, not God.
Why would I?Quote:
To say that these men were "inspired" by God to write this book, well show me proof of that. If I told you I was inpsired by God to write a book would you believe me? Of course you wouldn't, you'd think I was crazy.
Sure there is.Quote:
The bible is just a book written by men. Yes, it's interesting, yes, the stories are fantastic, but fact, word of God, no, it's not, there's no proof of that.
1. There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than for any other person of that era. And yet, most people only doubt Jesus' existence. Why is that? Because they don't want to believe.
2. The evidence which the Gospel writers provided is eyewitness testimony. They saw this with their own eyes and interviewed people who saw it with their own eyes. This is evidence that would stand up in court.
3. These men and many others died for their beliefs. Crazy men die for their beliefs
But their beliefs die with them. The beliefs these men held have persisted to this day and are getting stronger by the day. Why? Because of the beauty and wisdom of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
4. Jesus Christ was either a mad man or God. Because if He is not God as He claimed, then He must be mad. Or worse, a liar. But the beauty of His teachings proves that He was neither a mad man nor a liar and His miracles witnessed by many prove that He is God.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Ref. Your post #30 :
I am not what you describe as "Jesus' enemy". I have nothing against religion in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
I have however strong feelings against religious activists who insist that the world accept their limited word view based on mythical views that were thought up by human beings several thousands of years ago to lower their fears for whatever was getting at them in life.
Believe whatever you like to believe, but don't claim it to be the "truth" : that you have to prove!!
As far as "these Gospels" are concerned : that is still hear-say, and NOT proof of anything.
If I go to the town of Roswell I will meet many thousands of people who are convinced of what is claimed to have happened there on July 7, 1947. But does that prove the existence in general - and actual presence there and at that time - of aliens visiting earth?
Get real!!
No it would not. Any smart DA would not even let it get to that courtroom at all, as at least it is still common for the US justice system to rely on evidence, and not on hear-say!!Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
.
Ref. Your post #31 :
That is your problem, not mine. I have posted topics on that several times, once even with 100 different biblical contradictions.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
I do not agree with any anti-Christian or any other anti-whatever propaganda.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
I always look at the facts : it is you who fails to do that!!
Just more hear-say. See my previous post and read the "Roswell" point.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
What miracles? And for the umpteenth time : I DO NOT BELIEVE in abiogenesis. I can see that that thesis makes some sense, and is even - though only partial - underwritten by facts. Unlike your "creation" claim that is based on wild religious dogmatic claims only.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Nobody can see any "natural" force. Only the result of existing forces can be seen. Your religion is build on nothing else but invisibility : an invisible deity in an invisible heaven surrounded by invisible angles and trillions of invisible souls of departed. You can not even see the results of what you BELIEVE to be your invisible force...Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Did you live in the time of Jesus? Why do you think I was referring to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Riiiight.Quote:
I have nothing against religion in general.
Where's the OSE for that?Quote:
I have however strong feelings against religious activists who insist that the world accept their limited word view based on mythical views that were thought up by human beings several thousands of years ago to lower their fears for whatever was getting at them in life.
Thanks. But I didn't need your permission.Quote:
Believe whatever you like to believe,
When people, like you, challenge my beliefs, I defend them. I know you'd like it if everyone accepted your illogical view of the world, but unfortunately for you, we live in a free country where people can voice their opinions.Quote:
but don't claim it to be the "truth" : that you have to prove!!
You might want to read up on what is "Hearsay evidence".Quote:
As far as "these Gospels" are concerned : that is still hear-say,
If the Gospels were hearsay evidence, you would be correct. But the Gospels are examples of eyewitness testimonies. Eyewitness testimonies are accepted as evidence in every court in the world.Quote:
and NOT proof of anything.
No. But it certainly lends credence to the idea.Quote:
If I go to the town of Roswell I will meet many thousands of people who are convinced of what is claimed to have happened there on July 7, 1947. But does that prove the existence in general - and actual presence there and at that time - of aliens visiting earth? Get real!!
Do you believe they are all lying? If so, why?
Do you even know what is the definition of "hear say" evidence? Find out the definition of hear say evidence and then show me how that relates to the Gospels.Quote:
No it would not. Any smart DA would not even let it get to that courtroom at all, as at least it is still common for the US justice system to rely on evidence, and not on hear-say!!
.
Sincerely,
De Maria
I really don't understand why you say that all people are doing is repeating anti-christian propaganda without even looking into the facts.What facts?If you mean the Bible, then you truelly haven't looked very hard.If you base everything in the Bible as facts, then why don't you follow these teachings.My example being-Catholic tradition- call priests father.Bible says call no man your father upon this earth,for one is your father and He is in heaven.Mathew 23:9.Wouldnt this be an example of anti-christian?Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
No. That's an example of an overly literal reading of one verse of Scripture. In fact, many Protestants believe that they should call no man father.Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRISTOPHEROBIN
However, we note that Jesus Himself referred to Abraham as Father Abraham in this narrative:
Luke 16 30 But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance.
And the Apostles referred to Abraham the same way.
Acts Of Apostles 7 2 Who said: Ye men, brethren, and fathers, hear. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charan.
And they recognized that their brethren had fathers:
Acts Of Apostles 7 2 Who said: Ye men, brethren, and fathers, hear. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charan.
And they even referred to themselves as fathers of their flocks.
1 Corinthians 4 15 For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you.
1 Thessalonians 2 11 As you know in what manner, entreating and comforting you, (as a father doth his children,)
Philippians 2 22 Now know ye the proof of him, that as a son with the father, so hath he served with me in the gospel.
So, if Jesus and the Apostles didn't take that verse literally, why would you?
Sincerely,
De Maria
Maria, that was only 1 example.There are many more.examples listed are:Catholic tradition-the pope bows to the statue of Mary,worshiping of the eucharist,the pope has people bow before him.Bible-Exodus20:4-20:5.Catholic tradition-Mary is queen of heaven.Bible-Jeremiah 7:17-18-19.Why pray to Mary?Holy Mary mother of God pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.Mary is not the mother of God. For this to be even possible she would have to be a god.Isaiah 43:10-Philippians 2:6-2:7.Catholic tradition-forbids priests to marry.Wasnt Peter married? The pope is supposedly continuing the apostolic line through Peter,right?Bible read 1Timothy.Catholic tradition-Mary never had otherchildren after Jesus.A perpetual virgin.What about His brethrenJames, Simon,Joses and Judas.Bible-Mathew13:55-56.Mark6:3.this is just to state a few.
Observation is no OSE, but hear-say. You have to accept that the observer was correct with his claim without any OSE, i.e. you have to BELIEVE him/her. The contradictions in the Bible indicate that much that was written in the biblebooks was based on hear-say. Besides that : many stories are just PLAGIARIZED COPIES of existing local mythical reginal stories of that time. The "great flood" is a perfect example of that, being a copy of the Gilgamesh Epos.
:>)
.[/QUOTE]
I will take this opportunity to deal with your "perfect example" and your claim that Moses plagiarized something.
I assume that you are saying that the Gilgamesh Epos was written before Genesis. If the Gilagmesh Epos describes a great flood, that gives you the OSE for the Bible account. The flood would have been common knowledge at that early date, and there were likely many accounts written about it. How many accounts have been written about events in WW2? Does that mean that the later writers plagiarized the earlier ones? You have no evidence to say that Moses' account was based on any previous writing. It was far more likely that it was based on oral accounts handed down from Noah. It was not many generations from the flood to Moses, and Japheth lived long enough to see several of those generations, so the time distance from a survivor of the flood to Moses was relatively short.
I'm glad you said this is your "perfect example" because it shows how weak your position really is.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:12 AM. |