# Why do you think the bible was written?



## stringmusic (Mar 11, 2013)

Just like the thread title says. What do you think was the motivation for the writers of the bible?


----------



## hummdaddy (Mar 11, 2013)

to brainwash and control people so they weren't thinking for themselves...like a cult


----------



## cuda67bnl (Mar 11, 2013)

What he said^^^^^^


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 11, 2013)

Way to really give it a lot of thought there guys.


Cults that are intended only to brainwash and control typically center around an individual who is doing so for self-serving motives (think Koresh, Jim Jones, etc).

Let's assume Jesus actually existed.  What about the account of his life in the Bible gives you any indication that he began his "movement" in an effort to further himself financially, in power or in any other way?

The question String is asking is not whether you think the christian religion brainwashes its followers.  We all know that you think that.  The question is "why?".  What was the motivation at the very beginning?  There is no indication, whatsoever, that the early fathers of Christianity benefitted in any way.  In fact, most of them died furthering their "cult". 

Does that make any logical sense to you?  Does it follow the pattern of a Koresh or a Jones?  I'd be interested to hear an actual well thought out response that's a bit better than "uh....to brainwash".

Think on it for a while.  What would be a logical motivation for someone (or a group) to make up the christian religion based on what you know about its foundational "members"?


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 11, 2013)

Huntinfool said:


> Way to really give it a lot of thought there guys.



What he said.^^^^^


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 11, 2013)

Huntinfool said:


> Way to really give it a lot of thought there guys.
> 
> 
> Cults that are intended only to brainwash and control typically center around an individual who is doing so for self-serving motives (think Koresh, Jim Jones, etc).
> ...



Bingo.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 11, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> to brainwash and control people so they weren't thinking for themselves...like a cult



How do you think Abraham and John collaborated their stories? There is about 1500 years between the two.


----------



## hummdaddy (Mar 11, 2013)

Huntinfool said:


> Way to really give it a lot of thought there guys.
> 
> 
> Cults that are intended only to brainwash and control typically center around an individual who is doing so for self-serving motives (think Koresh, Jim Jones, etc).
> ...



there is no logical explanation for schizophrenic maniac delusional episodes,but they did write one heck of a book


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 11, 2013)

> there is no logical explanation for schizophrenic maniac delusional episodes



What is....a fact you've proven twice in this thread alone?  Alex, I'll now take "Solid Responses" for $1000.




Once again....a well thought out rational response.  Hopefully your buds will come rescue you soon with an actual response.



Lesson learned so far in this thread:  "When I don't have an answer....DEFLECT DEFLECT DEFLECT!"




Just for the record, I'm not expecting that any of us will convince the others to change their view on this.  I'm just honestly curious how you logically account for christianity's beginnings if you end up with "cult intent on brainwashing".


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 11, 2013)

Huntinfool said:


> Let's assume Jesus actually existed.



That's a lot to ask of someone that you're also asking to explain why the bible might be MADE UP... 

There may have been a guy named Jesus (well, his name probably sounded absolutely nothing like the word J-E-S-U-S)... and I'm sure if there was he did something in his lifetime... He may have gotten killed. As far as all the rest of the stuff... you're taking a book's word for it all... You can believe it to the T or believe what you like about it. There are plenty of possibilities that are just as easily fathomable as to why some group of people would write a book like the bible as it was inspired by a divine and powerful being. Why do people write books now-a-days? I am CERTAIN that ANY of the reasons why people write books today could have been involved with the writing of the bible. I don't have a lot of cold hard evidence or facts... but I have seen it happen it my lifetime... that people write books to try to convey a message, push an agenda or make money. Just to name a few. Parts may be true or in some cases they may mostly be true.


----------



## hummdaddy (Mar 11, 2013)

Huntinfool said:


> Once again....a well thought out rational response.  Hopefully your buds will come rescue you soon with an actual response.
> 
> 
> 
> Lesson learned so far in this thread:  "When I don't have an answer....DEFLECT DEFLECT DEFLECT!"



no one has the answer and everyone thinks they do


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> That's a lot to ask of someone that you're also asking to explain why the bible might be MADE UP...



So, then, from your perspective Christianity and the Bible are 100% made up right from the very start....correct?

I think the question I have still remains in place though.  Let's assume you're right...what is the motivation to build something like that?  Who, in your mind DID exist to start this thing?  

Somewhere along the line, somebody with self-serving motives started this thing.  What was that motivation if it pointed to a fictional character named Jesus?  We would have to assume some Jew wanted to break from Judiasm, right?  What was the point?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 11, 2013)

Sorry, I was editing when you responded..


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 11, 2013)

Huntinfool said:


> So, then, from your perspective Christianity and the Bible are 100% made up right from the very start....correct?
> 
> I think the question I have still remains in place though.  Let's assume you're right...what is the motivation to build something like that?  Who, in your mind DID exist to start this thing?
> 
> Somewhere along the line, somebody with self-serving motives started this thing.  What was that motivation if it pointed to a fictional character named Jesus?  We would have to assume some Jew wanted to break from Judiasm, right?  What was the point?




I definitely don't have the cold, hard evidence to make you believe my story. But you agree, that a story like that is believable, right? That someone would write a book, come up with a story to help control people. Maybe not worldwide - because to CONTROL THE WORLD is a pretty ridiculous idea... but it's something we have seen people do all the time. Then take the other idea, that it's true... The major claims in the bible have never been SEEN by anyone.. Most of them can't be. They are VERY HEFTY claims. Maybe neither view is very substantiated... so I'll take the one that is more likely... the one I've actually seen happen - I know it's possible.


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Sorry, I was editing when you responded..



What I'm trying to get at is just some understanding of what, realistically, would be a motivation based on the way Christianity is set up in the Bible (whether it's made up or not).

I mean, if I was going to start up a made up "religion", I would set it up for the very reasons you gave.  Money, power, prestige, fame, fortune, 72 virgins...you name it.  

What I don't get is that the religion established in the Bible (again, made up or not) doesn't seem to be set up to benefit anybody in particular in any of those ways....does it?

I'm not trying to lead you down some super-secret 12 step path to Christ.  I just don't honestly understand how people can believe that it was set up with purely selfish motives in order to brainwash a large group of people.   There is nothing in the Bible and nothing in early Christianity that indicates that in any way.  

You don't just try to brainwash millions of people for the heck of it.  There's a reason if it's not actually true.


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 11, 2013)

> I definitely don't have the cold, hard evidence to make you believe my story. But you agree, that a story like that is believable, right? That someone would write a book, come up with a story to help control people.



ABSOLUTELY I believe that (whether it's in writing a book or any number of other actions)!  But, when that happens, there's ALWAYS a motive behind it that is founded in self-serving behavior.  What do you think that is here?  I can't see one from the early fathers of the church.


BTW....full disclosure, I CAN see that selfish motive through history in christianity.  I see it in the crusades.  I see it in the history of the church, etc.  But I don't see it at the very beginning...


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I definitely don't have the cold, hard evidence to make you believe my story. But you agree, that a story like that is believable, right? That someone would write a book, come up with a story to help control people. Maybe not worldwide - because to CONTROL THE WORLD is a pretty ridiculous idea... but it's something we have seen people do all the time.



Who do you think they were trying to control? 

Do you think when Moses wrote the beginnings of the bible, and quit obviously wasn't able to control anyone with it, that other people thought "hey, let's add on to Moses' writings that didn't work controlling people and try to control people"?


----------



## hummdaddy (Mar 11, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Who do you think they were trying to control?
> 
> Do you think when Moses wrote the beginnings of the bible, and quit obviously wasn't able to control anyone with it, that other people thought "hey, let's add on to Moses' writings that didn't work controlling people and try to control people"?



never ending story...waiting on the trilogy,when jesus rises again


----------



## Four (Mar 11, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Just like the thread title says. What do you think was the motivation for the writers of the bible?



Which author? which part?

The bible was written by a LOT of different people, and edited and changed but even more over the years.

As I understand it the OT was regionally just an offshoot / reinvention of Babylonian gods/myths that was changed further overtime to suite the current Israelite culture. I believe the Israelite were originally worshiping some babylonian gods, then slowly became more monotheistic, finally settling on one (Yahweh).

I assume most of this is just a bunch of different people using religion as the carrot/stick of society, to keep the people together and obey.

Thats just a dip in the pool.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 11, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> to brainwash and control people so they weren't thinking for themselves...like a cult



That's pretty Machiavellian for a bunch of uneducated goat herders and fishermen.


----------



## hummdaddy (Mar 11, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> That's pretty Machiavellian for a bunch of uneducated goat herders and fishermen.



there is always some that think they know better than the others about some things...see it every day on here


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 11, 2013)

Huntinfool said:


> You don't just try to brainwash millions of people for the heck of it.  There's a reason if it's not actually true.



Of course they didn't write that part down in the story... and whatever may have been written down wasn't published in leather and on placed on a bookshelf near you.. And I doubt they had world domination in mind..


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 11, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> never ending story...waiting on the trilogy,when jesus rises again



Forgive me...

I haven't been in here in a while....are you always this insightful or is today just a special day?


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Of course they didn't write that part down in the story... and whatever may have been written down wasn't published in leather and on placed on a bookshelf near you.. And I doubt they had world domination in mind..



Good point.  But I guess my question is more like "Based on the way it IS written...can you glean any angle they had that would have benefitted them?".

I get what Hitler was trying to do.  I get what Jim Jones was trying to do.  I get what Koresh was trying to do.  I get what a lot of mentally deranged people tried to do in the past.  I don't get this one.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 11, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> That's pretty Machiavellian for a bunch of uneducated goat herders and fishermen.



Yep, one minute it's "bunch of stupid goat herders" the next minute they've collaborated the biggest scam in the history of humankind.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Of course they didn't write that part down in the story... and whatever may have been written down wasn't published in leather and on placed on a bookshelf near you.. And I doubt they had world domination in mind..



Koresh,Jones, Hilter, et al didn't let anyone in on their secret either, but we all know what it was.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 11, 2013)

Four said:


> , and edited and changed but even more over the years.



This just isn't true.

Modern archeological finds have proved this as a "liar liar pants on fire" truth-o-meter rating.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 11, 2013)

For me, to control people, is enough. I don't have the specific circumstances... It is too easy to believe that had too much to do with it for it to be real.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 11, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> This just isn't true.
> 
> Modern archeological finds have proved this as a "liar liar pants on fire" truth-o-meter rating.






Even Politifact knows it's a lie!!


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> For me, to control people, is enough. I don't have the specific circumstances... It is too easy to believe that had too much to do with it for it to be real.



"The truth ain't always easy"  -Everybody's momma

Don't we, as Christians, constantly get accused of being shallow in our beliefs and taking the easy way out?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 11, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> This just isn't true.
> 
> Modern archeological finds have proved this as a "liar liar pants on fire" truth-o-meter rating.



I don't know the relative truth-o-meter ratings on them, but I've seen several documentaries from what I would believe to be modern archaeological finds that Jesus was married to Mary and they ran off together after he "resurrected."


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 11, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> "The truth ain't always easy"  -Everybody's momma
> 
> Don't we, as Christians, constantly get accused of being shallow in our beliefs and taking the easy way out?



Maybe... IMO the easy way out is when everyone else is doing it. 

I haven't done as much homework as the other fellas here... I admit that. I never was much for school work..


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I don't know the relative truth-o-meter ratings on them, but I've seen several documentaries from what I would believe to be modern archaeological finds that Jesus was married to Mary and they ran off together after he "resurrected."



all based on a fresco painting in a temple of 3 people of which people are assumed to be Jesus, Mary and John.

And to reiterate my point, I'm not saying archeological digs or finds support and/or deny what the story says...What I'm saying is that from the first copies to the copy we have now....very very very little has changed.  Historians/Scholars say that over 99.9% is the same as what we had in the Early Church time periods. (Kinda debunked Joseph Smith's theory and the need for the Book of Mormon...but that's another thread).


----------



## hummdaddy (Mar 11, 2013)

Huntinfool said:


> Forgive me...
> 
> I haven't been in here in a while....are you always this insightful or is today just a special day?



I'm just me!  Conservative christians try to run everyones lives,but don't tryto take away something dear to them...

I think what ever you want to believe,no matter. What your religion is or is not so be it,...just don't trample my or my friends rights and freedoms in the process

You asked what we thought. The bible came from..i said. It

I think original god was energy
Evolution occurred
And then et intervened


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 11, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> all based on a fresco painting in a temple of 3 people of which people are assumed to be Jesus, Mary and John.
> 
> And to reiterate my point, I'm not saying archeological digs or finds support and/or deny what the story says...What I'm saying is that from the first copies to the copy we have now....very very very little has changed.  Historians/Scholars say that over 99.9% is the same as what we had in the Early Church time periods. (Kinda debunked Joseph Smith's theory and the need for the Book of Mormon...but that's another thread).



I didn't really watch much of that documentary, just saw what it was about. You think that's not Jesus because that's not what he looked like? Just kidding... I don't think they could have made all the documentary content just from the painting.. but maybe...


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 11, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> Conservative christians try to run everyones lives ...



It's not conservative Christians who are trying to take your guns away or telling New Yorkers what size soft drink they can buy.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I didn't really watch much of that documentary, just saw what it was about.



That's what I figured.  Your post above sounded like a response laden with ignorance.  Very similar to Four's post about how so many things in the Bible have changed.  But hey...say it with confidence...say it often enough and maybe people will believe ya.  I mean...that's what every indoctrinator does right?


Again, I'm not trying to prove/disprove the Bible is 100% true in this thread.  What I'm saying is that it hasn't changed since the original was written.


----------



## hummdaddy (Mar 11, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> It's not conservative Christians who are trying to take your guns away or telling New Yorkers what size soft drink they can buy.



i didnt vote for him either, boy is that like for ya'll


----------



## bullethead (Mar 11, 2013)

The Bible is a collection of stories put together over a span of at least 1500 years. There were many things written during that time that spoke of a god and the trials and tribulations of a band/tribe/nation of people. Those writings were both for and against. They told many stories. There were different versions of events written by different authors. The finished product of the Bible is a conglomeration of stories that go along with each other to tell a tale of the hardships and triumphs of a specific nationality of people. The writings are a mixture of facts and fables.. truths and embellishments...real and made up places...sorcery, magic and imaginary beings. It was to give a nation hope. Anything that was written but did not fit that purpose was not included.
There was a span of about 400 years when these writings stopped. The people waited for the prophesies to come true. They didn't. There were many people that claimed and achieved quite a following along the way because of their magical godly powers and ability to fool..ahem..fulfill so called prophesies, they were written about too. Those writing didn't make the cut. Then after 400 years of no God involvement within his "chosen" people a new god-man appeared and was promptly put to death for being a false prophet. The people NEEDED a nicer, kinder, more loving God. The head Honcho no longer fit the bill so in these "new" stories he sent his Son to be killed because he loves us SOOO much. It took about 40 years for the first writings detailing the stories of this guy. Nobody seemed to write about his miraculous abilities as they happened. No actual historians wrote anything about him. It took 40-100years after the "fact" to piece together writings written by anonymous authors that followed similar paths in their stories. The writings that told different versions never made it into the final copy. People will argue that there was no deciding factor, meeting or group that got together and decided what was fit to be in the Bible, but bottom line, there was. Like many religions that last centuries this one is no different. Many people die for what they believe in but that does not make it true. The argument that why would people die for a lie has been said many times but many people do die over and over for lies throughout world history. It does not make their story any more credible.
THE God of that book has not graced us with it's presence since. Or if it has I guess the writers are waiting a few decades to jot it all down like they remember it...even tho it didn't happen to them and were not actually there.

Every other religion is as true or as false as this one. It just depends what book you need to believe.


----------



## Wild Turkey (Mar 11, 2013)

No different than stories told around a campfire at hunting clubs everywhere. Somebody wrote them down, passed them down from generation to generation and finally they were compiled in to one work. The Bible.
Religion has a specific good. It unites people into one common cause, beliefs and morals which keeps the peace. Without religion,morals go out the window and mayhem occurs.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 11, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> That's what I figured.  Your post above sounded like a response laden with ignorance.  Very similar to Four's post about how so many things in the Bible have changed.  But hey...say it with confidence...say it often enough and maybe people will believe ya.  I mean...that's what every indoctrinator does right?
> 
> 
> Again, I'm not trying to prove/disprove the Bible is 100% true in this thread.  What I'm saying is that it hasn't changed since the original was written.



I didn't say it with confidence... Just to say that there are plenty more things about those parts of history that the bible doesn't tell.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 11, 2013)

Wild Turkey said:


> No different than stories told around a campfire at hunting clubs everywhere. Somebody wrote them down, passed them down from generation to generation and finally they were compiled in to one work. The Bible.
> Religion has a specific good. It unites people into one common cause, beliefs and morals which keeps the peace. Without religion,morals go out the window and mayhem occurs.



Morals and Religion....well that's another thread entirely.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I didn't say it with confidence... Just to say that there are plenty more things about those parts of history that the bible doesn't tell.



Ooookaaaaaayyyyyyyyy.

I just find it somewhat humorous.  Most on here hold every Christian to know everything there is about the Bible...it's theology...it's history...it's teachings.

Yet, the non-believer can toss around phrases and beliefs like they're common knowledge...and without any substantial backing.

I guess it is a double standard...one that non-believers can get away with because it is the reason that they don't believe...which is...they don't know.  

Not sure what you'd call that, but I'd call it blind faith.


----------



## swampstalker24 (Mar 11, 2013)

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 11, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> to brainwash and control people so they weren't thinking for themselves...like a cult



Hey that's what I thought about math  I did learn one thing....pie are round.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 11, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Just like the thread title says. What do you think was the motivation for the writers of the bible?



I did love history back in the 60's even though some of it has been changed now...uh that rings a bell.....

First I believe God told them to record this....and second they did.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 11, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> no one has the answer and everyone thinks they do



Same with the scientists and historians, they don't all agree, just like the rest of us don't always agree on things.

I'm on another forum where  a girl there can give you every belief/theory possible to 'prove' we walked out of the ocean. If I believed everything, I'd just go nuts.

First we were all algae, and since algae is part plant and part animal, that's where it all began...some of us took on the animal 'gene' ...then we grew feet and then we walked on land and became primates for survival sake then we split up into other groups, some became apes, some became snakes, some became people....I've never grown sweet taters and dug them up and a trout was formed because I watered them too much with mountain stream water....


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 11, 2013)

swampstalker24 said:


> Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?



Since we have free will to make our own choices...which everyone screams about having, then how can God do anything? He could completely control everything if we were smart enough to listen.

How can a smoker expect to be healed from cancer? God say's 'just do anything you want to I'll save all of you from destruction'? It's not God's choice for us to smoke, or drink or gamble our grocery money away....but when we do, why do we wanna blame it on God for not fixing it? It's our free will at work....generally speaking.


----------



## hummdaddy (Mar 11, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> Same with the scientists and historians, they don't all agree, just like the rest of us don't always agree on things.
> 
> I'm on another forum where  a girl there can give you every belief/theory possible to 'prove' we walked out of the ocean. If I believed everything, I'd just go nuts.
> 
> First we were all algae, and since algae is part plant and part animal, that's where it all began...some of us took on the animal 'gene' ...then we grew feet and then we walked on land and became primates for survival sake then we split up into other groups, some became apes, some became snakes, some became people....I've never grown sweet taters and dug them up and a trout was formed because I watered them too much with mountain stream water....




Some mystical being made  a man from dirt
Then he made his sister from his rib so they could reproduce
Able and cain came along
Who did they breed with

Dna is science


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 11, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> Ooookaaaaaayyyyyyyyy.
> 
> I just find it somewhat humorous.  Most on here hold every Christian to know everything there is about the Bible...it's theology...it's history...it's teachings.
> 
> ...




Blind faith has caused us to have vaccines we have and cures we have, like penicillin....mold???? really??? who woulda thunk it?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 12, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> Ooookaaaaaayyyyyyyyy.
> 
> I just find it somewhat humorous.  Most on here hold every Christian to know everything there is about the Bible...it's theology...it's history...it's teachings.
> 
> ...



I said, "I don't know the relative truth-o-meter".....  and I have no faith that Jesus was married to Mary and ran out of town. I was just pointing out that there is evidence (just as much as a book) that the bible is not accurate. I don't know if it's good or compelling evidence, but there is evidence.


----------



## Four (Mar 12, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> This just isn't true.



It sure is. But i'm beginning to think that like many Christians you're working from the perspective that the bible begins and ends with jesus.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> The Bible is a collection of stories put together over a span of at least 1500 years. There were many things written during that time that spoke of a god and the trials and tribulations of a band/tribe/nation of people. Those writings were both for and against. They told many stories. There were different versions of events written by different authors. The finished product of the Bible is a conglomeration of stories that go along with each other to tell a tale of the hardships and triumphs of a specific nationality of people. The writings are a mixture of facts and fables.. truths and embellishments...real and made up places...sorcery, magic and imaginary beings. It was to give a nation hope. Anything that was written but did not fit that purpose was not included.
> There was a span of about 400 years when these writings stopped. The people waited for the prophesies to come true. They didn't. There were many people that claimed and achieved quite a following along the way because of their magical godly powers and ability to fool..ahem..fulfill so called prophesies, they were written about too. Those writing didn't make the cut. Then after 400 years of no God involvement within his "chosen" people a new god-man appeared and was promptly put to death for being a false prophet. The people NEEDED a nicer, kinder, more loving God. The head Honcho no longer fit the bill so in these "new" stories he sent his Son to be killed because he loves us SOOO much. It took about 40 years for the first writings detailing the stories of this guy. Nobody seemed to write about his miraculous abilities as they happened. No actual historians wrote anything about him. It took 40-100years after the "fact" to piece together writings written by anonymous authors that followed similar paths in their stories. The writings that told different versions never made it into the final copy. People will argue that there was no deciding factor, meeting or group that got together and decided what was fit to be in the Bible, but bottom line, there was. Like many religions that last centuries this one is no different. Many people die for what they believe in but that does not make it true. The argument that why would people die for a lie has been said many times but many people do die over and over for lies throughout world history. It does not make their story any more credible.
> THE God of that book has not graced us with it's presence since. Or if it has I guess the writers are waiting a few decades to jot it all down like they remember it...even tho it didn't happen to them and were not actually there.
> 
> Every other religion is as true or as false as this one. It just depends what book you need to believe.



Thanks for your well thought out answer, you're wrong on many counts, but thanks none the less.

And before you ask, I'm not sure I feel like going through and quoting different parts of it, then finding sources and discrediting your incorrect claims, then you finding sources, and back and forth and back and forth.


----------



## vowell462 (Mar 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> The Bible is a collection of stories put together over a span of at least 1500 years. There were many things written during that time that spoke of a god and the trials and tribulations of a band/tribe/nation of people. Those writings were both for and against. They told many stories. There were different versions of events written by different authors. The finished product of the Bible is a conglomeration of stories that go along with each other to tell a tale of the hardships and triumphs of a specific nationality of people. The writings are a mixture of facts and fables.. truths and embellishments...real and made up places...sorcery, magic and imaginary beings. It was to give a nation hope. Anything that was written but did not fit that purpose was not included.
> There was a span of about 400 years when these writings stopped. The people waited for the prophesies to come true. They didn't. There were many people that claimed and achieved quite a following along the way because of their magical godly powers and ability to fool..ahem..fulfill so called prophesies, they were written about too. Those writing didn't make the cut. Then after 400 years of no God involvement within his "chosen" people a new god-man appeared and was promptly put to death for being a false prophet. The people NEEDED a nicer, kinder, more loving God. The head Honcho no longer fit the bill so in these "new" stories he sent his Son to be killed because he loves us SOOO much. It took about 40 years for the first writings detailing the stories of this guy. Nobody seemed to write about his miraculous abilities as they happened. No actual historians wrote anything about him. It took 40-100years after the "fact" to piece together writings written by anonymous authors that followed similar paths in their stories. The writings that told different versions never made it into the final copy. People will argue that there was no deciding factor, meeting or group that got together and decided what was fit to be in the Bible, but bottom line, there was. Like many religions that last centuries this one is no different. Many people die for what they believe in but that does not make it true. The argument that why would people die for a lie has been said many times but many people do die over and over for lies throughout world history. It does not make their story any more credible.
> THE God of that book has not graced us with it's presence since. Or if it has I guess the writers are waiting a few decades to jot it all down like they remember it...even tho it didn't happen to them and were not actually there.
> 
> Every other religion is as true or as false as this one. It just depends what book you need to believe.



Very good paragraph. To me, this is exactly how I see it. Maybe sort of an " it is what it is " anology.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 12, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I said, "I don't know the relative truth-o-meter".....  and I have no faith that Jesus was married to Mary and ran out of town. I was just pointing out that there is evidence (just as much as a book) that the bible is not accurate. I don't know if it's good or compelling evidence, but there is evidence.



In this thread, I don't care whether or not the Bible is accurate or not.  That was not my point.  I know you don't believe it to be accurate and that you can point to a bunch of issues/proofs as to why you believe that.  My point is that the Bible has changed very very very little since the originals.



Four said:


> It sure is. But i'm beginning to think that like many Christians you're working from the perspective that the bible begins and ends with jesus.





Prove it.  All you do is say the same thing over and over again....and I've commented on your posts several times before and you can never come up with any proof.

As far as my perspective, the Bible starts with Genesis and ends with Revelation.  66 books...no deuterocanonical books...39 in the old, 27 in the new.

You ever researched the Dead Sea Scrolls?  Didn't think so based on your ignorant replies.




Really guys...I'm fine with you thinking it is all fairy tales...or a little bit of truth and a little bit of fiction (kinda like the movie "Inglorius b's" or "Saving Private Ryan").  I'm not trying to prove its 100% accurate in this thread.  But to say that the text has changed over the years...that stories were added...stories embellished...the meaning changed....especially during the dark ages up until the printing press...it just isn't factually correct.

Quit doing what you always claim "Christians" do--say things with no facts or proof to back it up.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 12, 2013)

Wild Turkey said:


> Without religion,morals go out the window and mayhem occurs.



History has proven that can be the result even with religion in place.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 12, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> In this thread, I don't care whether or not the Bible is accurate or not.  That was not my point.  I know you don't believe it to be accurate and that you can point to a bunch of issues/proofs as to why you believe that.  My point is that the Bible has changed very very very little since the originals.



Since the originally published bibles? Maybe. You're going on just as little fact as I was by saying referring to a documentary.. Except I was using that as an example to show that there is just as much evidence to say the bible isn't   necessarily an accurate depiction of history as there is that is accurate. He said she said. Have you seen, read and interpreted dead sea scrolls yourself? Any scrolls? No. Of course not. I wouldn't expect it. You're taking everyone else's word for it. I may be doing that to some extent too, but I'm taking it for what it is. There's so much conflicting... I'm definitely not going to put my faith in what I see as the most extravagant one - one all powerful god. Nor will I put it in a nearly extravagant one - evolution from slime...  

I have no "blind faith" because I don't really have faith in either. I don't need to....


----------



## vowell462 (Mar 12, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> In this thread, I don't care whether or not the Bible is accurate or not.  That was not my point.  I know you don't believe it to be accurate and that you can point to a bunch of issues/proofs as to why you believe that.  My point is that the Bible has changed very very very little since the originals.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I watched a show about a year ago, and I cant remember the channel, or the name of the show but the whole thing was about how the bible was changed several times over the years, things were left out and some put back in. It explained how stories were added and left and why. Its killing me, so Ill try and search for it when I get home because its worth the watch.

As for the original question, Im not sure why the bible was written. My guess would be to give hope to a people who had none. Also, I think that some of the stories were written as how a person 2500 years ago would have perceived them. May not have been a burning bush, but maybe a close comet or meteor. May not have been every animal in the world on the boat just in time for the flood,but every animal in Noahs small world. May not have been a fish swallow a dude, but maybe abducted. May not have been talking animals...but hey, I know a guy who ate mushrooms one time and swore his cat talked to him. Hallucogenic mushrooms come from cow patties in fields today. Could you imagine how much of a high you might get if you lived in the desert 2500 years ago, without nearly the sanitation of today, by eating a goat or horse patty? 
Shoooooot....Im sure I probably could see the Red Sea parting.

These are poor examples I know. Just throwing some ideas around. I just think people thought they saw one thing, but there was probably another explanation for it.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 12, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Have you seen, read and interpreted dead sea scrolls yourself? Any scrolls? No. Of course not. I wouldn't expect it. You're taking everyone else's word for it.





Yes...that is a double face palm.

Really?  I can't take the words of Hebrew experts?  I can't use the research of subject matter experts of archeological digs?

The point is...we have pieces of the OT that are dated well into the BCs and the earliest of the NT pieces are from around 150-200AD.  Now...many people in the 1800s thought that the message had been twisted/warped throughout the centuries (ie Joseph Smith).  Flash forward to the 1950s and more recent....Dead Sea Scrolls were found...archeological findings of other manuscripts were found that pre-dated the work that King James did in the 1600s.  And what did it prove?  The scripture had stayed the same over the years.  There weren't any radical differences.

I've given examples...if you'd like me to quote research papers and give you sources, I'll be able to do that as well....just gotta search my library for the books that show it.

But ultimately, you and Four have made the claim...the burden of proof is on you.  Prove me wrong.


----------



## Snackdaddy66 (Mar 12, 2013)

I believe that the Bible is an account of creation.  It is a compilation of stories from different people at different times.  The Bible is full of prophecies that were foreshadowed from early writers that were substantiated by later writers.  There were similar accounts of the same events from people that were there or were told by others that were there.  The stories vary somewhat, but are generally consistent.  From the very beginning, evil manifested itself, when man and woman defied God and were from that point forward allowed to make conscious decisions between right and wrong.  I believe there is a good and bad force that people of all generations have continually struggled and the same struggles we face today are personified in the teachings in the Bible.  Someone mentioned that if God is all powerful, why doesn’t he stop evil or if he can and doesn’t, he is not a loving God.  Again, there are plenty of teachings that address this point throughout the Bible.  I have read the Bible a couple of times and quite frankly, I would be the first to admit that I am not a theologian.  However, I am a believer and once I took the time to listen and talk through prayer, I see evidence of a higher power on a regular basis.  Nothing anyone can say or do will change my beliefs and faith and quite frankly, if I am wrong like so many of you believe, then what do I lose.  If I am right, and I believe wholeheartedly that I am, then read Revelations and you make the decision.

Long answer to your question, but I do not believe it was written for any purpose other than an actual account of the creation spanning over a period of time.


----------



## Four (Mar 12, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> Prove it.  All you do is say the same thing over and over again....and I've commented on your posts several times before and you can never come up with any proof.
> 
> As far as my perspective, the Bible starts with Genesis and ends with Revelation.  66 books...no deuterocanonical books...39 in the old, 27 in the new.
> 
> You ever researched the Dead Sea Scrolls?  Didn't think so based on your ignorant replies.



What on earth do the dead sea scrolls have to do with it? I believe they date from 200-60 BCE or so? They're not an original source by a long shot. Some parts are said to have been composed as early as 1200BCE.

Generally, I believe the texts in the OT are dated by the use of language and vernacular.  It's like if you read a book and half of it was written in language used in the 50's "gee willikers!" but the other half was written in how english was written in the 1700's. 

Here is a nifty read I found. I have a hard time getting to original sources as i don't have any subscriptions to relevant journals.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 12, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> Yes...that is a double face palm.
> 
> Really?  I can't take the words of Hebrew experts?  I can't use the research of subject matter experts of archeological digs?
> 
> ...



Dude... you're getting way too bent out of shape over this... I'm just saying that you're taking their words for it, just like we take scientists words for it and the like. Even if they were translated well, the originals may not have been accurate, true or whatever. All I'm saying is that you're taking the word of the book and plotting your entire life by it. Quite a leap to take over a book...


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 12, 2013)

Four said:


> What on earth do the dead sea scrolls have to do with it? I believe they date from 200-60 BCE or so? They're not an original source by a long shot. Some parts are said to have been composed as early as 1200BCE.
> 
> Generally, I believe the texts in the OT are dated by the use of language and vernacular.  It's like if you read a book and half of it was written in language used in the 50's "gee willikers!" but the other half was written in how english was written in the 1700's.
> 
> Here is a nifty read I found. I have a hard time getting to original sources as i don't have any subscriptions to relevant journals.



Okay...so in your op above, you said that the Bible was "edited and changed even more over the years."  

So, I'm asking...when did this editing/changing take place?  Because the documents that we have dating back several thousand years are very very similar to the documents we had several hundred years ago and are very similar to the documents we have today.



TripleXBullies said:


> Dude... you're getting way too bent out of shape over this... I'm just saying that you're taking their words for it, just like we take scientists words for it and the like. Even if they were translated well, the originals may not have been accurate, true or whatever. All I'm saying is that you're taking the word of the book and plotting your entire life by it. Quite a leap to take over a book...



No...we all must rely upon subject matter experts.  It is impossible for us all to know everything.

And if you re-read all of my posts in response to Four's post above, you'll see I am not claiming that the book was originally accurate or true (although I believe it to be).  What I'm saying is that from the earliest copies we have to the latest copies we have, they are all very very similar.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 12, 2013)

Ok. Maybe... I am not necessarily trying to dispute that myself...


----------



## Four (Mar 12, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> Okay...so in your op above, you said that the Bible was "edited and changed even more over the years."
> 
> So, I'm asking...when did this editing/changing take place?  Because the documents that we have dating back several thousand years are very very similar to the documents we had several hundred years ago and are very similar to the documents we have today.



It's taken place continuously, but more so the earlier you go. the OT was originally a compilations of different stories and texts written by different people and culture. Nearly the same with the NT before the first council of Nicaea. Less so afterwards.

Heck, to this day it still gets re-translated as we understand the ancient languages better, etc.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 12, 2013)

Four said:


> It's taken place continuously, but more so the earlier you go. the OT was originally a compilations of different stories and texts written by different people and culture. Nearly the same with the NT before the first council of Nicaea. Less so afterwards.



Then why did the pieces of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other archeological digs give proof that the changes had not occurred....that those sections were almost verbatim what they had currently.



			
				Four said:
			
		

> Heck, to this day it still gets re-translated as we understand the ancient languages better, etc.



Translation issues and changes do not change the meaning of the text.  Going from "Thou hast said" to "You said" doesn't change the message or the meaning.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 12, 2013)

I've asked this before and have yet to receive an answer.  Maybe this time will be different.

What changed?  Let's hear some examples.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 12, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Ok. Maybe... I am not necessarily trying to dispute that myself...





Good...maybe I can convince you of at least something


----------



## Four (Mar 12, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> Then why did the pieces of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other archeological digs give proof that the changes had not occurred....that those sections were almost verbatim what they had currently.



Well, first off the dead sea scrolls have the Book of Esther, which isn't even in the newest version. 

Besides that, iff the dead sea scrolls line up with today's old testament, and the dead sea scrolls contain the exact same parts (not just pieces) of the OT, that only means that the old testament hasn't changed much since the writing of the dead sea scrolls. It doesn't mean that it hasn't changed prior to that, and says nothing of the new testament.

To say that the bible hasn't been changed/edited much over time is wrong.



rjcruiser said:


> Translation issues and changes do not change the meaning of the text.  Going from "Thou hast said" to "You said" doesn't change the message or the meaning.



It certainly can. Have you ever used some online automated language translators? Ever seen some of the really hilarious translations? 

google translated


English to greek
"Mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivory. A kid'll eat ivory too."

turns into

"Mares τρώνε βρώμη και δεν τρώνε βρώμη και λίγο αρνιά τρώνε ελεφαντόδοντο. Μια kid'll τρώνε πάρα πολύ ελεφαντόδοντο."

If we put that back in, and translate it back to english, we get.

"Mares eat oats and eat oats and little lambs eat ivory. A kid'll eat too much ivory."


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 12, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> What changed?  Let's hear some examples.



"8"


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 12, 2013)

Four said:


> It certainly can. Have you ever used some online automated language translators? Ever seen some of the really hilarious translations?
> 
> google translated
> 
> ...



Now, say you have an expert on the English language, and an expert on the Greek language going over this translation together, what do you think the final outcome would be?


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 12, 2013)

Four said:


> Well, first off the dead sea scrolls have the Book of Esther, which isn't even in the newest version.
> 
> Besides that, iff the dead sea scrolls line up with today's old testament, and the dead sea scrolls contain the exact same parts (not just pieces) of the OT, that only means that the old testament hasn't changed much since the writing of the dead sea scrolls. It doesn't mean that it hasn't changed prior to that, and says nothing of the new testament.
> 
> ...





Really...google tranlsator is where you determine if translation causes sentences to change meaning?

That's why the ESV or the NASB or the NIV didn't use google translator, but a team of linguistic experts to make sure going from Hebrew/Greek to English didn't have the typical issues that some computer program might have.


As far as the changes/differences from Dead Sea Scrolls to now...are you saying now that there were no changes between 400 bc and today?  But that all the changes happened between the time it was original written to the timing of the oldest archealogical find?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 12, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


>



whoa, tha triple facepalm, not good four, not good. 



> As far as the changes/differences from Dead Sea Scrolls to now...are you saying now that there were no changes between 400 bc and today?  But that all the changes happened between the time it was original written to the timing of the oldest archealogical find?



They had to make all the changes real fast like so nobody would notice.  well, except for modern day atheists.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 12, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> They had to make all the changes real fast like so nobody would notice.  well, except for modern day atheists.



I mean...it is possible...that changes could occur in the first 1000 years between the time of Moses and the time we started finding scrolls and such.  But the problem is this.

Usually, with any writings or story, the changes are like an upwards curve with the y axis being changes and the x axis being time.  The more time passes, the more the changes occur....or at a bare minimum, the changes that took place in the first 1000 years, continue at the same rate as the next 1000 years (especially since writing tools and modern day printing presses weren't invented until 1500s).  But to say and argue that all of the changes happened in the first 1000 years....then no changes happened at all is really pushing the limit.  That is when you have to really have "blind faith" to believe.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 12, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Thanks for your well thought out answer, you're wrong on many counts, but thanks none the less.
> 
> And before you ask, I'm not sure I feel like going through and quoting different parts of it, then finding sources and discrediting your incorrect claims, then you finding sources, and back and forth and back and forth.


----------



## cuda67bnl (Mar 12, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> I've asked this before and have yet to receive an answer.  Maybe this time will be different.
> 
> What changed?  Let's hear some examples.



Get the book "misquoting jesus". 
Or just spend some time on google. They're are multiple examples from modern scholars and their research. Plenty of things have been added over time.


----------



## Four (Mar 12, 2013)

we know with near certainty that they changed from the beginning, because the writing styles span centuries.

Also, come on with the translations guys, we know how some things translate well or not well with different languages, and the meanings change depending. That all with modern languages, let alone dead nearly lost languages. 

I only postured that as we understand ancient languages better, the syntax, definitions, etc, the bible changes, even if minimally.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 12, 2013)

cuda67bnl said:


> Get the book "misquoting jesus".
> Or just spend some time on google.



No.  Tell me what's changed.




cuda67bnl said:


> They're are multiple examples from modern scholars and their research.



Great.  Let's hear one.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 12, 2013)

Who changed the Bible and why? Bart Ehrman’s startling answers
Erich Vieth 

How often do we hear people “explaining” religious beliefs by stating ”The Bible says so,” as if the Bible fell out of the sky, pre-translated to English by God Himself?  It’s not that simple, according to an impressive and clearly-written book that should be required reading for anyone who claims to know “what the Bible says.”

The 2005 bestseller, Misquoting Jesus, was not written by a raving atheist.  Rather, it was written by a fellow who had a born-again experience in high school, then went on to attend the ultraconservative Moody Bible Institute in Chicago.  Bart Ehrman didn’t stop there, however.  He wanted to become an evangelical voice with credentials that would enable him to teach in secular settings.  It was for this reason that he continued his education at Wheaton and, eventually, Princeton, picking up the ability to read the New Testament in its original Greek in the process.

As a result of his disciplined study, Ehrman increasingly questioned the fundamentalist approach that the “Bible is the inerrant Word of God.  It contains no mistakes.”  Through his studies, Ehrman determined that the Bible was not free of mistakes:

    We have only error ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways.

(Page 7).  At Princeton, Ehrman learned that mistakes had been made in the copying of the New Testament over the centuries.  Upon realizing this, “the floodgates opened.”  In Mark 4, for example, Jesus allegedly stated that the mustard seed is “the smallest of all seeds on the earth.”  Ehrman knew that this simply was not true.  The more he studied the early manuscripts, the more he realized that the Bible was full of contradictions.  For instance, Mark writes that Jesus was crucified the day after the Passover meal (Mark 14:12; 15:25) while John says Jesus died the day before the Passover meal (John 19:14).

Ehrman often heard that the words of the Bible were inspired.  Obviously, the Bible was not originally written in English.  Perhaps, suggests Ehrman, the full meaning and nuance of the New Testament could only be grasped when it was read in its original Greek (and the Old Testament could be fully appreciated only when studied in its original Hebrew) (page 6).

misquoting-jesus-bart-ehrman

Because of these language barriers and the undeniable mistakes and contradictions, Ehrman realized that the Bible could not be the “fully inspired, inerrant Word of God.”  Instead, it appeared to him to be a “very human book.”  Human authors had originally written the text at different times and in different places to address different needs.  Certainly, the Bible does not provide an an “errant guide as to how we should live. This is the shift in my own thinking that I ended up making, and to which I am now fully committed.”

How pervasive is the belief that the Bible is inerrant, that every word of the Bible is precise and true?

    Occasionally I see a bumper sticker that reads: “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.”  My response is always, what if God didn’t say it?  What if the book you take as giving you God’s words instead contains human words.  What if the Bible doesn’t give a foolproof answer to the questions of the modern age-abortion, women’s rights, gay rights, religious and supremacy, western style democracy and the like?  What if we have to figure out how to live and what to believe on our own, without setting up the Bible as a false idol–or an oracle that gives us a direct line of communication with the Almighty.

(Page 14).  Ehrman continues to appreciate the Bible as an important collection of writings, but urges that it needs to be read and understood in the context of textual criticism, “a compelling and intriguing field of study of real importance not just to scholars but to everyone with an interest in the Bible.”  Ehrman finds it striking that most readers of the Bible know almost nothing about textual criticism.  He comments that this is not surprising, in that very few books have been written about textual criticism for a lay audience (namely, “those who know nothing about it, who don’t have the Greek and other languages necessary for the in-depth study of it who do not realize there is even any “problem” with the text).

Misquoting Jesus provides much background into how the Bible became the Bible.  It happened through numerous human decisions over the centuries.  For instance, the first time any Christian of record listed the 27 books of the New Testament as the books of the New Testament was 300 years after the books have been written (page 36).  And those works have been radically altered over the years at the hands of the scribes “who were not only conserving scripture but also changing it.”  Ehrman points out that most of the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among the manuscripts were “completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance.”  In short, they were innocent mistakes involving misspelling or inadvertence.

On the other hand, the very meaning of the text changed in some instances.  Some Bible scholars have even concluded that it makes no sense to talk about the “original” text of the Bible.  (Page 210).  As a result of studying surviving Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, Ehrman concluded that we simply don’t have the original words constituting the New Testament.

    Not only do we not have the originals, we don’t have the first copies of the originals.  We don’t even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the copies of the originals.  What we have are copies made later-much later.  In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later.  And these copies all differ from one another, and many thousands of places . . . Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts and there are words in the New Testament.

In Misquoting Jesus Bart Ehrman spells out the ways in which several critical passages of the New Testament were changed or concocted.  They are startling examples:

A.) Everyone knows the story about Jesus and the woman about to be stoned by the mob.  This account is only found in John 7:53-8:12.  The mob asked Jesus whether they should stone the woman (the punishment required by the Old Testament) or show her mercy. Jesus doesn’t fall for this trap.  Jesus allegedly states “Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.”  The crowd dissipates out of shame.  Ehrman states that this brilliant story was not originally in the Gospel of John or in any of the Gospels.  “It was added by later scribes.”  The story is not found in “our oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John.  Nor does its writing style comport with the rest of John.  Most serious textual critics state that this story should not be considered part of the Bible (page 65).

B) after Jesus died, Mary Magdalene and two other women came back to the tomb to anoint the body of Jesus, according to Mark 16:1-2).  They were met by a man in a white robe who told them that Jesus had been raised and was no longer there.  The women fled and said nothing more to anyone out of fear (16:4-8).  Everyone knows the rest of Mark’s Gospel, of course.  The problem with the remainder of the story is that none of it was originally in the Gospel of Mark.  It was added by a later scribe.  Those additions include all of the following:

Jesus himself appeared to Mary Magdalene.  She told the eleven apostles (minus Judas) about this vision, but they did not believe her.  Jesus then appeared to the apostles, chastising them for failing to believe.  He tells them that those who believe will be saved and those who don’t will be condemned.  Then follows a critically important passage of the Bible.

    And these are the signs that will accompany those who believe: they will cast out demons in my name; they will speak in new tongues; and they will take up snakes in their hands; and if they drink any poison, it will not harm them; they will place their hands upon the sick and heal them.

Jesus is then allegedly taken up into heaven and sits at the right hand of God, while the disciples go forth into the world to proclaim the Gospel in miraculous fashion.

Without the above passages (which, again, were not written by Mark) the Pentecostals lose their justification for speaking in “tongues.”  And the Appalachian snake handlers have no basis for their dangerous practices.

C) John 5:7-8 is the only passage in the entire Bible “that explicitly delineates the doctrine of the Trinity (that there are three persons and God but that all three constitute a single God):

    There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Spirit and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness on earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.

Ehrman cites strong evidence that this Trinity passage was entirely concocted and foisted upon Erasmus by outraged theologians who needed support for their prized theological doctrine (page 81).

–

Ehrman reveals numerous other difficulties with the popular assumption that the Bible was perfectly handed down from its original written expression.

Many believers rely fervently on the King James version of the Bible, for instance.  They sometimes even say “If the King James was good enough for St. Paul, it’s good enough for me.”  Ehrman points out many problems with the King James version, warning that “we need to face up to the facts.”

    The King James was not given by God but was a translation by a group of scholars in the early 17th century who based their rendition on a faulty Greek text.

(Page 209).

So what should we make of the Bible?  Ehrman argues that the attacks of the New Testament are not simply collections of obvious, self-interpreting words.  It’s the same problem we have with other important documents, such as the United States Constitution:

    Texts do not simply reveal their own meanings to honest inquirers.  Texts are interpreted and they are interpreted (just as they were written) by living, breathing human beings, who can make sense of texts only by explaining them in light of other other knowledge, explicating their meaning, putting the words of the text “in other words.”

(Page 217) The scribes changed the original words of the New Testament by putting them in other words.

In my experience, many people who cherry pick excerpts from the Bible as the proper way to determine what is moral are in utter denial that we don’t have accurate copies of the original writings.   Most of them refuse to acknowledge that current popular versions of the Bible contain numerous discrepancies, even compared to the earliest manuscripts we do have.  This is on top of the fact that their are hundreds of patent contradictions in the English version of the Bible.  To most believers, none of this matters.  Stay the course!  In fact, in my experience most believers rarely read what the consider to be God’s own inspired word.

Ehrman’s book points out numerous troublesome issues that demand attention even assuming that the original writers of the Bible accurately reported the events described in their original writings (whatever those writings were).   The elephant in the room, however, is that none of the authors of the Gospels ever claimed to witness any of the events they were reporting.  Further, the extraodinary nature of Biblical claims demands extraordinary proof that ancient self-contradictory writings are simply incapable of providing, except to those of us who believe that the Bible is completely true “because it says so in the Bible.”

For all of those people who continue to go around clentching and thumping those Bibles they bought at Wal-Mart, and for all the rest of us who want to get the story straight, Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus should be required reading.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 12, 2013)

http://carm.org/christianity/bible/hasnt-bible-been-rewritten-so-many-times-we-cant-trust-it-anymore


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 12, 2013)

How long do you want to go back and forth Bullet?



> This is a rather huge question. It is huge on the part of my fellow Christians who have been ordered to be prepared to give a reason for the hope that is in us. Just in case you were wondering that comes from the text in 1Pet. 3:15, “but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,…” Why should someone consider Jesus and the Bible above any other mode of religiosity? Are there, or are there not 1,000 flavors to choose from? It’s no wonder why so many people choose one denomination over another. We view this overwhelming diversity of distinctives from one denomination to the next as a menu from which to choose based on our likes and dislikes. What church can I go to that won’t make me change too much? What line of thinking resonates with me the most? Are these fair questions? I’m sure they have run through our heads at one point or another right? It ran through my head for sure. The question however should be how can I come to know God? We should be prepared to do whatever it takes to know Him regardless of how much or little we have to change about our lives and thinking… This is huge for followers of Christ because souls hang in the balance. This is also a huge question for those who have yet to make a decision. On the other side of this life is an unknown that presents many possibilities each with no time limit. Heaven or - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH - What would it be like to be a citizen of Paradise for all of the forseeable future and beyond? What would it be like to be a citizen of - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH - for eternity? Those questions should make you uncomfortable because we are discussing eternity as finite people. It is not enough for believers in Christ to give a testimony of what Jesus has done for me. That has been our approach for fifty years and it has given us some pretty dismal results. Why has Christianity been overlooked? I think it is because we have not asked ourselves the hard questions and come up with answers that bring us closer to making a choice for or against Christ. What I am about to propose to you is not a formula that proves Christianity in a tangible sense. At the end of the day you and I still come to the issue of faith because we cannot know to the nth degree. There is a realm of discovery for all of us at the time of death. It is up to you to consider all of the ancient writings that seem to give us a handle on the things of God. I ran across a piece that Ravi Zacharias did and it really is a great representation of the things we must consider so as not to enter into eternity blindly, or because we think we get to make it up as we go… So, why Christ and why the Bible?
> 
> First, I would say that I believe truth as a category does exist. Second, I would say that it is possible in a majority of claims of philosophical and historical statements to verify the truthfulness of those affirmations. I believe we must consider the nature of existential realities as well as those of philosophical realities. I have heard it said that, “Existentialism came into being as a response to the unpaid bills of philosophy.” Philosophy became so cerebral and the prospect of existentialism came in and sort of threw out the rationalistic way of interpreting things. This is a definition of existentialism…
> Existentialism– noun. A philosophical movement centered on individual existence: A philosophical movement begun in the 19th century that denies that the universe has any intrinsic meaning or purpose. It requires people to take responsibility for their own actions and shape their own destinies.
> ...


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 12, 2013)

Four said:


> we know with near certainty that they changed from the beginning, because the writing styles span centuries.



Just like we know with near certainty that the Earth was created in 6 days? 




			
				Four said:
			
		

> Also, come on with the translations guys, we know how some things translate well or not well with different languages, and the meanings change depending. That all with modern languages, let alone dead nearly lost languages.



Last I checked Hebrew and Greek were not dead nearly lost languages....both being the two languages that the Bible was written in.



			
				Four said:
			
		

> I only postured that as we understand ancient languages better, the syntax, definitions, etc, the bible changes, even if minimally.



No....you did not only "posture" that the Bible changes "minimally."  You said it changed greatly over time....moreso early on (which is even harder to justify).  

See your quotes from above.



Four said:


> The bible was written by a LOT of different people, and edited and changed but even more over the years.





Four said:


> It's taken place continuously, but more so the earlier you go. the OT was originally a compilations of different stories and texts written by different people and culture. Nearly the same with the NT before the first council of Nicaea. Less so afterwards.
> 
> Heck, to this day it still gets re-translated as we understand the ancient languages better, etc.





Four said:


> To say that the bible hasn't been changed/edited much over time is wrong.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 12, 2013)

98% of the text holds up to be accurate to the oldest known copies. There are no originals left. The earliest writings(which are copies of copies of copies of copies) are in tattered remnants. Only minor spelling, punctuation and things that do not really change the story are the 2% of what is changed. But...... things that are contained in the writings just do not fit with the stories being told along with them. They seems to have been added at some point and it certainly would have been or could have been before the earliest remnant copy of a copy of a copy that we now have.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 12, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> How long do you want to go back and forth Bullet?



I'm fairly young yet. Id say we can go another 40 years easy.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Who changed the Bible and why? Bart Ehrman’s startling answers
> Erich Vieth
> 
> How often do we hear people “explaining” religious beliefs by stating ”The Bible says so,” as if the Bible fell out of the sky, pre-translated to English by God Himself?  It’s not that simple, according to an impressive and clearly-written book that should be required reading for anyone who claims to know “what the Bible says.”
> ...



First of all ... Ehrman had to get to Princeton before he realized mistakes had been made by copyists?  I knew that in high school.

Second ... all my Bibles have footnotes about the woman caught in adultery and the last verses of Mark 16 and 1 John 5.  If this is the best you've got, you're not exactly blowin' my skirt up.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 12, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> First of all ... Ehrman had to get to Princeton before he realized mistakes had been made by copyists?  I knew that in high school.
> 
> Second ... all my Bibles have footnotes about the woman caught in adultery and the last verses of Mark 16 and 1 John 5.  If this is the best you've got, you're not exactly blowin' my skirt up.



Clearly the first manuscript had "footnotes"

I have learned to never show my full hand too early.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Misquoting Jesus provides much background into how the Bible became the Bible.  It happened through numerous human decisions over the centuries.  For instance, the first time any Christian of record listed the 27 books of the New Testament as the books of the New Testament was 300 years after the books have been written (page 36).  And those works have been radically altered over the years at the hands of the scribes “who were not only conserving scripture but also changing it.”  Ehrman points out that most of the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among the manuscripts were “completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance.”  In short, they were innocent mistakes involving misspelling or inadvertence.



I'd agree with this for the most part.



			
				bullethead said:
			
		

> And these are the signs that will accompany those who believe: they will cast out demons in my name; they will speak in new tongues; and they will take up snakes in their hands; and if they drink any poison, it will not harm them; they will place their hands upon the sick and heal them.
> 
> Jesus is then allegedly taken up into heaven and sits at the right hand of God, while the disciples go forth into the world to proclaim the Gospel in miraculous fashion.
> 
> Without the above passages (which, again, were not written by Mark) the Pentecostals lose their justification for speaking in “tongues.”  And the Appalachian snake handlers have no basis for their dangerous practices.



Actually, I believe the Pentecostals look more to Acts 2 for the gift of tongues.  Also, I & II Corinthians talk about spiritual gifts...but let's not look elsewhere.



			
				bullethead said:
			
		

> C) John 5:7-8 is the only passage in the entire Bible “that explicitly delineates the doctrine of the Trinity (that there are three persons and God but that all three constitute a single God):
> 
> There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Spirit and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness on earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.
> 
> Ehrman cites strong evidence that this Trinity passage was entirely concocted and foisted upon Erasmus by outraged theologians who needed support for their prized theological doctrine (page 81).



This is just plain false.  EarlyChurchFathers discussed the Trinity and it is a doctrine explained throughout the Bible.

John 1:1...all through Acts it shows the Holy Spirit coming upon man...etc etc.




			
				bullethead said:
			
		

> In my experience, many people who cherry pick excerpts from the Bible as the proper way to determine what is moral are in utter denial that we don’t have accurate copies of the original writings.   Most of them refuse to acknowledge that current popular versions of the Bible contain numerous discrepancies, even compared to the earliest manuscripts we do have.  This is on top of the fact that their are hundreds of patent contradictions in the English version of the Bible.  To most believers, none of this matters.  Stay the course!  In fact, in my experience most believers rarely read what the consider to be God’s own inspired word.



Anyone who cherry picks scripture is a fool.  The problem is, you and Ehrman are doing that very thing.  Look at the entire Bible...where you point to an error in one place, it is backed up and supported in another (examples above).



stringmusic said:


> How long do you want to go back and forth Bullet?



String...thanks for posting that info from Metzger.  He's the person I've read about before as going through the potential changes.  99.6%  Pretty good if you ask me.  Especially considering the age, the time span it was written and the multiple authors it had.  Obviously, there was a "higher power" that was overlooking it.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 12, 2013)

Interesting.

Author1 Date
Written Earliest Copy Approximate Time Span between original & copy Number of Copies Accuracy of Copies 
Lucretius died 55 or 53 B.C. 
 1100 yrs 2 ---- 
Pliny 61-113 A.D. 850 A.D. 750 yrs 7 ---- 
Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 yrs 7 ---- 
Demosthenes 4th Cent. B.C. 1100 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ---- 
Herodotus 480-425 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ---- 
Suetonius 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ---- 
Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ---- 
Euripides 480-406 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1300 yrs 9 ---- 
Aristophanes 450-385 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 yrs 10 ---- 
Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1000 yrs 10 ---- 
Livy 59 BC-AD 17 ---- ??? 20 ---- 
Tacitus circa 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1000 yrs 20 ---- 
Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1400 yrs 49 ---- 
Sophocles 496-406 B.C. 1000 A.D 1400 yrs 193 ---- 
Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643 95% 
New
Testament 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D. 2nd Cent. A.D.
(c. 130 A.D. f.) less than 100 years 5600 99.5%


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 12, 2013)

Here is some more info on "Misquoting Jesus"



> First, one of Dr. Ehrman’s rhetorically powerful quotations is that there are over 400,000 variations in the New Testament; more variations than words. Conservative textual scholar Daniel Wallace also agrees with Dr. Ehrman’s estimation of the number of variants in the New Testament. When Dr. Ehrman makes this statement he has one purpose in mind, and that is to dismiss any ideas people may have that the New Testament is accurate. However, as Paul Harvey used to say, “You know what the news is, in a minute; you're going to hear ... the rest of the story” what is the rest of the story regarding these variants?
> 
> 
> What is the rest of the story regarding New Testament variants? These variants are differences between the existing ancient New Testament manuscripts. There is a book that Greek scholars use called the Novem Testamentum Graece, also called the Nestle-Aland, 27th edition (abbreviated as NA27). This book lists every verse in the New Testament along with all variations found in the existing manuscripts. When scholars look at these variants they divide them into one of two categories, insignificant and significant. Insignificant variants are transposed letters, misspellings, phonetic spelling, abbreviations and style changes. Significant variations are variants that intentional changes that add to or subtract from the meaning of the text.
> ...


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Clearly the first manuscript had "footnotes"



No, but there are differences in manuscripts.  Nobody denies that.  Ask any "KJV only" person if there are differences in manuscripts.  




bullethead said:


> I have learned to never show my full hand too early.



So, we can assume the pair of deuces above is just a bluff and the straight flush will soon appear?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 12, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> String...thanks for posting that info from Metzger.  He's the person I've read about before as going through the potential changes.  99.6%  Pretty good if you ask me.  Especially considering the age, the time span it was written and the multiple authors it had.  Obviously, there was a "higher power" that was overlooking it.



Yea, Metzger was as legit as it gets on Biblical text, especially the New Testament.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Metzger



> Bruce Manning Metzger (9 February 1914 – 13 February 2007) was an American biblical scholar and textual critic who was a longtime professor at Princeton Theological Seminary and Bible editor who served on the board of the American Bible Society and United Bible Societies. He was a scholar of Greek, New Testament, and New Testament Textual Criticism, and wrote prolifically on these subjects. Metzger is widely-considered to be one of the most influential New Testament scholars of the 20th century.[1][2]


----------



## bullethead (Mar 12, 2013)

Some more to read:


> 2001
> 
> There has been one reoccuring claim by Christians regarding the bible; I have heard it from nearly every Christian who corresponds with me. It is the statement that the bible-- being a perfect book, written by forty writers all inspired by God-- has remained unchanged for thousands of years. This claim, when made by by a layman, shows his ignorance of the subject, and when made a religious authority, is dishonest and misleading.
> 
> ...


continued>>>


----------



## bullethead (Mar 12, 2013)

continuation:


> Christian Councils
> 
> Many believe that the Council of Nicea, held in 325 A.D., determined what books should constitute the Bible. This council did not determine the canon. So far as is known, the first church council which acted upon this question was the Synod of Laodicea which met in 365. This council rejected the Apocryphal books contained in Augustine's list, but admitted Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah. It excluded Revelation.
> 
> ...


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> 2001
> 
> There has been one reoccuring claim by Christians regarding the bible; I have heard it from nearly every Christian who corresponds with me. It is the statement that the bible-- being a perfect book, written by forty writers all inspired by God-- has remained unchanged for thousands of years. This claim, when made by by a layman, shows his ignorance of the subject, and when made a religious authority, is dishonest and misleading.
> 
> ...



OK, who wrote this?  It can't be Ehrman.  There are too many mistakes.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Christian Councils
> 
> Many believe that the Council of Nicea, held in 325 A.D., determined what books should constitute the Bible. This council did not determine the canon. So far as is known, the first church council which acted upon this question was the Synod of Laodicea which met in 365. This council rejected the Apocryphal books contained in Augustine's list, but admitted Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah. It excluded Revelation.
> 
> ...



I don't know how many times I've said the exact same thing -- to a skeptic -- on this forum.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 12, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> That's pretty Machiavellian for a bunch of uneducated goat herders and fishermen.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 12, 2013)

Codex Vaticanus. Tell us all about it.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 12, 2013)

I can tell you that posts 92 and 93 are not Codex Vaticanus.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 12, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> I can tell you that posts 92 and 93 are not Codex Vaticanus.



I hope you have more than that.
I never said they were.
What is the Codex Vaticanus?


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I never said they were.
> What is the Codex Vaticanus?



I thought you were answering my question in post 94 with "Codex Vaticanus".

Codex Vaticanus is a manuscript found in the Vatican (hence the name.)  Along with Codex Sinaiticus, it forms the basis for most modern translations.

So ... who did write that?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 12, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> I thought you were answering my question in post 94 with "Codex Vaticanus".
> 
> Codex Vaticanus is a manuscript found in the Vatican (hence the name.)  Along with Codex Sinaiticus, it forms the basis for most modern translations.
> 
> So ... who did write that?



Ken


----------



## bullethead (Mar 12, 2013)

how accurate is the Codex Vaticanus?


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Ken



Ken Stabler, the former Oakland Raiders quarterback?  I loved The Snake!

C'mon.  Ken who?


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> how accurate is the Codex Vaticanus?



Tell me "Ken who", and I'll tell you how accurate.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 12, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Ken Stabler, the former Oakland Raiders quarterback?  I loved The Snake!
> 
> C'mon.  Ken who?



That's all I know. 
ken.freethinker@gmail.com if you want to get in touch with the author.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> That's all I know.
> ken.freethinker@gmail.com if you want to get in touch with the author.



Fair enough.  A quick Google search for "free thinker" produced a lot of atheist hits, which is what I expected.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> how accurate is the Codex Vaticanus?



It depends on who you ask.  A KJV only person thinks it is more suitable as toilet paper.  I, OTOH, think it and Sinaiticus are accurate, although they differ from the Majority text.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 12, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Fair enough.  A quick Google search for "free thinker" produced a lot of atheist hits, which is what I expected.



Ken wasn't so bad when he agreed with you about the Counsel and Canon....


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Ken wasn't so bad when he agreed with you about the Counsel and Canon....



He's the first atheist on this forum to do so.  I salute him for his honesty.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 12, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> It depends on who you ask.  A KJV only person thinks it is more suitable as toilet paper.  I, OTOH, think it and Sinaiticus are accurate, although they differ from the Majority text.



Well why would they differ if they are earliest full copies of the Old and New Testaments?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Well why would they differ if they are earliest full copies of the Old and New Testaments?



???


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> ???



Took a snack break.  Sorry.




bullethead said:


> Well why would they differ if they are earliest full copies of the Old and New Testaments?



As Brother Bart discovered at Princeton, differences are inevitable when human copyists are involved.  The vast majority are very minor and relate to spelling and punctuation.  The most significant I'm aware of have already been mentioned:  the woman caught in adultery and the last verses of Mark.

Gotta walk the dog now, but I'll be back.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 12, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Took a snack break.  Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If I understand correctly,  there are complete verses not in Vaticanus but are in later manuscripts.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> If I understand correctly,  there are complete verses not in Vaticanus but are in later manuscripts.



Yes.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 12, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Yes.



So, one of the earliest complete versions of the Bible has less verses than later complete versions of the Bible and I am supposed to go along with the argument that all of them are inerrant works of a god using his powers through man to get his word across. The earlier version has the usual punctuation errors, misspelled words and complete missing verses OR does the newer versions have the usual punctuation errors, misspelled words and  added verses that were never in the original earliest manuscripts?
What am I missing here on the consistency of this/these Bibles???


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 12, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> Again, I'm not trying to prove/disprove the Bible is 100% true in this thread.  What I'm saying is that it hasn't changed since the original was written.



You'll have to define 'original'.  If you're talking about THE Original (what you call the "Old" Testament)  then YES, it has been *******ized, adulterated, twisted and misconstrued to fit the Christian agenda.



bullethead said:


> The Bible is a collection of stories put together over a span of at least 1500 years. There were many things written during that time that spoke of a god and the trials and tribulations of a band/tribe/nation of people. Those writings were both for and against. They told many stories. There were different versions of events written by different authors. The finished product of the Bible is a conglomeration of stories that go along with each other to tell a tale of the hardships and triumphs of a specific nationality of people. The writings are a mixture of facts and fables.. truths and embellishments...real and made up places...sorcery, magic and imaginary beings. It was to give a nation hope. Anything that was written but did not fit that purpose was not included.
> There was a span of about 400 years when these writings stopped. The people waited for the prophesies to come true. They didn't. There were many people that claimed and achieved quite a following along the way because of their magical godly powers and ability to fool..ahem..fulfill so called prophesies, they were written about too. Those writing didn't make the cut. Then after 400 years of no God involvement within his "chosen" people a new god-man appeared and was promptly put to death for being a false prophet. The people NEEDED a nicer, kinder, more loving God. The head Honcho no longer fit the bill so in these "new" stories he sent his Son to be killed because he loves us SOOO much. It took about 40 years for the first writings detailing the stories of this guy. Nobody seemed to write about his miraculous abilities as they happened. No actual historians wrote anything about him. It took 40-100years after the "fact" to piece together writings written by anonymous authors that followed similar paths in their stories. The writings that told different versions never made it into the final copy. People will argue that there was no deciding factor, meeting or group that got together and decided what was fit to be in the Bible, but bottom line, there was. Like many religions that last centuries this one is no different. Many people die for what they believe in but that does not make it true. The argument that why would people die for a lie has been said many times but many people do die over and over for lies throughout world history. It does not make their story any more credible.
> THE God of that book has not graced us with it's presence since. Or if it has I guess the writers are waiting a few decades to jot it all down like they remember it...even tho it didn't happen to them and were not actually there.
> 
> Every other religion is as true or as false as this one. It just depends what book you need to believe.



Wonderful post. 



mtnwoman said:


> Since we have free will to make our own choices...which everyone screams about having, then how can God do anything? He could completely control everything if we were smart enough to listen.
> 
> How can a smoker expect to be healed from cancer? God say's 'just do anything you want to I'll save all of you from destruction'? It's not God's choice for us to smoke, or drink or gamble our grocery money away....but when we do, why do we wanna blame it on God for not fixing it? It's our free will at work....generally speaking.



That argument might fly.... if non-smokers didn't get cancer too....  



rjcruiser said:


> Prove it.  All you do is say the same thing over and over again....and I've commented on your posts several times before and you can never come up with any proof.
> 
> As far as my perspective, the Bible starts with Genesis and ends with Revelation.  66 books...no deuterocanonical books...39 in the old, 27 in the new.
> 
> ...



I found this reply funny, seeing how a few posts up you didn't feel like taking the time to 'prove' your position...  



rjcruiser said:


> Translation issues and changes do not change the meaning of the text.  Going from "Thou hast said" to "You said" doesn't change the message or the meaning.



YES THEY DO.  When you mis-translate 'young maiden' to 'virgin' to try and support your belief in a man-god, it sure does change the meaning of the text.



centerpin fan said:


> No.  Tell me what's changed.



Lazy Christians.   This is why the majority don't know anything about their so-called 'faith'.  They are too lazy to do the work, to find out if what they believe is true, where it came from, etc.  They want someone else to do the work for them and then just 'believe'.



rjcruiser said:


> This is just plain false.  EarlyChurchFathers discussed the Trinity and it is a doctrine explained throughout the Bible.



No, it isn't.  It definitely is not 'explained' in the "Old Testament".  There are no three personalities of God in the ORIGINAL Testament. He is One.







> Anyone who cherry picks scripture is a fool.



You must be joking, right?  That's how the entire Christian theology is created,by cherry picking scripture from the "Old Testament".


The "Old Testament" was taken and twisted to fit the desires and beliefs of those who strayed from Judaism and wanted to do their own thing. I don't know why this is so hard to understand, when you have sects like the Mormons who did the same thing with Joseph Smith. 

As far as the bible goes, the New Testament was voted on by a council of men.  They decided which books should or shouldn't be included, based on THEIR belief.  No discrepancy in the NT? There is discrepancy all over it.  Only someone who is not honest would say any different... or, someone who hasn't read it.

Now, as to WHY the early Christians (or Jesus) would want to make it up?  Does there have to be a reason? You don't need a reason for your faith, do you? You just 'believe'.  Ego is good enough reason for me.  But more so, I can see there is security and comfort in numbers.  Just like when the Hebrews went to worship the golden calf when they knew they shouldn't be doing it... they had to have SOMETHING to worship.  It made them 'feel' better, safer, secure.  Some of us are perfectly fine not having a security blanket for the unknown.  I don't know how we got here or what happens when we die. But I'm okay with not knowing that.  I don't need a false security to make me feel better about the unknown.

Now, if someone were really honest and took off the rose colored glasses, read the Jewish "Old Testament" and asked themselves if that God really was the same as the New Testament God, they would have to say, no, he isn't.

And I used to be a Christian, so yes, I do know what I'm talking about.  

Deuteronomy chapter 4.  Read it.   Read how it describes God going into detail about how he purposely did not appear to the Hebrews in the form of anything, so that they would not make an idol of it and worship it.  Read all throughout the bible of how the Jews were punished for idolatry, etc.  and then ask yourself, if God was that insistent on it back then, why on earth would He expect them to accept that He suddenly changed his mind, came to earth in a human form, and REQUIRED people to believe in it or burn forever?

Talk about your change of content.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 12, 2013)

By the way, it's been a LOOOOOOONG time since I've been on in this part of the forum.  Can see ain't nothin' changed but the faces.......


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> So, one of the earliest complete versions of the Bible has less verses than later complete versions of the Bible and I am supposed to go along with the argument that all of them are inerrant works of a god using his powers through man to get his word across. The earlier version has the usual punctuation errors, misspelled words and complete missing verses OR does the newer versions have the usual punctuation errors, misspelled words and  added verses that were never in the original earliest manuscripts?
> What am I missing here on the consistency of this/these Bibles???



What you're missing is that there are no substantive differences between the Bible we have today and the one used by the early church.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 12, 2013)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Lazy Christians.   This is why the majority don't know anything about their so-called 'faith'.  They are too lazy to do the work, to find out if what they believe is true, where it came from, etc.  They want someone else to do the work for them and then just 'believe'.



Has your research confirmed Einstein's General Theory of Relativity?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 12, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> What you're missing is that there are no substantive differences between the Bible we have today and the one used by the early church.



You'll have to be more specific.
What bible? Old Testament/New Testament? What early church?  Matthew/Mark/Luke/John or the Catholics?  Depending on which one(s) you're referring to, there are a lot of differences, spanning hundreds of years.....


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 12, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Has your research confirmed Einstein's General Theory of Relativity?



Irrelevant.
The poster suggested the questioner "Google" the topic and read the information on his own.
The reply was, 'No, you tell me.'
Lazy.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 12, 2013)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Irrelevant.
> The poster suggested the questioner "Google" the topic and read the information on his own.
> The reply was, 'No, you tell me.'
> Lazy.



It's very relevant.  You said Christians were lazy, yet your work in theoretical physics leaves much to be desired.  I said "tell me" because I've read loads of this stuff.  I was asking for a specific example, and all I got was "read this book".


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 12, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> It's very relevant.  You said Christians were lazy, yet your work in theoretical physics leaves much to be desired.  I said "tell me" because I've read loads of this stuff.  I was asking for a specific example, and all I got was "read this book".




Did I (or anyone in this thread) ask a question about theoretical physics? If I did, and you said "____ book explains theoretical physics, I suggest reading it,' then that would be a valid answer.  If I said 'no, you tell me', without reading or taking the suggestion given, then it is lazy.  If I read the book and still don't understand, and ask you to explain your understanding of it, then that's a different story.  But to flat out refuse to look at it is lazy.  In addition, it is never good enough on here to 'just tell' someone... they want 'proof'... so I don't see why you have a problem with someone pointing you in the direction of 'proof' and sidestepping the middleman.....


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 12, 2013)

Dixie Dawg:

What bible?  Whichever one you want. 
Old Testament/New Testament?  Both.
What early church?  There is only one, but let's let "pre-Nicene" define "early".
Matthew/Mark/Luke/John or the Catholics?  I don't know what you're trying to say here. 
Depending on which one(s) you're referring to, there are a lot of differences, spanning hundreds of years.  Just pick one and run with it.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 12, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> What you're missing is that there are no substantive differences between the Bible we have today and the one used by the early church.



So exactly when was this Bible used by the early church? Like what year? Was this "bible" scripture by word of mouth or when was the first complete old and new testament put together all in one book?
I think what I am missing is the part where we have all these different "bibles" and some say one thing some do not, some have a few verses missing, some have added verses. You think one is actual...other would...as you said..."think it suitable as toilet paper".

Thomas Law Montefiore (1862):

    "The history of the Codex Vaticanus B, No. 1209, is the history in miniature of Romish jealousy and exclusiveness.” [107]

Burgon was permitted to examine the codex for an hour and a half in 1860, consulting 16 different passages.[108] Burgon was a defender of the Traditional Text and for him Codex Vaticanus, as well as codices Sinaiticus and Codex Bezae, were the most corrupt documents extant. He felt that each of these three codices "clearly exhibits a fabricated text – is the result of arbitrary and reckless recension."[109] The two most widely respected of these three codices, ×� and B, he likens to the "two false witnesses" of Matthew 26:60.[110]

You can talk about the early church and who used what and make claims about being virtually unchanged but the fact is there are "Bibles" in the Vatican that say things differently than "Bibles" elsewhere. The difference is not a period or question mark. There are verses in some bibles that do not appear in other bibles there are verses in later additions that do not appear in the "earliest copies". Somebody...and it ain't God" added these things. God seemed to pull off all these miracles but absolutely can't get a human(which he created) to get the handbook right. In typical fashion someone always want to use the version that best fits their claim while totally disregarding the versions that go directly against their claims.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 12, 2013)

http://ecclesia.org/truth/nt_manuscripts.html
Obviously this person is pimping his Bible...but look past the salemanship to see the real message as a whole....Kinda like what is asked of....well you get the picture


> The various books of the New Testament were written individually and copied to be circulated amongst the churches of the ancient world. In time God moved men to combine these books into a single volume, the New Testament. This volume and its parts were copied and recopied by hand for centuries.
> 
> By the time of the development of the printing press in the mid-15th century, there were many handwritten manuscripts available. Over the next centuries, numerous men set about collecting, combining and comparing the manuscripts in order to have one complete Greek New Testament text to print. One of the earliest of these is the text we know of as the Textus Receptus or Received Text.
> 
> ...


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 12, 2013)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Did I (or anyone in this thread) ask a question about theoretical physics?



No, but you did say Christians are lazy.  _Some_ are, as are _some_ voters.  That doesn't mean _all_ are.




Dixie Dawg said:


> If I said 'no, you tell me', without reading or taking the suggestion given, then it is lazy.  If I read the book and still don't understand, and ask you to explain your understanding of it, then that's a different story.  But to flat out refuse to look at it is lazy.....



As I said:



centerpin fan said:


> ... I've read loads of this stuff.



... and I'm more familiar with Bart Ehrman than most.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> http://ecclesia.org/truth/nt_manuscripts.html
> Obviously this person is pimping his Bible...but look past the salemanship to see the real message as a whole....Kinda like what is asked of....well you get the picture



BH, lemme get back to you.  I'm a busy CPA, and I've got returns to get out the door.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 12, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> which is what I expected.



Why?


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 12, 2013)

Dixie Dawg said:


> That argument might fly.... if non-smokers didn't get cancer too....



Noh...really? That's why I said generally speaking...ie just
 an example.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 12, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Dixie Dawg:
> 
> What bible?  Whichever one you want.  The "Old Testament" has stayed the same as each book was added during the course of history.  Jewish scribes were entrusted to copy the Torah exactly on each scroll... if one jot or tittle was wrong, the entire scroll was destroyed.  There is no discrepancy of the history from book to book in the Tanakh.  The same cannot be said for the New Testament.
> Old Testament/New Testament?  Both. See above
> ...




The New Testament was compiled of stories that were told by word of mouth over decades, from person to person.  Then those stories were voted on by a council hundreds of years later.  The "Old Testament", on the other hand, has been passed down, throughout generations, with no copy being different than the one it was taken from.  Clearly a huge difference if you're talking about the validity of history and where it came from.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 12, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> No, but you did say Christians are lazy.  _Some_ are, as are _some_ voters.  That doesn't mean _all_ are.



Funny, because I believe the quote came from you... .  



> ... and I'm more familiar with Bart Ehrman than most.



Then why ask the question if you already knew the answer?


I guess when I hear people say they want 'proof', I expect them to be more like me and go find it.  I was a Christian until age 32, even though I had questions about a LOT of things in the bible and in Christian doctrine.  I didn't understand how the Jews could reject Jesus if he was prophesied in their scriptures.  The 'blinded' excuse just didn't cut it for me, as I saw no evidence of that in the Old Testament.

So I decided to ask them, why don't you accept that Jesus is the Son of God, God in the flesh, the savior?  And I read their Tanakh (your Old Testament, minus a book or so) and took classes in Hebrew and saw the conflict in translations, twisted verses, verses taken out of context, etc. that were all used in order to 'fit' the belief of Jesus.  It took me 2 years of studying with both Jewish Rabbi's and Christian pastors, and at the end I realized I had the answer I was looking for.  It was a farce.

Getting 'proof' takes effort. If one decides it is worth it, they'll put the effort forward. If not, it's like the ole General said... "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!!"


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 12, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> Noh...really? That's why I said generally speaking...ie just
> an example.



No offense, but that's not really a good example of what you were trying to get across...


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 12, 2013)

Back to the topic of the thread....  

Why was the 'bible' written?

I believe that it is part history and part explaining the unexplainable.  I believe the events that are described did take place (ie: the wars, the Exodus, etc.) and life lessons were added to things that they could not explain, like Sodom and Gommorah.   Those places did exist, and there is archaeological evidence that they were destroyed by a volcano or some sort of meteor/asteroid.  In order to show a reason for why it happened, the story of Lot and the angels was added to it.  Not much different than people telling their kids today that they won't get any presents from Santa if they don't behave.  As others have said on here, it is a mixture of historical facts, life lessons, warnings, etc. all bound in volumes.  Doesn't mean it is all literal.

There is a passage in one of the books of the Zohar (Jewish mysticism) that talks about how if you don't wash your hands after using the bathroom, an evil spirit follows you around the rest of the day.  Now, is one to believe that literally? Or is that more a lesson to be taken to clean yourself of germs after you use the bathroom?

Interpretation is in the eye of the reader.  Which is why we have hundreds of religions and even dozens of denominations within Christianity itself.  There is no possible way that only ONE is 'THE" way.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 12, 2013)

Dixie Dawg said:


> No offense, but that's not really a good example of what you were trying to get across...



No offense taken....any example would be scrutinized.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 12, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> No offense taken....any example would be scrutinized.



Not deliberately, but because there is no good example.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 12, 2013)

Dixie Dawg said:


> even dozens of denominations within Christianity itself.  There is no possible way that only ONE is 'THE" way.



Most Christians will agree on at least one thing, Jesus is the way.

Almost everyone will also agree that in everything, (not just religion) their 'way' is the right way, eh? I sit with an elderly lady who thinks everything I do is the wrong way. It's funny in 64 years of my life, I never figured out how to peel a tater or fold a towel or even make toast. I make her coffee the same every morning, but yet it's either too sweet or not sweet enough


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 12, 2013)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Not deliberately, but because there is no good example.



I agree. That's why I said, 'do you really think God is going to heal everyone, just because He can'?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 12, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> Since we have free will to make our own choices...which everyone screams about having, then how can God do anything? He could completely control everything if we were smart enough to listen.
> 
> How can a smoker expect to be healed from cancer? God say's 'just do anything you want to I'll save all of you from destruction'? It's not God's choice for us to smoke, or drink or gamble our grocery money away....but when we do, why do we wanna blame it on God for not fixing it? It's our free will at work....generally speaking.





mtnwoman said:


> I agree. That's why I said, 'do you really think God is going to heal everyone, just because He can'?



I don't know, based on this, it kind of sounds like you're saying he can't... that people are more powerful than God because we have free will... so God can't do anything.

If that's not correct, and God COULD do something but chooses not to because we didn't do what he said, then that to me is evil. What kind of human parent would let their child suffer, up to death, because they didn't listen to their advice?  I know of sooooooo many parents of children who have cancer, who would GLADLY do ANYTHING in their power to ease their child's suffering... including trading places with them.  So basically, you're saying that humans are more benevolent than your God?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 12, 2013)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Back to the topic of the thread....
> 
> Why was the 'bible' written?
> 
> ...



The Exodus......recorded nowhere else but in the Bible.

There are over 20,000 denominations within Christianity.


> According to the Dictionary of Christianity in America [Protestant] (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1990): "As of 1980 David B. Barrett identified 20,800 Christian denominations worldwide . . ." ("Denominationalism," page 351). I have this book, so I have seen this with my own eyes. Barrett "classified them into seven major blocs and 156 ecclesiastical traditions." This is from the Oxford World Christian Encyclopedia (1982) of which he is the editor. Also, according to the United Nations statistics there were over 23,000 competing and often contradictory denominations worldwide (World Census of Religious Activities [U.N. Information Center, NY, 1989]). This was cited in Frank Schaeffer's book Dancing Alone (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Press, 1994), page 4. Schaeffer is Orthodox. The 1999 Encyclopedia of Christianity has this to say: "In 1985 David Barrett could count 22,150 distinct denominations worldwide." (edited by E. Fahlbusch, et al., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999, vol. 1, p. 800, s.v. "Denomination"). Barrett is the statistical editor. Again citing the Oxford World Christian Encyclopedia (1982): ". . . a projected 22,190 by 1985 . . . The present net increase is 270 denominations each year (five new ones a week)." (pages 15-18)


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 12, 2013)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I don't know, based on this, it kind of sounds like you're saying he can't... that people are more powerful than God because we have free will... so God can't do anything.
> 
> If that's not correct, and God COULD do something but chooses not to because we didn't do what he said, then that to me is evil. What kind of human parent would let their child suffer, up to death, because they didn't listen to their advice?  I know of sooooooo many parents of children who have cancer, who would GLADLY do ANYTHING in their power to ease their child's suffering... including trading places with them.  So basically, you're saying that humans are more benevolent than your God?



So you're saying that 'if' Christians are right, or Hindus are right or Muslims are right then it's not 'our' fault, when we find ourselves in hades or whatever in the end?

In respect of your assumptions of what I'm saying...In my opinion, we would still be in the Garden of Eden without disease/sickness/failure/hunger if Adam hadn't caused the fall of man.  Why do people blame things on a god, (any god) they don't believe in? 

I understand totally about asking God to put your childrens afflictions on yourself....i've done that myself. Neither would I let my only Son go to the cross for other people's sin.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> The Exodus......recorded nowhere else but in the Bible.



I'm okay with that... there aren't many historical documents that go that far back to where it would be recorded in a first-hand account.  Besides, it isn't that far-fetched to think that a group of people would be ousted by another group.  Parting of the Red Sea, however, is a whole other story  



> There are over 20,000 denominations within Christianity.



Exactly!  Because they all have their own interpretation of what they read as the 'truth'.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> The Exodus......recorded nowhere else but in the Bible.



So every single freedom from slavery that ever occurred is recorded somewhere in our history books?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 12, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> So you're saying that 'if' Christians are right, or Hindus are right or Muslims are right then it's not 'our' fault, when we find ourselves in hades or whatever in the end?



I suppose that's exactly what I'm saying.  In my own example... before I left the church, I prayed hard to God, after 2 years of intense searching, studying, praying, and learning.  I prayed to him to show me the truth of his word, of the scriptures, of what was really true.  Whatever the outcome may be, I wanted to know if the New Testament was the true account of 'salvation' and if Jesus was really God, the "Word" become flesh.  I was shown otherwise.  Now, as I prayed with a sincere heart and searched for the answer, and was shown that Christianity was untrue, should I not have reason to say it isn't my fault if I am wrong?   Do others not attribute their 'being saved' to prayer and then being enlightened to Jesus? If it's true for them, why could it not be true for me? 



> In respect of your assumptions of what I'm saying...In my opinion, we would still be in the Garden of Eden without disease/sickness/failure/hunger if Adam hadn't caused the fall of man.  Why do people blame things on a god, (any god) they don't believe in?



I don't know of who does that, so I can't answer that question.  And, for the record, I don't necessarily say there is no God.  I am more inclined to believe we are created by something, so I guess I'm more of an agnostic rather than an atheist.  I don't really believe there is anyone running this show.  If there is, they are doing a poor job of it.



> I understand totally about asking God to put your childrens afflictions on yourself....i've done that myself. Neither would I let my only Son go to the cross for other people's sin.




And for the record, the God of the "Old Testament" agrees with you.  He wouldn't let Moses pay for the sins of the people when they worshiped the golden calf. He said, those that sin pay for their own sins.  Kind of different than what the NT says, huh?


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 12, 2013)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Funny, because I believe the quote came from you... .



Once again, I don't know what you're talking about.  You referred to "lazy Christians" back in post 116.




Dixie Dawg said:


> Then why ask the question if you already knew the answer?



Because I wanted to know if he could name one example from the book he wanted me to read.




Dixie Dawg said:


> I guess when I hear people say they want 'proof', I expect them to be more like me and go find it.



Many of us have.  We just came to a different conclusion than you.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 12, 2013)

Dixie Dawg said:


> And for the record, the God of the "Old Testament" agrees with you.  He wouldn't let Moses pay for the sins of the people when they worshiped the golden calf. He said, those that sin pay for their own sins.  Kind of different than what the NT says, huh?



No actually, this OT part of scripture is what sent me running for the hills for about 25 years. I thought what kind of God would ask Abraham to sacrifice his own son. I was afraid God would ask something like that of me, so I ran far away. Speaking only for myself I was too immature to realize that God didn't let Abraham sacrifice Isaaic, an angel stopped him right before the blade came down. God told Abraham I will provide my own Lamb for the sacrifice of sin and He did...Jesus. When Jesus came and died on the cross that was the beginning of the New Covenant between man and God. No more lambs had to be sacrificed on the day of atonement. When I thought about that and realized how much time was between the two events, nothing seemed to be worse to me than for someone to sacrifice their own Son for a bunch of sinners, especially ones who don't even appreciate it. But obviously we don't think like God, so how can we truly understand Him?

We believe by faith not by sight.  Prayer doesn't mean that God is going to give us everything we ask for. It seemed a long time between the time I ask for understanding and the time I finally got it....I don't know why? I've questioned why I had to go thru all the crapola I went thru, because I was pretty innocent when I ask in the first place. I've been angry at God for taking so long, at times, and letting me go thru so much 'pain'....all the wasted years. But now I've come to realize that I had to go thru all those things to be able to give a testamony to people that go thru or have gone thru the same things as I did.

To carry on a bit...our preachers wife has always been a faithful Christian, her entire life, she's also an awesome singer....she's a beautiful kind person...but there are certain types of people that I could reach that she couldn't because she has no knowledge of those things. So I went thru what I went thru as a witness/testimony and I can truly say I know where they are coming from rather than being a perfectly always awesome person. And when I give my testimony (ie girls correctional camps mostly) they can relate to me more because they know where I'm coming from and they know that I know where they're coming from and where they are headed.
Hope that makes sense.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 12, 2013)

Dixie Dawg said:


> The "Old Testament" has stayed the same as each book was added during the course of history. Jewish scribes were entrusted to copy the Torah exactly on each scroll... if one jot or tittle was wrong, the entire scroll was destroyed. There is no discrepancy of the history from book to book in the Tanakh. The same cannot be said for the New Testament.



First, why do you trust the OT and not the New?

Second, your comment on the NT is just not true.  Their is remarkable agreement amongst the 5,000 or so copies of manuscripts we have.



Dixie Dawg said:


> There was no 'bible' (as far as Christianity) before the first council, so how could it not be changed if it didn't exist?



Again, this is just not true.  I agree you couldn't walk down to your local Christian bookstore and buy a copy, but the Septuagint was well-known and the gospels and epistles did get circulated.  This whole "council" thing is a joke, too.    As I said in post 95, even the honest atheists know it's not true.




Dixie Dawg said:


> Are you talking about the church that put the New Testament together, or the original disciples as the church?



They are one and the same.  See above.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 12, 2013)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I'm okay with that... there aren't many historical documents that go that far back to where it would be recorded in a first-hand account.  Besides, it isn't that far-fetched to think that a group of people would be ousted by another group.  Parting of the Red Sea, however, is a whole other story
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly!  Because they all have their own interpretation of what they read as the 'truth'.



Egyptians were meticulous record keepers. Actually didn't have the "slaves" like portrayed in the Bible. No mention of hundreds if not thousands of first born being killed by a powerful enemy god. If a bunch of Hebrews wanted to leave Egypt they probably just left. I always found it odd that they had to put the mark above their doorway so the angel of death skipped their home and yet why would the slaves be living amongst the other population and be able to come and go as they please around the village.....??
There were garrisons of Jewish soldiers that fought with and for a Pharaoh and a general population of Hebrews that worked, for a paid wage, to farm. the Egyptians are quite proud of the fact that they built the pyramids themselves. There is actually no record of any quantity of Jews being in egypt until long after the pyramids were built.
They didn't have anything or anyone to run from.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 12, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> So every single freedom from slavery that ever occurred is recorded somewhere in our history books?



Again, I don't know what in the blazes you read when I type but I did not say that at all. I can see why you have had some hard times.

What I am saying right now so you get it loud and clear is that the Egyptians did not use slaves to build the pyramids. Credit that to Herodotus and Hollywood.

YOUR bible says the jews were slaves in Egypt and the fact is that is false information.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> http://ecclesia.org/truth/nt_manuscripts.html
> Obviously this person is pimping his Bible...but look past the salemanship to see the real message as a whole....



Which is what?  I briefly looked through his site but couldn't really "pigeon hole" his beliefs.  I agree with some of what he says about the manuscripts, but I disagree with his conclusion.  The Critical (Minority) Text is different, but I wouldn't call it corrupt.  For the record, I'm more of a Majority Text guy.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 12, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Which is what?  I briefly looked through his site but couldn't really "pigeon hole" his beliefs.  I agree with some of what he says about the manuscripts, but I disagree with his conclusion.  The Critical (Minority) Text is different, but I wouldn't call it corrupt.  For the record, I'm more of a Majority Text guy.



He suggests this version: Interlinear Greek English New Testament

And how could any of it be different if they all are so 99% exact?
Verses are either missing or added who got it right in which Text.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> So exactly when was this Bible used by the early church? Like what year? Was this "bible" scripture by word of mouth or when was the first complete old and new testament put together all in one book?



The Bible of the early church was the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT.  As I mentioned above, gospels and epistles were circulated amongst the churches, as well.  As to your last question, I'd have to do a little research.  My first guess would be Jerome's Vulgate.




bullethead said:


> I think what I am missing is the part where we have all these different "bibles" and some say one thing some do not, some have a few verses missing, some have added verses. You think one is actual...other would...as you said..."think it suitable as toilet paper".



For the sake of argument, let's say Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are correct, and the Majority Text is incorrect.  What doctrine of the church would change?  Reverse it and say that V and S are wrong.  What doctrine of the church would change?

The answer to both questions is "none".


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Again, I don't know what in the blazes you read when I type but I did not say that at all. I can see why you have had some hard times.
> 
> What I am saying right now so you get it loud and clear is that the Egyptians did not use slaves to build the pyramids. Credit that to Herodotus and Hollywood.
> 
> YOUR bible says the jews were slaves in Egypt and the fact is that is false information.



I know what you said, you said the exodus isn't in any history book, only mentioned in the bible. Right?

And what I ask... is 'every' other freedom from slavery listed in history books? What I'm saying is the exodus from egypt by the Jews isn't the only thing not mentioned in history books, what's your point?

Did I say slaves built the pyramids? I guess we just don't get anything each other says, I never said that....I never even posted anything about pyramids, did I?

Oh and you know why i've gone thru hard times and   the loss of my first husband in a hunting accident, and my brother's od death? I could easily blame guns for the first part and the second part to the scientist that developed xanax and the brewer for the beer in both cases. It wasn't their free will at work, it was someone else's fault? like mine or God's?
And don't even think you have any idea what I've gone thru. And that's the only the tip of the iceberg. That was pretty cruel of you to say that. But whatever.....nothing you could say could hurt me...believe that.

Perhaps what you've gone thru in your life causes you to be the way you are....eh? Could that be possible for everyone? 
__________________


----------



## bullethead (Mar 12, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> I know what you said, you said the exodus isn't in any history book, only mentioned in the bible. Right?
> 
> And what I ask... is 'every'  other freedom from slavery listed in history books? What I'm saying is the exodus from egypt by the Jews isn't the only thing not mentioned in history books, what's your point?
> 
> Did I say slaves built the pyramids? I guess we just don't get anything each other says, I never said that....I never even posted anything about pyramids, did I?



No, I didn't specify history book. It is recorded nowhere but in the Bible.


mtnwoman said:


> So every single freedom from slavery that ever occurred is recorded somewhere in our history books?


Highly doubtful every single one is, exception would be if it was anywhere even a quarter of the magnitude of the claims made in the Bible...That kinda stuff gets noticed and jotted down in a book, on a wall, told for thousands of years BY the egyptians. There just is no record. No first born being slaughtered by the Jewish God...no death of the Pharaoh's son....none of that.

If you believe the Bible story you believe the slaves worked on the pyramids. You watch Chuck Heston build the pyramids, but that was only in Hollywood.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Thomas Law Montefiore (1862):
> 
> "The history of the Codex Vaticanus B, No. 1209, is the history in miniature of Romish jealousy and exclusiveness.” [107]
> 
> ...



Burgon was definitely not a fan of V and S.  (He wrote a book about how the last verses of Mark in the MT were part of the original.)

As far as differences, most are periods and question marks.  Yes, there are bigger differences like the pericope de adultera and Mark 16 -- none of which affect church doctrine in the slightest.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 12, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> The Bible of the early church was the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT.  As I mentioned above, gospels and epistles were circulated amongst the churches, as well.  As to your last question, I'd have to do a little research.  My first guess would be Jerome's Vulgate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I may be wrong but isn't it all based on the exact words of God? Isn't the story that those words are his and he had a hand in the writing? Epic fail for something with the kind of power a being like that is said to posses.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 12, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Burgon was definitely not a fan of V and S.  (He wrote a book about how the last verses of Mark in the MT were part of the original.)
> 
> As far as differences, most are periods and question marks.  Yes, there are bigger differences like the pericope de adultera and Mark 16 -- none of which affect church doctrine in the slightest.



A set of principals by men is one thing and THE exact inerrant,infallible, inspired word of the supreme being is another.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 13, 2013)

If the minority text is not right it sure holds a lot of clout in the Vatican.
Is it because they believe it so much or don't want anyone to see it for what it really is?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 13, 2013)

The Holy Spirit can safeguard the word of God, it just can't proofread.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 13, 2013)

bullethead said:


> If you believe the Bible story you believe the slaves worked on the pyramids. You watch Chuck Heston build the pyramids, but that was only in Hollywood.



Does the bible say they worked on the pyramids? I've never read that, that I know of. I never thought it was the pyramids they built.

Perhaps the OT was written for/about the Jews?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 13, 2013)

Church doctrine is like any other exclusive clubs doctrine. It is a set of principals that the club is based on. 
If a club or church claims that it is built off of the word of God and HIS writings but those writings contain errors,forgeries and counterfeit authors and counterfeit added verses then the whole Organization and it's principals are suspect.
Can't have the work of Mr Perfect not be perfect and act like it is. I always hear how accurate the work is, followed by "except for this and that and yeah this too, but the principal doesn't change". YEAH actually it does change


----------



## bullethead (Mar 13, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> Does the bible say they worked on the pyramids? I've never read that, that I know of. I never thought it was the pyramids they built.
> 
> Perhaps the OT was written for/about the Jews?



Actually I have to go check but I do not think the Bible does mention pyramids. If IIRC it mentions taskmasters or slavedrivers to afflict them with their burdens to build 2 cities for supply centers. That is a real ROUGH paraphrase.
But the Bible does mention the Israelites as being slaves under Ramsees. History tells a different story.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 13, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> Perhaps the OT was written for/about the Jews?



Not a doubt about that.
and it was written by the Jews.
And if what happened to them involved another Nation/race/culture/friend or foe, the other party could back the stories up but they don't. Despite meticulous record keeping about events that pale in comparison to the Exodus, they fail to mention the Exodus.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 13, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> Does the bible say they worked on the pyramids? I've never read that, that I know of. I never thought it was the pyramids they built.
> 
> Perhaps the OT was written for/about the Jews?


I don't know for sure, but I wonder if the tower of babel was a pyramid?


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 13, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> I don't know for sure, but I wonder if the tower of babel was a pyramid?


 I don't know either, but that's an interesting thought.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 13, 2013)

bullethead said:


> If the minority text is not right it sure holds a lot of clout in the Vatican.
> Is it because they believe it so much or don't want anyone to see it for what it really is?



Interestingly though, the Latin Vulgate which was THE Bible for a thousand years, contains both the pericope de adultera (PDA) and the final verses of Mark 16, passages not included in Vaticanus.

More later.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 13, 2013)

Dixie Dawg said:


> By the way, it's been a LOOOOOOONG time since I've been on in this part of the forum.  Can see ain't nothin' changed but the faces.......



Welcome back  And I see you haven't changed a bit either.




Dixie Dawg said:


> Funny, because I believe the quote came from you... .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Interesting.

I guess you take great faith in the Shema then, right?  I believe it to.  Does that surprise you?

"Hear O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one."



centerpin fan said:


> Many of us have.  We just came to a different conclusion than you.



This.



centerpin fan said:


> First, why do you trust the OT and not the New?
> 
> Second, your comment on the NT is just not true.  Their is remarkable agreement amongst the 5,000 or so copies of manuscripts we have.
> 
> ...



This


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 13, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> No actually, this OT part of scripture is what sent me running for the hills for about 25 years. I thought what kind of God would ask Abraham to sacrifice his own son. I was afraid God would ask something like that of me, so I ran far away. Speaking only for myself I was too immature to realize that God didn't let Abraham sacrifice Isaaic, an angel stopped him right before the blade came down. God told Abraham I will provide my own Lamb for the sacrifice of sin and He did...Jesus. When Jesus came and died on the cross that was the beginning of the New Covenant between man and God. No more lambs had to be sacrificed on the day of atonement. When I thought about that and realized how much time was between the two events, nothing seemed to be worse to me than for someone to sacrifice their own Son for a bunch of sinners, especially ones who don't even appreciate it. But obviously we don't think like God, so how can we truly understand Him?



I wasn't talking about Abraham.... I said Moses....  
But in the example of Abraham... God did provide an offering to take the place of Issac... it was a sheep.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 13, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Interestingly though, the Latin Vulgate which was THE Bible for a thousand years, contains both the pericope de adultera (PDA) and the final verses of Mark 16, passages not included in Vaticanus.
> 
> More later.



Bold highlights are mine:



> By the end of the 4th century the New Testament had been established in both Greek and Latin Bibles as containing the 27 books familiar to this day; and these are the books found in all Vulgate New Testaments. *Over 100 late antique and medieval Vulgate texts also include the concocted Epistle to the Laodiceans (accepted as a genuine letter of Paul by many Latin commentators), although often with a note to the effect that it was not counted as canonical.*
> 
> The Vulgate Old Testament from the first comprised the 39 books (as counted in Christian tradition) of the Hebrew Bible, but always also including books from the Septuagint tradition, which by this date had ceased to be used by Jews, but which was copied in Greek Bibles as the Old Testament. The Septuagint, however, was not then definitively fixed; *no two surviving Greek Old Testaments of this period agree. Consequently Vulgate Old Testaments continued to vary in their content throughout the medieval period.*
> 
> Although Jerome preferred the books of the Hebrew Bible, he *deferred to church authority* in accepting as scripture not only the Greek additions to Esther and Daniel, but also an extra five 'apocryphal' books in Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and the two books of Maccabees, which in his listing of the Old Testament in the prologus galeatus he placed after the Hebrew canon. *But, as Jerome explained in the prologue to Jeremias, he continued to exclude altogether the Book of Baruch (and with it the letter of Jeremiah); and indeed these two books are not found in the Vulgate before the 9th century, and only in a minority of manuscripts before the 13th century.* The 71 biblical books as listed by Jerome, although not in his order, formed the standard text of the Vulgate as it became established in Italy in the 5th and 6th centuries. No Italian manuscript of the whole Vulgate Bible survives, and such pandect Bibles were always rare in this period; but the Codex Amiatinus written in Northumbria from Italian exemplars around 700 and intended to be presented to the Pope, represents the complete Bible according to the Italian Vulgate tradition. It contains the standard 71 books; with the Psalms according to Jerome's translation from the Hebrew, except for Psalm 151 which is translated from the Greek.



Looking through this and all the different Vulgates there certainly are variations to the good word of the Lord.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 13, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> First, why do you trust the OT and not the New?
> 
> Second, your comment on the NT is just not true.  Their is remarkable agreement amongst the 5,000 or so copies of manuscripts we have.
> 
> ...



My comment is true.   There are discrepancies all over the place...   one being what did Judas do with the silver pieces and how did he die? Conflicting stories in different books of the NT.  If they can't even get that right, how is it to be trusted that the rest of it is correct?  We're supposed to put our trust in eternity in a book that can't get it's facts straight?

If God did create all of us, then he is the one who gave us common sense and logic.  I would think he would expect us to use it.

I'm sure the gospels and epistles did get circulated... along with a host of other manuscripts that some, not all, of the churches used.  And the council is not a joke, that is how you have the NT that you hold today.  I don't know why this is even a topic for discussion.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 13, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> First, why do you trust the OT and not the New?




It isn't a matter of 'trusting' it.  I never said I was Jewish, or even Messianic.  What is the "OT"? It's a story of the history of the Hebrew people and their Jewish faith.  Are they saying to anyone that theirs is the only way to gain eternal salvation? Are they saying if you don't accept their holy book and 'message' that you are lost for eternity?  Ever have a Jewish missionary come to your door, trying to convert you?  

No.

The problem I have with the NT and Christianity in general is that they have taken another faith's holy book, twisted it around to fit their own agenda, and then tell the ORIGINATORS of the book that they don't understand their OWN writings and history passed down from their fathers.

The "Old Testament" is thousands of years older than the NT, yet I can go to Jerusalem and lay my hands on the wall of the temple mentioned in it.  It can be backed up and supported with actual archaeological evidence.   What do the Christians have? Nada.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 13, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Again, this is just not true.  I agree you couldn't walk down to your local Christian bookstore and buy a copy, but the Septuagint was well-known and the gospels and epistles did get circulated.  This whole "council" thing is a joke, too.    As I said in post 95, even the honest atheists know it's not true.



I went back and read what you put in post 95.  I don't see that as disagreeing with what I wrote.  The books were voted on by councils. Accepted, rejected, accepted, rejected, and even today not all of the churches agree with what is in the published NT.  And somehow that is overlooked and Christians still say their way is the ONLY way? Exactly which way is that? Which denomination is right?  Which books are false?  Better get it right, because otherwise, you're lost for eternity.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 13, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> I've asked this before and have yet to receive an answer.  Maybe this time will be different.
> 
> What changed?  Let's hear some examples.





cuda67bnl said:


> Get the book "misquoting jesus".
> Or just spend some time on google. They're are multiple examples from modern scholars and their research. Plenty of things have been added over time.





centerpin fan said:


> No.  Tell me what's changed.





centerpin fan said:


> Once again, I don't know what you're talking about.  You referred to "lazy Christians" back in post 116.













> Many of us have.  We just came to a different conclusion than you.



Well that's refreshing.  What Rabbi's did you study with?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 13, 2013)

"It's the infallible,inerrant, word of god. 95% of it matches"....Is anything less than 100% acceptable for a God?? "The only differences are slight grammar and punctuation," then wait for it...... "EXCEPT for the book of Jeremiah, in which the actual passages are arranged differently"...." but that doesn't effect anything...nothing to look at, keep moving....Go over to agent J, stare into the flashy thing and say cheese...


> Septuagint - Is it a Reliable Translation?
> Since the Septuagint is a translation, scholars speculate if it accurately reflects the Hebrew scriptures of the 2nd century BC. A close examination of the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text (the early Hebrew text of the Old Testament) show slight variations. Were these errors in translation, or are the Septuagint and Masoretic Text based on slightly different Hebrew manuscripts? The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has helped to shed light on this question. Discovered in the Qumran region near the Dead Sea beginning in 1947, these scrolls are dated to as early as 200 BC and contain parts of every book in the Old Testament except Esther. Comparisons of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint show that where there are differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, approximately 95% of those differences are shared between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text, while only 5% of those differences are shared between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint. Does this mean that the Septuagint is unreliable and that our Old Testament is wrought with contradictory sources? No. It is imperative to note that these “variations” are extremely minor (i.e., grammatical errors, spelling differences or missing words) and do not affect the meaning of sentences and paragraphs. *(An exception is the book of Jeremiah, in which the actual passages are arranged differently.)* None of the differences, however, come close to affecting any area of teaching or doctrine. The majority of the Septuagint, Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls are remarkably similar and have dispelled unfounded theories that the Biblical text has been corrupted by time and conspiracy. Furthermore, these variations do not call into question the infallibility of God in preserving His word. Although the original documents are inerrant, translators and scribes are human beings and are thus prone to making slight errors in translation and copying (Hebrew scribal rules attest to how exacting scribes were). Even then, the Bible has redundancy built into its text, and anything significant is told more than once. If grammatical mistakes were introduced that makes a point unclear, it would be clarified in several other places in scripture.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 13, 2013)

bullethead said:


> "It's the infallible,inerrant, word of god. 95% of it matches"....Is anything less than 100% acceptable for a God?? "The only differences are slight grammar and punctuation," then wait for it...... "EXCEPT for the book of Jeremiah, in which the actual passages are arranged differently"...." but that doesn't effect anything...nothing to look at, keep moving....Go over to agent J, stare into the flashy thing and say cheese...



Did you even read your own post?




> None of the differences, however, come close to affecting any area of teaching or doctrine. The majority of the Septuagint, Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls are remarkably similar and have dispelled unfounded theories that the Biblical text has been corrupted by time and conspiracy. Furthermore, these variations do not call into question the infallibility of God in preserving His word. Although the original documents are inerrant, translators and scribes are human beings and are thus prone to making slight errors in translation and copying (Hebrew scribal rules attest to how exacting scribes were).


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 13, 2013)

Dixie Dawg said:


> .. And the council is not a joke, that is how you have the NT that you hold today.  I don't know why this is even a topic for discussion.



I don't know, either, because it's obviously wrong.  The Council of Nicea occurred in 325 AD, and the topic of the NT canon did not even come up.  It absolutely, positively was not an issue.  In addition, 100-200 years before Nicea, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Tertullian, Origen and others were quoting the NT in their writings.  Most of the NT was never in dispute.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 13, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Did you even read your own post?



Yes dear stringy, that is why I posted it!


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 13, 2013)

Dixie Dawg said:


> It isn't a matter of 'trusting' it.  I never said I was Jewish, or even Messianic.  What is the "OT"? It's a story of the history of the Hebrew people and their Jewish faith.  Are they saying to anyone that theirs is the only way to gain eternal salvation? Are they saying if you don't accept their holy book and 'message' that you are lost for eternity?  Ever have a Jewish missionary come to your door, trying to convert you?
> 
> No.
> 
> ...



C'mon.  That's just ridiculous.  This line you try to draw between Judaism and Christianity defies the facts that the very early church was made up of 100% Jewish converts and that the Septuagint was the Bible for the early church.


----------



## dawg2 (Mar 13, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Just like the thread title says. What do you think was the motivation for the writers of the bible?





hummdaddy said:


> to brainwash and control people so they weren't thinking for themselves...like a cult


Partially correct.  The operative word is: Control.  

It was written down to provide a static unchanging record and reference for Christianity.  If it was not documented (written down) and passed on orally, then it would have been subjected to dramatic changes over time and probably each time it was repeated.  

The early church kept a tight hold of the revisions so that it did not stray from the original texts.  If anyone had it and could write it them the potential for "re-writing" the Bible would have been a serious problem.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 13, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Did you even read your own post?



The part you quoted from it is why I posted it.

All the "pro" articles start out as how the writings are so accurate and have no differences.
Then they say the majority of differences are grammar or punctuation.
Then include a quick "except for" and show the differences which either includes or omits entire verses or books.
And then at the end say how the differences don't affect the overall message.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 13, 2013)

Dixie Dawg said:


> What Rabbi's did you study with?



Just one:  the Apostle Paul.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 13, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I may be wrong but isn't it all based on the exact words of God? Isn't the story that those words are his and he had a hand in the writing?



No, that's Islam.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 13, 2013)

dawg2 said:


> Partially correct.  The operative word is: Control.
> 
> It was written down to provide a static unchanging record and reference for Christianity.  If it was not documented (written down) and passed on orally, then it would have been subjected to dramatic changes over time and probably each time it was repeated.
> 
> The early church kept a tight hold of the revisions so that it did not stray from the original texts.  If anyone had it and could write it them the potential for "re-writing" the Bible would have been a serious problem.



So the earliest of the early church were the disciples. How tight of a hold did they keep on the writings when they were all being martyred multiple times each in different ways, places, and countries? Plus in between be-headings and crucifixions they had time to write this stuff down and oversee it while they were in multiple countries! Impressive! AND do all this starting at least 40 years after the events. Being they were about Jesus age when it all happened they waited to get a jump a  on things well into their 70's in a time when 50 was an old old old man. Then still wrote for another 60 years after they were 70 years old. That early church had a lot of things going just right.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 13, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Bold highlights are mine:
> 
> 
> 
> Looking through this and all the different Vulgates there certainly are variations to the good word of the Lord.



No Christian who has studied the issue would disagree with that.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 13, 2013)

Dixie Dawg said:


> We're supposed to put our trust in eternity in a book ...



No, that's Islam.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 13, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> No, that's Islam.



I beg to differ.
Historically, Christians have generally believed the entire Bible to be inerrant -- free of error -- in the books' original, autograph versions. However, the entire Bible was written by a group of very human authors. The only way in which fallible humans could have written so much inerrant text would have been for them to have been inspired by God. Given biblical inerrancy, one can assume that God must have overseen the creation of the Bible's text in some way, and pro-actively prevented the authors from committing any error.

Something just doesn't add up.
Maybe the freewill trumped inspiration and they wrote what they wanted??


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 13, 2013)

Dixie Dawg said:


> If God did create all of us, then he is the one who gave us common sense and logic.  I would think he would expect us to use it.



For the last two thousand years, people have used common sense and logic ... and have come to a different conclusion than you.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 13, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I beg to differ.
> Historically, Christians have generally believed the entire Bible to be inerrant -- free of error -- in the books' original, autograph versions. However, the entire Bible was written by a group of very human authors. The only way in which fallible humans could have written so much inerrant text would have been for them to have been inspired by God. Given biblical inerrancy, one can assume that God must have overseen the creation of the Bible's text in some way, and pro-actively prevented the authors from committing any error.
> 
> Something just doesn't add up.
> Maybe the freewill trumped inspiration and they wrote what they wanted??



Are variations considered errors?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 13, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Are variations considered errors?



If the holy spirit is guiding both you and me to tell the same story so that all of mankind has a clear understanding of what is being recorded and our stories are similar but they vary from each other, like you give one town but mine is another different town entirely(even though 'GOD' inspired us to write the same town) then yes, it is an error. It does not matter that the "message" is the same.
When a God of that magnitude and capability is involved any variation is an error.
You and others elevate him as having the capability and setting the highest standards for creating creation and all the minute intricacies involved in the smallest details of concocting just the right environment and just the right genetic make up for enabling life to live... but let him off the hook when HIS book that explains his story to mankind is loaded with errors, lies, historical inaccuracy, geographical errors, fables, folklore, and variations.
Pathetic really.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 13, 2013)

bullethead said:


> If the holy spirit is guiding both you and me to tell the same story so that all of mankind has a clear understanding of what is being recorded and our stories are similar but they vary from each other, like you give one town but mine is another different town entirely(even though 'GOD' inspired us to write the same town) then yes, it is an error. It does not matter that the "message" is the same.When a God of that magnitude and capability is involved any variation is an error.



Really? That doesn't matter at all? 



> You and others elevate him as having the capability and setting the highest standards for creating creation and all the minute intricacies involved in the smallest details of concocting just the right environment and just the right genetic make up for enabling life to live... but let him off the hook when HIS book that explains his story to mankind is loaded with errors, lies, historical inaccuracy, geographical errors, fables, folklore, and variations.
> Pathetic really.



Now you're just being dishonest, with yourself and everyone else.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 13, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Really? That doesn't matter at all?


No
The message is only as good as it's author. If facts are not accurate neither is the message.





stringmusic said:


> Now you're just being dishonest, with yourself and everyone else.


So says you. I'm sure you can show me how so.
I am totally honest with myself and that statement or I wouldn't say it. I believe it 100%.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 13, 2013)

Cover all the bases for "Inspiration" one of them as got to fit...


References to inspiration in the Bible:

In the Gospel of John, Jesus is recorded as referring to scripture as being fixed -- presumably because it comes from God:

    John 10:35 "If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken..." (KJV)

The Book of Acts refers to God speaking through the mouth of David:

    Acts 4:24-25: "...Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?"
    (KJV)

Paul describes the process of inspiration by the Holy Spirit in one of his Epistles:

    1 Corinthians 2:9-13: "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: ...Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." (KJV)

Paul refers to the Hebrew Scriptures as the "word of God," not of men:

    1 Thessalonians 2:13: "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."
    (KJV)

A key proof text used by conservative Christians to support their belief in inspiration is in one of the Pastoral Epistles. It states that all of the Scriptures are "theopneustos" in the original Greek -- "breathed out by God:"

    2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (KJV).

A second popular verse which supports the concept of inspiration is in one of the General Epistles:

    2 Peter 1:20-21: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (KJV)"

The 2 Timothy verse was written circa 64 CE by Paul, according to most conservative Christians or circa 100 to 150 CE by an unknown author, according to most liberal theologians. The 2 Peter verse was written circa 67 CE by Peter, according to most conservative Christians or circa 125 to 150 CE by an unknown author, according to most liberal theologians. The remaining citations listed above were also composed in the first century or the first half of the second century. All were written centuries before the canon of the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) was officially established. Still, the word "scripture" in these passages is now generally interpreted by conservative Christians to refer to the entire Bible -- Hebrew Scriptures and Christian Scriptures combined.

Types of inspiration:

Various Christian groups have different beliefs concerning the mechanism by which  inspiration took place:
"Automatic writing" theory: The Oxford Companion to the Bible states that Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE to 40 CE) "proposed what might be termed the 'mantic theory' of the inspiration of the scriptures, in which the human author becomes possessed by God and loses consciousness of self, surrendering to the divine spirit and its communicatory powers." 6 This is not a popular belief today.

"Dictation theory:" This is the belief that the Holy Spirit pre-determined each word that the authors wrote. The "authors" were thus performing the function of a secretary. The words recorded are thus considered the actual, authoritative words of God. 1 The First Vatican Council of 1868-1870 reflects this point of view by stating: "they have God as their author."

Texas Pastor, Johnny Ramsay, writes that the Scriptures "contain the very words (not ideas, notions, advice or concepts) that the Almighty wanted mankind to clearly know. Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. It was truly not the word of men but the Word of God!" 4

This belief is difficult to support, because a close reading of the Bible shows many different writing styles. According to most mainline and liberal theologians:
The book of Isaiah and the Gospel of John were clearly written by two authors.
Much of the Pentateuch is a combination of texts from authors who followed four different traditions.

Paul wrote with "long, complicated sentences,"  in a highly educated Greek style. Mark used "short, action-packed sentences," in a common form of Greek. 2 This is not particularly obvious in most English Bibles because translators have often homogenized the writing styles. But the writing techniques of the different authors is clearly seen in the original Greek texts.

"Negative assistance" theory: Jacques Bonfriere (1573-1642)  suggested that the authors expressed their thoughts in their own style and words, while the Holy Spirit only intervened asn needed, in order to prevent them from making any mistakes. There are many variations of this belief, called by various names, such as: Concept Inspiration, Neo-orthodox Theory of Inspiration, Partial Inspiration, Verbal Plenary Inspiration, etc. 3

Other theories of inspiration include:
That the Holy Spirit provided the precise ideas, thoughts and concepts to the authors, who then wrote it down in their own words using their own writing style.

That the authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit so that their normal powers of observation and writing were heightened. They were thus able to describe their religious thoughts with greater accuracy than normal, but not to the level of inerrancy. The term Inspiration as Illumination has been used to describe this concept.

That God did not directly inspire the writers of the Bible. The texts are not inerrant, but were written by authors with a "high degree of religious insight." 3 They were inspired in the same way that great artists and musicians have been considered inspired.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 13, 2013)

bullethead said:


> So says you. I'm sure you can show me how so.
> I am totally honest with myself and that statement or I wouldn't say it. I believe it 100%.



I think some of the research done by subject matter experts have proved it...not just String saying so.

And I'm being 100% honest with myself as well...or I wouldn't say it.  I believe it 100%.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 13, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> I think some of the research done by subject matter experts have proved it...not just String saying so.
> 
> And I'm being 100% honest with myself as well...or I wouldn't say it.  I believe it 100%.





> When a God of that magnitude and capability is involved any variation is an error.
> You and others elevate him as having the capability and setting the highest standards for creating creation and all the minute intricacies involved in the smallest details of concocting just the right environment and just the right genetic make up for enabling life to live...


We all in agreement here so far???



> but let him off the hook when HIS book that explains his story to mankind is loaded with errors, lies, historical inaccuracy, geographical errors, fables, folklore, and variations.


Maybe this is what your trying to tell me is dishonest?? And if so I am all ready for you to prove me wrong. Show me your experts.
I have the knuckles cracked and my bookmarks open....



> Pathetic really.


Now this, because it is opinion, I can agree that you might think is false.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 13, 2013)

I find awesome inspiration in the context of things in the scriptures. I will admit that I find it hidden among the many words of man. Lots of things seem as inspired but is actually reverse engineering on the part of the NT writers. And others, I see, which I don't think the NT writers realized. Such as a promise to Abraham. You will reap a harvest that you did not plant. This is the gift of the fruits of the Spirit. Abraham was promised that you will live in houses you did not build. So I see inspiration, and I don't see inspiration. It's according to where I'm at. For example, why did the HS not tell Luke, "hey, you missed a few pages when you were copying Mark". [known as the missing block]


----------



## Michael F. Gray (Mar 13, 2013)

It's God's Love Letter to us, ...and it' s the power of God unto Salvation, to those that believe. Be not deceived, whatsoever a man soweth, ...that shall he also reap.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 13, 2013)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I wasn't talking about Abraham.... I said Moses....
> But in the example of Abraham... God did provide an offering to take the place of Issac... it was a sheep.



I know who you were talking about. So you can talk about moses, a part of the bible you said  either didn't make sense or you were confused about it..not even important enough to look back,  and I can't talk about a part of the bible that confuses me? Alrighty then! Moses nor abraham are the subject of this thread, so what's the difference? But yeah the law then was they did have to pay for their own sins, because they didn't have a saviour yet. They had to go by the law to a tee or be lost forever.  No actually it was a ram...if you wanna get technical....a ram, a sheep and a lamb are all the same animal....

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering instead of his son. 

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

And it says ram in almost every version of the bible and that God would provide a lamb, as I said.


----------



## Asath (Mar 13, 2013)

If I may observe, reading this thread puts me in mind of a scholarly seminar on the nuances of Star Trek.  

It is a FICTION BOOK fellas.  And not even a very good one.  

It has no plot, no real development, no agreement as to the characters, no confluence or rational sequence of events, no consistent message, no lesson to be conveyed other than  'whatever' --  it begins with a fantasy that even Jules Verne couldn't have come up with, and ends with a rant that makes Vincent Tarantino look like a schoolboy.

This is a topic of debate?  Still?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2013)

bullethead said:


> No
> The message is only as good as it's author. If facts are not accurate neither is the message.


So, if I'm having a party at my house, and I send out 100 invitations on exactly how to get there. The exact directions will be slightly different for everyone, but, in the end, everyone makes it to my house for the party. 

How can you say that the overall message doesn't mean anything, even with slight variations?





> So says you. I'm sure you can show me how so.
> I am totally honest with myself and that statement or I wouldn't say it. I believe it 100%.



Maybe I shouldn't have used the word dishonest. However, it is obviously opinion, but the way I read... 


bullethead said:


> his story to mankind is loaded with errors, lies, historical inaccuracy, geographical errors, fables, folklore, and variations.
> Pathetic really.


I read that as you presenting it as fact, and it's not fact.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2013)

Asath said:


> If I may observe, reading this thread puts me in mind of a scholarly seminar on the nuances of Star Trek.
> 
> It is a FICTION BOOK fellas.  And not even a very good one.
> 
> ...



I don't think you're talking about the same book we are.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 14, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> So, if I'm having a party at my house, and I send out 100 invitations on exactly how to get there. The exact directions will be slightly different for everyone, but, in the end, everyone makes it to my house for the party.


Close enough might work for humans and the Gov't. 
A God should have no problem getting it 100% exactly correct on all accounts.



stringmusic said:


> How can you say that the overall message doesn't mean anything, even with slight variations?


If the work is not god-like, neither is the message.







stringmusic said:


> Maybe I shouldn't have used the word dishonest. However, it is obviously opinion, but the way I read...
> 
> I read that as you presenting it as fact, and it's not fact.


There are examples of everything I stated in the Bible. Bottom line is that is fact.
If something is touted as being error free and infallible and it has errors and is fallible then it does not hold up to it's claims.
Then the excuses start..."well it is 95% consistent..." The other 5% is what really gives the claims fits though. 95% is not 100%. The people that think close enough is worthy work of a God are followers for sure.
I gotta leave for work but tonight we can start with the errors if you like.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 14, 2013)

Heck, I GET the fact that me and you are not error free and not infallible. I'd lump us in with the rest of the world's population in those regards.
I have a high expectation from something claiming to be a God. In fact it is the absolute highest expectation. Any God worth it's following should be able to write a book on it's own...and get the facts right...and get the locations right and get the stories right and get everything done so precisely that it could be nothing but the work of a God. IF a God can create the intricacies of the EYE and the design of a platypus but can't write a "Love Letter" and story without the help of mankind and then be satisfied with mankinds job at doing it....then I cannot consider it God-like. I mean where is the line that separates a Gods ability and ours?? The same works tell me a God was unhappy with his work so he wiped it out and started over but yet the same God is satisfied with the work in his "BOOK"???? Give me a SUPER SIZE break! 
Seems like with all the real important stuff he needed the help of humans. And he knows what a bumbling gang of nit wits we are, heck he knew that before he made us......so why lay the burden on the shoulders of human scribes when a blink could have produced the most incredible masterpiece of all time? Why make Adam and Eve and test them knowing they are gonna fail the test and then HAVE to create a human Son to have the humans KILL to save us from the failure(sin) he knew we were gonna do anyway??? It is human mind stories told in godlike ways but the capabilities stop at the human minds and talent of ancient people.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 14, 2013)

What do ya say String? Are you in it to win it?
Lets start with the Exodus.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2013)

bullethead said:


> What do ya say String? Are you in it to win it?
> Lets start with the Exodus.



Eh, I don't have the years it would take to go through it all.

Plus, it would just turn into what the last page or two of this thread has turned into, a bunch of copy and paste stuff from different links. That's not very fun. Not to say that some of the links don't have interesting info in them, it's just all we would be doing.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 14, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Eh, I don't have the years it would take to go through it all.
> 
> Plus, it would just turn into what the last page or two of this thread has turned into, a bunch of copy and paste stuff from different links. That's not very fun. Not to say that some of the links don't have interesting info in them, it's just all we would be doing.



10-4
I totally understand that what convinces you might not convince me.
I understand that for some people faith trumps evidence.
I also know that I personally require factual evidence to back up events,claims,stories and all things that are passed off as "truth" in each and everyday life. I ESPECIALLY hold those told in the Bible, supposedly by a GOD to the same level of scrutiny.
The fact is that there are things in that book that are just not true. I have no problem with anyone overlooking those things because their faith allows them to and they are honest enough to admit that to themselves and others, but please...If someone wants to tell me that I am wrong for saying the Bible is full of errors.... then I expect them to back it up because I know I can on my end. It may be chock full of copy/pastes but that does not detract from the fact that it gives evidence to support my claims. It is all about the message right?? Not being a God I need the help.
No matter if something throughout time is 95% consistent when written over and over.....if what is being written is flat out incorrect, then writing it Ten Thousand times does not somehow make true. It is just consistent...consistently incorrect but consistent.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 14, 2013)

I struggle with verses where God hopes things will change or when he gets angry. Mainly because he already knows the outcome. One example is when Israel isn't faithful in Jeremiah. God says "And I thought, "After she has done all this she will return . . . to me"; but she did not return" and "And I thought you would call me, My Father, and would not turn from following me."
Why would he think that knowing the whole time Israel would  be unfaithful?

I'm not losing my faith, just my free will mind working.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 14, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> I struggle with verses where God hopes things will change or when he gets angry. Mainly because he already knows the outcome. One example is when Israel isn't faithful in Jeremiah. God says "And I thought, "After she has done all this she will return . . . to me"; but she did not return" and "And I thought you would call me, My Father, and would not turn from following me."
> Why would he think that knowing the whole time Israel would  be unfaithful?
> 
> I'm not losing my faith, just my free will mind working.



Despite mans best efforts he forgets he is supposed to be god for a minute and writes like man.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 14, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Despite mans best efforts he forgets he is supposed to be god for a minute and writes like man.



Or we are made in God's image. Meaning God is more like we are to a point it's not comfortable thinking about it. Wrath, anger, needing love, jealous, praise, sees, hears, kills, rewards.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 14, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Or we are made in God's image. Meaning God is more like we are to a point it's not comfortable thinking about it. Wrath, anger, needing love, jealous, praise, sees, hears, kills, rewards.



If I was God it would be pretty much like it is.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Or we are made in God's image. Meaning God is more like we are to a point it's not comfortable thinking about it. Wrath, anger, needing love, jealous, praise, sees, hears, kills, rewards.



Being Omniscient would cut those off at the pass.
Which is it?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 15, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Being Omniscient would cut those off at the pass.
> Which is it?



That is the confusing part. I haven't got it figured out yet but if we can see God in Heaven and live a life full of beautiful gold buildings, gardens, rivers, music, etc. makes me think of God as being different than what most Christians believe. I believe God does feel as we feel. He is happy when we make good choices and he is sad and angry when we make bad choices. He is like a father punishing and rerwarding us.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> That is the confusing part. I haven't got it figured out yet but if we can see God in Heaven and live a life full of beautiful gold buildings, gardens, rivers, music, etc. makes me think of God as being different than what most Christians believe. I believe God does feel as we feel. He is happy when we make good choices and he is sad and angry when we make bad choices. He is like a father punishing and rerwarding us.



I think that like with most things humans tend to complicate things way too much. Are those things in heaven because someone has been there and told us and that is standard heaven layout or is that your version of what heaven needs to be for you?

Occams Razor
Live it up here and now because the odds favor this is all your going to get.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2013)

bullethead said:


> 10-4
> I totally understand that what convinces you might not convince me.
> I understand that for some people faith trumps evidence.
> I also know that I personally require factual evidence to back up events,claims,stories and all things that are passed off as "truth" in each and everyday life. I ESPECIALLY hold those told in the Bible, supposedly by a GOD to the same level of scrutiny.
> ...



Really and truly, anybody can find whatever they want on the internet, heck, I could find tons of info on aliens, the illuminati, and whatever else I could think of.

Us going back and forth with different links really wouldn't solve anything. I honestly believe that whatever "errors" you could find all have legitimate answers. 

It all comes down to what you want to believe, I choose to believe the Bible is the true word of God, and you choose to believe it isn't. Honestly, I don't think it even comes down what "mistakes" you could find and the explanations that I could give for them because there are guys on both sides of the fence that have studied the Bible a lot more than you or I ever will and come away with different conclusions, guys like Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman.

Like I said, I think it comes down to what you want to believe, you simply don't want to believe it's real, and I do.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Really and truly, anybody can find whatever they want on the internet, heck, I could find tons of info on aliens, the illuminati, and whatever else I could think of.
> 
> Us going back and forth with different links really wouldn't solve anything. I honestly believe that whatever "errors" you could find all have legitimate answers.
> 
> ...




The fact that there IS so much controversy should throw up a red flag.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> The fact that there IS so much controversy should throw up a red flag.



Na, that just tells me humans are humans.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Really and truly, anybody can find whatever they want on the internet, heck, I could find tons of info on aliens, the illuminati, and whatever else I could think of.
> 
> Us going back and forth with different links really wouldn't solve anything. I honestly believe that whatever "errors" you could find all have legitimate answers.
> 
> ...



I actually want to believe it is real. My problem is that when I research it I cannot find anything more than a book put together by man from stories written by man. There are people/experts that put their spin on it and take things in there and interpret them in ways to try make sense of things...that might be how it is meant to be interpreted and it very well might not as I can find different interpretations by different experts. Basically they can find a way to cover whatever you want to hear. The big problem is there are things in there that never actually existed or happened and these experts are eerily silent because there is no way to spin an event that never took place. They try to take an event that was claimed as worldwide and doctor it up to being localized and say...."well the message is the same"....Yes same message but the original claim is a lie. I expect that from man, not something touted as more supreme than man.
I have these conversations on here and elsewhere not because I am trying to prove everyone else wrong, I am hoping to run into the one person that can show me that what I have come to see as false is right. It just has not happened.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I actually want to believe it is real. My problem is that when I research it I cannot find anything more than a book put together by man from stories written by man. There are people/experts that put their spin on it and take things in there and interpret them in ways to try make sense of things...that might be how it is meant to be interpreted and it very well might not as I can find different interpretations by different experts. Basically they can find a way to cover whatever you want to hear. The big problem is there are things in there that never actually existed or happened and these experts are eerily silent because there is no way to spin an event that never took place. They try to take an event that was claimed as worldwide and doctor it up to being localized and say...."well the message is the same"....Yes same message but the original claim is a lie. I expect that from man, not something touted as more supreme than man.
> I have these conversations on here and elsewhere not because I am trying to prove everyone else wrong, I am hoping to run into the one person that can show me that what I have come to see as false is right. It just has not happened.



If you change a few words in your post around, it is exactly how I feel about the experts/people that study the bible and spin it to fit their secular agenda. I think it really is a two way street. 

As far as some stories being a "lie", there are things that might be recorded in the bible, and not anywhere else, I don't think that makes the event/people/places not true, it's just that we only have it recorded in one place.

That's exactly what I mean when I say that it's all about what we want to believe and put faith in. You read a story in the bible and don't see it recorded anywhere else and think "how can a huge story not be recorded anywhere else? It must be the work of man" I read the same thing and I think "we only have that story recorded in the bible" not really a big deal to me. Who knows, certian stories might be recorded all over the world, we just haven't found them yet.

The point is, I go into research giving the benefit of any kind of doubt to God and the prophets of the bible, and you probably go into it just the opposite.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 15, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> If you change a few words in your post around, it is exactly how I feel about the experts/people that study the bible and spin it to fit their secular agenda. I think it really is a two way street.
> 
> As far as some stories being a "lie", there are things that might be recorded in the bible, and not anywhere else, I don't think that makes the event/people/places not true, it's just that we only have it recorded in one place.
> 
> ...



I agree! Nice post.

There is no proof positive either way.  If there were, we'd all believe the bible, or we'd all deny the bible.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 15, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I actually want to believe it is real. My problem is that when I research it I cannot find anything more than a book put together by man from stories written by man. There are people/experts that put their spin on it and take things in there and interpret them in ways to try make sense of things...that might be how it is meant to be interpreted and it very well might not as I can find different interpretations by different experts. Basically they can find a way to cover whatever you want to hear. The big problem is there are things in there that never actually existed or happened and these experts are eerily silent because there is no way to spin an event that never took place. They try to take an event that was claimed as worldwide and doctor it up to being localized and say...."well the message is the same"....Yes same message but the original claim is a lie. I expect that from man, not something touted as more supreme than man.
> I have these conversations on here and elsewhere not because I am trying to prove everyone else wrong, I am hoping to run into the one person that can show me that what I have come to see as false is right. It just has not happened.



I certainly can understand where you're coming from.

The bible also says that we believe by faith and not by sight...and these types of debates prove that more and more to me whereas I used to be on the other side to a certain point. My poor daddy, I use to argue with him all the time about the same things.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 15, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> The fact that there IS so much controversy should throw up a red flag.



The Bible saying there would be controversy, proves it to me in the opposite direction.


----------



## JFS (Mar 15, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> The Bible saying there would be controversy, proves it to me in the opposite direction.



Asath had it right in the other thread:



> If there WERE a god, it would be an established fact, not subject to belief, and there wouldn't be so many morons putting forward their own versions, as there have been since the beginnings of recorded history. There isn't any debate, posturing, endless proselytizing, wars, jihads, factional strife, or television preachers soliciting millions of dollars from the believers concerning oxygen. Perhaps that is because oxygen exists. For everyone.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2013)

JFS said:


> Asath had it right in the other thread:





Asath said:


> If there WERE a god, it would be an established fact, not subject to belief, and there wouldn't be so many morons putting forward their own versions, as there have been since the beginnings of recorded history. There isn't any debate, posturing, endless proselytizing, wars, jihads, factional strife, or television preachers soliciting millions of dollars from the believers concerning oxygen. Perhaps that is because oxygen exists. For everyone.



Purely speculative.


----------



## JFS (Mar 15, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Purely speculative.



Not exactly.  God is already dead.  Some people will always be waiting out in the garden for the Great Pumpkin or looking for spaceships behind comets.   But once you figure out there is no one throwing lightning bolts from Mt Olympus you can see the pattern that underlies similar delusions.  So it's really a matter of inference, not speculation.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2013)

JFS said:


> Not exactly.  God is already dead.



I'm not sure what god you're talking about, but it's not my God.



> Some people will always be waiting out in the garden for the Great Pumpkin or looking for spaceships behind comets.   But once you figure out there is no one throwing lightning bolts from Mt Olympus you can see the pattern that underlies similar delusions.  So it's really a matter of inference, not speculation.



But once *who* figures it out? 

And there is no similar pattern, those looking for spaceships behind comets are dulusioned to think there is actually a spaceship, which we know there wasn't, the same cannot be said for God.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> If you change a few words in your post around, it is exactly how I feel about the experts/people that study the bible and spin it to fit their secular agenda. I think it really is a two way street.
> 
> As far as some stories being a "lie", there are things that might be recorded in the bible, and not anywhere else, I don't think that makes the event/people/places not true, it's just that we only have it recorded in one place.
> 
> ...



True to a point.
Then we get into the things that are only recorded in the Bible and are also found to just not be true,did not happen and never occur. Many of these things have been proven to be false through archeology,research, science etc... Not that we just didn't find them yet, it is just that things were found and the dates do not come anywhere close to the claims or the claims were totally non-existent of any proof to back them up. There are tales of grand events that included millions of people and specific places that have been proven beyond reasonable doubt to have never occurred or existed.
The bottom line is that all that stuff is acceptable if you take the Bible for what it really is instead of what it is passed off as being.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 15, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> .... those looking for spaceships behind comets are dulusioned to think there is actually a spaceship, which we know there wasn't, the same cannot be said for God.



There could be spaceships behind those comets, for all we know, they just didn't pick anybody up last go-'round.

There's always next time. (I'd insert a smiley or something, but that doesn't seem to go over well these days).


----------



## JFS (Mar 15, 2013)

Maybe some day.


----------



## Nastytater (Mar 15, 2013)

Lets see.....As I jump from the Christianity forum and look at thread titles,then jump back too the Atheists Forum and look at the thread titles,I came up with a conclusion.  The folks making threads on the Christianity side seem to have more on their plate as far as other things going on. Full of love and sharing of peaceful things with encouragement of having a better life.  Over here,I see mostly threads about how Christianity is a joke or WHY the Bible was written. And even though Antheists have ALL rights to whatever Religion or Self Belief they desire,they tend to try and encourage others to believe that there is no God. I saw earlier where someone stated that the Bible was written to Brainwash people. Seems to me that the Brainwashing isn't coming from the Christianity side of the isle,but in fact the Non-Believer's side. Why are all of you so FULL of hate for a Peaceful Loving group of people who just want to be left alone to worship God ?..Is it because they believe enough that they speak of what they worship and choose to share with others for a Fullfilled life with peace and harmony? Or is it because you CAN'T turn them away from their beliefs?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> There could be spaceships behind those comets, for all we know, they just didn't pick anybody up last go-'round.
> 
> There's always next time. (I'd insert a smiley or something, but that doesn't seem to go over well these days).



You were supposed to keep that a secret 


I told you they wouldn't pick us up the next time they come by if we told everybody.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2013)

Nastytater said:


> Lets see.....As I jump from the Christianity forum and look at thread titles,then jump back too the Atheists Forum and look at the thread titles,I came up with a conclusion.  The folks making threads on the Christianity side seem to have more on their plate as far as other things going on. Full of love and sharing of peaceful things with encouragement of having a better life.  Over here,I see mostly threads about how Christianity is a joke or WHY the Bible was written. And even though Antheists have ALL rights to whatever Religion or Self Belief they desire,they tend to try and encourage others to believe that there is no God. I saw earlier where someone stated that the Bible was written to Brainwash people. Seems to me that the Brainwashing isn't coming from the Christianity side of the isle,but in fact the Non-Believer's side. Why are all of you so FULL of hate for a Peaceful Loving group of people who just want to be left alone to worship God ?..Is it because they believe enough that they speak of what they worship and choose to share with others for a Fullfilled life with peace and harmony? Or is it because you CAN'T turn them away from their beliefs?



Thanks, sometimes one of these posts is needed to break up seriousness in here. I enjoyed the laugh.

But on a side note...what do THINK the talk is going to be about in the Christianity forum where only like-minded people are allowed to converse??? Down here is the chance to air it all out.
If I remember correctly there is a warning "up there" that no one is allowed to discuss different bible versions , and it isn't because those posts was overflowing with peace and love.......
I agree that it seems like there are some very decent people that frequent these forums, but ain't you or me could tell the difference of what their beliefs are outside of these forums because in daily life...without these nicknames....We are all good, loving, peaceful people.

Now, if you want to discuss how peaceful and loving ALL Christians are and have been throughout it's history....you in da right place.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You were supposed to keep that a secret
> 
> 
> I told you they wouldn't pick us up the next time they come by if we told everybody.



Maybe we just didn't find the spaceships....yet...?


----------



## Nastytater (Mar 15, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I agree that it seems like there are some very decent people that frequent these forums, but ain't you or me could tell the difference of what their beliefs are outside of these forums because in daily life...without these nicknames....We are all good, loving, peaceful people.



Honestly,I would LOVE to hope that we ALL are. But ya know,in every joke there is a little honesty as well. Even if it's NOT intended too be,it's still there.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Really and truly, anybody can find whatever they want on the internet, heck, I could find tons of info on aliens, the illuminati, and whatever else I could think of.



That statement is 100% true and I agree.
Another thing that I strongly believe is out of all that stuff, only the truth will hold up to scrutiny. It takes a lot of time but the bunk is quickly separated from the facts and in the end they each stand on their own.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2013)

Nastytater said:


> Honestly,I would LOVE to hope that we ALL are. But ya know,in every joke there is a little honesty as well. Even if it's NOT intended too be,it's still there.



That may very well be your personal feelings but I am not sure how you judge people that you do not know by lumping the Christians together as being ALL loving and peaceful and Non-Christians/non-Believers into another category.
It is that sort of narrow mindedness and blanket statements that we try to break down and ask that people use some facts to back up their claims.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Maybe we just didn't find the spaceships....yet...?



I don't know? I haven't seen anything compelling that would lead me to believe one way or the other, honestly, it doesn't really matter to me.


If you see one, and talk to some of the critters on it, will you ask them to hover over the farm I'm hunting on opening morning and tell me where the birds are at? Need to get between big boy and his lady friends.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I don't know? I haven't seen anything compelling that would lead me to believe one way or the other, honestly, it doesn't really matter to me.
> 
> 
> If you see one, and talk to some of the critters on it, will you ask them to hover over the farm I'm hunting on opening morning and tell me where the birds are at? Need to get between big boy and his lady friends.



Will do! Nothing like some aerial surveillance to help outflank Ol ThreeToes.


----------



## Nastytater (Mar 15, 2013)

bullethead said:


> That may very well be your personal feelings but I am not sure how you judge people that you do not know by lumping the Christians together as being ALL loving and peaceful and Non-Christians/non-Believers into another category.
> It is that sort of narrow mindedness and blanket statements that we try to break down and ask that people use some facts to back up their claims.



I've already gave you my facts. It's in my post about the different thread titles. Check it out yourself and see what conclusion you come up with. Again,It's my own Conclusion(Opinion). And your right,maybe I shouldn't have used the word ALL,because I have several friends that I consider to be very NICE and friendly folks that have a different view than I myself do. And I have several friends(Not so much) that believe the same as I do that are completely opposite. So if I could,I'd like to strike out the word ALL,and install the word MOST! I believe we BOTH can agree with that terminology.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2013)

Nastytater said:


> I've already gave you my facts. It's in my post about the different thread titles. Check it out yourself and see what conclusion you come up with. Again,It's my own Conclusion(Opinion). And your right,maybe I shouldn't have used the word ALL,because I have several friends that I consider to be very NICE and friendly folks that have a different view than I myself do. And I have several friends(Not so much) that believe the same as I do that are completely opposite. So if I could,I'd like to strike out the word ALL,and install the word MOST! I believe we BOTH can agree with that terminology.



Those are generalizations not necessarily facts.
You are comparing a forum where like-minded people that happen to be Christians post(where "outsiders" are asked not to contribute) with a forum that contains many different people that are not like-minded and is basically anything goes type forum.
That is two totally different things.
And you seemed to skip over the "Sticky" Announcement in the Christianity/Judaism forum, which kind of blows your "facts" out of the water.
I'll quote it for you so you don't have to look for it:



jmharris23 said:


> Until further notice the discussion of versions of the bible will no longer be allowed in this forum.
> 
> Due to the inflammatory nature that each and every one of these threads ultimately contains we will no longer allow the discussion of this topic.
> 
> ...



Peace and Love brother, Peace and Love.



Ronnie T said:


> This particular area is for Christianity & Judaism discussion.
> 
> This area belongs to subjects as they relate to persons who believe in the Almighty God, the God of Abraham.
> This is a place for Bible study, not believers against unbelievers.
> ...


We respect those rules and honor them.


----------



## StriperAddict (Mar 15, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Another thing that I strongly believe is out of all that stuff, only the truth will hold up to scrutiny. It takes a lot of time but the bunk is quickly separated from the facts and in the end they each stand on their own.


 
Very well said.

I'll add also that intimate "knowing" is something quite real to believers - yet no doubt without "defense" of sorts.  I'm sorry if I'm off topic, but it is in that knowing (the fullest love, divine) where the rubber really meets the road.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 15, 2013)

StriperAddict said:


> Very well said.
> 
> I'll add also that intimate "knowing" is something quite real to believers - yet no doubt without "defense" of sorts.  I'm sorry if I'm off topic, but it is in that knowing (the fullest love, divine) where the rubber really meets the road.



Agreed.
But realistically, that is not exclusive to any one religion and does not actually make one believer any more knowledgeable than the next either within the same religion or another.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 15, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Agreed.
> But realistically, that is not exclusive to any one religion and does not actually make one believer any more knowledgeable than the next either within the same religion or another.



That is one advantage you have over us. We have to somehow convince the world that our God is the real God. 
It might be easier for us to convince people who believe in other Gods vs people who don't believe in any God.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 16, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> That is one advantage you have over us. We have to somehow convince the world that our God is the real God.
> It might be easier for us to convince people who believe in other Gods vs people who don't believe in any God.



The "Word" really would not need help and could do all of the convincing on it's own merits if all of it actually was infallible and inerrant and not such a jumble of confusing man-made contradiction unable to be easily proven and in many cases proven at all.

Basically if the work was divine, it would have been done right. The work and contents would not leave any doubt to be cast upon it.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> The "Word" really would not need help and could do all of the convincing on it's own merits if all of it actually was infallible and inerrant and not such a jumble of confusing man-made contradiction unable to be easily proven and in many cases proven at all.
> 
> Basically if the work was divine, it would have been done right. The work and contents would not leave any doubt to be cast upon it.



It does however say to believe by faith....so at least we know that part is true..eh?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 16, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> It does however say to believe by faith....so at least we know that part is true..eh?



If God penned it yes.
Because man penned it faith would be the only thing they rely on.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> The "Word" really would not need help and could do all of the convincing on it's own merits if all of it actually was infallible and inerrant and not such a jumble of confusing man-made contradiction unable to be easily proven and in many cases proven at all.
> 
> Basically if the work was divine, it would have been done right. The work and contents would not leave any doubt to be cast upon it.



I think what you are asking is: Why doesn't God prove himself?"
I was just reading this article:
A good answer is presented by Philip Yancey in his book, The Jesus I Never Knew.

Yancey points out that God has given us the freedom to believe in him or not. And he says, "My faith suffers from too much freedom, too many temptations to disbelieve. At times I want God to overwhelm me, to overcome my doubts with certainty, to give final proofs of his existence and his concern. I want a God without ambiguity, One to whom I can point for the sake of my doubting friends." But then he says, "The more I get to know Jesus, the more impressed I am by what [Dostoevsky] calls the miracle of restraint."

Jesus could have performed such spectacular miracles that people would have to believe in him. He could have healed entire towns with one mass proclamation. He could have taken present day New York City, complete with skyscrapers, subways, electronic neon billboards and dropped it right before them.
But he didn't. Why not?
God always upholds the free will he created us to have.
Although power can force obedience, only love can summon a response of love, which is the one thing God wants from us and the reason he created us."
What God wants is for us to know him as our Father, Friend, Comforter, Counselor, Lord -- willingly, not under compulsion.
http://www.everystudent.com/forum/miracles2.html


----------



## bullethead (Mar 17, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> I think what you are asking is: Why doesn't God prove himself?"
> I was just reading this article:
> A good answer is presented by Philip Yancey in his book, The Jesus I Never Knew.
> 
> ...



Like I said numerous times....EVERYBODY and their brother has an excuse for why their god is totally absent. They try to spin it to make it seem like that it is planned but really what else could be said for such a lack of involvement. God seemed to have no problem interacting among the people according to the stories in the Bible and the world believed in him even less when he "was among us".....where is he at now?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 17, 2013)

Excuses.....I mean proof that God exists:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Excuses.....I mean proof that God exists:
> http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm


We can't prove it. When I realized this, I'm became tolerant of those who believe otherwise. Tolerant is not a good word. It seems to imply an agitation. Help me to figure a better word


----------



## bullethead (Mar 17, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> We can't prove it. When I realized this, I'm became tolerant of those who believe otherwise. Tolerant is not a good word. It seems to imply an agitation. Help me to figure a better word



Yeah I understand. "Accepting" might be the word your looking for.
I am kind of the same way with the Free Will excuse. It is a one size fits all ultimate excuse. It is like the "self destruct" button that every villain puts into his unstoppable plan in every movie. Man writes stories about a God that is the ultimate thinker and creator who plans everything to perfection and on paper it should work...except in real life not everyone goes along with the program so there HAS to be the ultimate escape route...an excuse...FREE WILL!!! YES that's the ticket!!! With Satan coming in second in a close vote.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> If God penned it yes.
> Because man penned it faith would be the only thing they rely on.



I certainly agree.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Yeah I understand. "Accepting" might be the word your looking for.
> I am kind of the same way with the Free Will excuse. It is a one size fits all ultimate excuse. It is like the "self destruct" button that every villain puts into his unstoppable plan in every movie. Man writes stories about a God that is the ultimate thinker and creator who plans everything to perfection and on paper it should work...except in real life not everyone goes along with the program so there HAS to be the ultimate escape route...an excuse...FREE WILL!!! YES that's the ticket!!! With Satan coming in second in a close vote.



If not for free will, we would have proof wouldn't we? I mean all of us would have proof. If I didn't have free to do the things I do, and God totally controlled me, I'd be perfect as well as all other Christians. Would we then have to believe by faith or would we believe by sight because of all the perfect Christians?  If every Christian was a perfect model of Christ, it might even convince you.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 17, 2013)

Acceptance or tolerant works for me...depends on the sitchyation.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 17, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> If not for free will, we would have proof wouldn't we? I mean all of us would have proof. If I didn't have free to do the things I do, and God totally controlled me, I'd be perfect as well as all other Christians. Would we then have to believe by faith or would we believe by sight because of all the perfect Christians?  If every Christian was a perfect model of Christ, it might even convince you.



Like I said, the PERFECT excuse. Without the Free Will pass the loving caring all everything God really comes apart. Now, "it's OUR fault cause of that darn free will"
You just have it a little misunderstood. You think w/out Free Will we would all be perfect Christians. I must disagree, we are without free will and without free will it is JUST the same as it always has been. The only thing Free Will protects is the hokey stories in the Bible. The writers were good, but not great.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 17, 2013)

When I say "without" Free Will I mean we were not "given" it by anyone other than ourselves, society,upbringing. It is just like morals.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Like I said, the PERFECT excuse. Without the Free Will pass the loving caring all everything God really comes apart. Now, "it's OUR fault cause of that darn free will"
> You just have it a little misunderstood. You think w/out Free Will we would all be perfect Christians. I must disagree, we are without free will and without free will it is JUST the same as it always has been. The only thing Free Will protects is the hokey stories in the Bible. The writers were good, but not great.



I thought you were talking about the Christian free willers and the elect subject that we discuss.  That's what I was talkin' bout. I guess I misunderstood the meaning of your post..my bad.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> When I say "without" Free Will I mean we were not "given" it by anyone other than ourselves, society,upbringing. It is just like morals.



I agree we all have free will.
What we do bad to ourselves or others,etc. is our fault, regardless of what we do or don't believe.


----------

