# Word of God?



## WaltL1 (Aug 11, 2015)

While not proven one way or another it sure seems like additions, deletions, changes, mistakes by scribes etc. is accepted as happening


> http://listverse.com/2015/08/11/10-bible-passages-that-might-be-totally-bogus/


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 11, 2015)

I eagerly await the "10 Koran Passages That Might Be Totally Bogus".


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 11, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> I eagerly await the "10 Koran Passages That Might Be Totally Bogus".


Why?
Would that have some impact on this subject?
"Even Steven" or something?


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 11, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Why?
> Would that have some impact on this subject?



No, but I never miss an opportunity to point out the double standard of the MSM.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 11, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> No, but I never miss an opportunity to point out the double standard of the MSM.


Didnt read it did you?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 11, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> No, but I never miss an opportunity to point out the double standard of the MSM.


Not sure an article about the dominant religion in OUR society as opposed to the dominant religon in "their" society would be a double standard considering its US that would be reading it.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 11, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Didnt read it did you?



I read it.  I had heard about five of them before.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 11, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Not sure an article about the dominant religion in OUR society as opposed to the dominant religon in "their" society would be a double standard considering its US that would be reading it.



The MSM goes out of its way to not offend Islam.  They give it the utmost respect while denigrating Christianity at every opportunity.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 11, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> The MSM goes out of its way to not offend Islam.  They give it the utmost respect while denigrating Christianity at every opportunity.


So is "waaahh they are picking on us" all you wanted to convey or did you have any comment on the information contained in the article? Which by the way contained opinions of scholars both for and against.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 12, 2015)

Pretty good read.  Even if all are errors it does nothing to change the central message of the Bible which is the Gospel nor does it affect the proof of General Revelation. sooo.........


----------



## bullethead (Aug 12, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Pretty good read.  Even if all are errors it does nothing to change the central message of the Bible which is the Gospel nor does it affect the proof of General Revelation. sooo.........


For you.
But ask 100 different people what the central message is and you will get many different answers so what isn't affected for you might be affected for someone else.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 12, 2015)

bullethead said:


> For you.
> But ask 100 different people what the central message is and you will get many different answers so what isn't affected for you might be affected for someone else.



No.  Pretty much any literate person (believer or unbeliever) can read the Bible and glean it's CORE message....even a child.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 12, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No.  Pretty much any literate person (believer or unbeliever) can read the Bible and glean it's CORE message....even a child.



Eternal love? Oh, no, wait Hades awaits all unrepentant sinners, or the unelected, or those who don't accept Jesus as their savior, or those who weren't baptized, or those who drink on Sundays before church...

No, wait again, all of that is washed away by the blood of the Christ and even Hitler would be inside the pearly gates if he was elected, repentant, baptized, or so accepting of Christ. 

I'll admit in this case to not being smarter than a 5th grader so, please, enlighten this child. However, if one person can be found to contradict your exposition on these boards, we'll make it a little tougher than just googling an opposing view, then you have to admit it's a little more challenging that child's play. Deal? I'm game if you are.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 12, 2015)

I child can tell you what the core message is, but I believe absolutely no child can read the bible and based on reading it tell you what the core message is. For that matter, most people don't. I know very few people who have claimed to have read the bible front to back. And even fewer who have claimed to have read the bible front to back and been able to decide the core  message without have been bombarded by other ideas of the core message.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 12, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Pretty good read.  Even if all are errors it does nothing to change the central message of the Bible which is the Gospel nor does it affect the proof of General Revelation. sooo.........


That whole General Revelation thing is pretty circular.
General Revelation is proof of God, God proves General Revelation do si do round and round we go.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 12, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No.  Pretty much any literate person (believer or unbeliever) can read the Bible and glean it's CORE message....even a child.



I didn't write this but, pretty much sums up my feelings as well:
"Many of us who have actually read the Bible may well agree that the core message is one of abject cruelty and totalitarianism. When it isn't the ignorant rantings of pre-scientific goat herders and their tribal spats with neighboring peoples, it's a system of laws demanding obedience, but which can never be fully obeyed. That's if a cobbled-together collection of recycled myth, internal contradictions, and ahistorical nonsense can be said to even have a core message."


----------



## bullethead (Aug 12, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No.  Pretty much any literate person (believer or unbeliever) can read the Bible and glean it's CORE message....even a child.


That does not say much for your fellow Christians because when the question came up in another thread about the CORE message the answers varied.
I have seen many a child use guesses in place of facts. You are in good company.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 12, 2015)

660griz said:


> I didn't write this but, pretty much sums up my feelings as well:
> "Many of us who have actually read the Bible may well agree that the core message is one of abject cruelty and totalitarianism. When it isn't the ignorant rantings of pre-scientific goat herders and their tribal spats with neighboring peoples, it's a system of laws demanding obedience, but which can never be fully obeyed. That's if a cobbled-together collection of recycled myth, internal contradictions, and ahistorical nonsense can be said to even have a core message."


That just shows you are smarter than pretty much any child that is literate.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 12, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> While not proven one way or another it sure seems like additions, deletions, changes, mistakes by scribes etc. is accepted as happening



Of course there are others discrepancies not listed in this top 10, but #5, #4 and #1 are wrong.

#1 is especially feeble because the passage is missing from certain Greek sourced manuscripts it appears to be later added  however the version derived through the separate Western church, Spain, from the Syrian church ,does have the phrase, so it was omitted rather than added.

Why?  The Top 10 list suggests it properly the Arians were involved but fail to mention the reason. There was also a group that believe the Trinity was on the cross. This verse fed that incorrect doctrine and the reason it was omitted for a long time, hundreds of years perhaps. It was restored when compared to the Syrian based manuscripts.

I suggest no translation is correct as words from different languages do not have the exact same meanings. The "original  thoughts" must be preserved many translations are biased.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 12, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Of course there are others discrepancies not listed in this top 10, but #5, #4 and #1 are wrong.
> 
> #1 is especially feeble because the passage is missing from certain Greek sourced manuscripts it appears to be later added  however the version derived through the separate Western church, Spain, from the Syrian church ,does have the phrase, so it was omitted rather than added.
> 
> ...





> The Top 10 list





> this top 10


Nowhere are these referred to as "the top 10".
The title is - 10 Bible Passages That Might Be Totally Bogus


> #5, #4 and #1 are wrong.


On this particular forum we generally try to provide a little more proof than just "they are wrong". If you have knowledge of which are wrong I would suggest getting in touch with somebody and straightening these scholars out.


> The Top 10 list suggests it properly the Arians were involved





> But is it really believable that the Arians could have expunged so many Greek manuscripts, even with their dominance of the Eastern Roman Empire for half a century? Textual critics think not. Modern critical versions of the Bible now usually omit the Comma. For example, the English Standard Version reads: “For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree





> I suggest no translation is correct as words from different languages do not have the exact same meanings.


Yes it was pointed out at the beginning of the article that -


> Over 99 percent of these variant readings are mere spelling errors, word transpositions, or mistakes due to simple carelessness.


However the 10 examples discussed fall into -


> But a small number of errors hint at deliberate, later insertions


Regardless, the article did a good job of including both for and against scholar opinions.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 12, 2015)

Well said, but the #4 and #5 shows the failure to recognize the themes of the two Books,  Mark show Jesus a  suffering servant while Luke  shows Jesus as the Son of Man,.  They would never be written from the same POV. The discrepancies are real as the article suggests just obviously so for a reason.

Any translator that chooses to bypass the Greek with the added section of the verse to go with the previous versions is following one line. The other side of the old Roman empire certainly maintained the verse.  
But keep in mind there is no punctuation in either NT Latin or Greek, so the title is based upon a English translator.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 12, 2015)

Let me add one that might surprise you 
"In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth is incorrect. It is not Hebrew Grammar. It is correct if Hebrew was spoken like Yoda from Star Wars.

It actually should say "Gen 1:1
In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --

then in v 3  Let there be light.

The excuse for this was complied as a "waw" conversive  which does not exit in any? Semitic language.

So what difference does it make?

This is not the creation of Heaven  (spiritual abode) at all but  the changes in established physical universe and the beginning of mankind's narrative.


So this would be opposed to by most Christian or Jewish teachers yet it is plainly shown in the Young's Literal Translation  as well as older Jewish scriptures.

What does  the Atheist group say about this?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 12, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Eternal love? Oh, no, wait Hades awaits all unrepentant sinners, or the unelected, or those who don't accept Jesus as their savior, or those who weren't baptized, or those who drink on Sundays before church...
> 
> No, wait again, all of that is washed away by the blood of the Christ and even Hitler would be inside the pearly gates if he was elected, repentant, baptized, or so accepting of Christ.
> 
> I'll admit in this case to not being smarter than a 5th grader so, please, enlighten this child. However, if one person can be found to contradict your exposition on these boards, we'll make it a little tougher than just googling an opposing view, then you have to admit it's a little more challenging that child's play. Deal? I'm game if you are.




Well let's make it even simpler. What do YOU think is the core message. ( I'm assuming you've read it.  Lot of people haven't.)


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 12, 2015)

If I might,

 the core message, the entire narrative ,the entire purpose is the redemption of sinful beings and the reconciliation of Heaven


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 12, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> That whole General Revelation thing is pretty circular.
> General Revelation is proof of God, God proves General Revelation do si do round and round we go.



I would agree your caricature IS circular.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 12, 2015)

op2:
Thank You


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 12, 2015)

660griz said:


> I didn't write this but, pretty much sums up my feelings as well:
> "Many of us who have actually read the Bible may well agree that the core message is one of abject cruelty and totalitarianism. When it isn't the ignorant rantings of pre-scientific goat herders and their tribal spats with neighboring peoples, it's a system of laws demanding obedience, but which can never be fully obeyed. That's if a cobbled-together collection of recycled myth, internal contradictions, and ahistorical nonsense can be said to even have a core message."



Ahhh.  Another caricature, and not even an intelligent one.
This, kids, is why we can't have nice things.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 12, 2015)

bullethead said:


> That does not say much for your fellow Christians because when the question came up in another thread about the CORE message the answers varied.
> I have seen many a child use guesses in place of facts. You are in good company.



And I've seen many a child use caricatures and outright lies in place of facts.  Never mind what that says about the company YOU keep,what does it say about atheism as a belief system that it's supporters have to revert to such in order to defend it. 

I'll answer that for you.  Atheism is a lie.  It is in fact, the very antithesis of truth.  It  has no intelligible defense therefore it's supporters (as a whole) have no choice but to revert to lies, caricatures, and denigration of the truth and those who subscribe to the truth.   THAT, my friend IS Athiesm.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 12, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> While not proven one way or another it sure seems like additions, deletions, changes, mistakes by scribes etc. is accepted as happening


 These are 10 of 100's. Many of what they have pointed out have escape routes. I usually don't bring up the ones that can be disputed. Plenty of others that have no justification. But..... Even knowing this, the simple gospel is found within all the embellishments


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 12, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> If I might,
> 
> the core message, the entire narrative ,the entire purpose is the redemption of sinful beings and the reconciliation of Heaven



Shhhhhh. That's gonna ruin their perfectly bad caricatures.
We can't have anything resembling the TRUTH being published without attacking it to the Nth degree.  Standby.  3.2.1.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 12, 2015)

Let me take a shot from the hip without having give it much thought. Mankind tried for generations to overcome his nature but a survey of mankind and the bible tells us what Jesus said, that all that self discipline only amounted to pride, a white washed tomb that was no better. So another way, the good news is that we give up this dead end road and take hold of the good news, that we don't have to be good enough. We put our faith in Jesus trusting that he is able to keep that which we have entrusted to him. "How shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation?" One of the best reds I ever read, "When I saw him". My only reservation was a few trinity comments in one chapter.... that I did not agree with. But still in the top 5 I have ever read. Atheists should invest the time to check this out, not to be converted, but to understand what the core of the faith is...... because the world has forever muddied the correct understanding.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 12, 2015)

1gr8bldr said:


> Let me take a shot from the hip without having give it much thought. Mankind tried for generations to overcome his nature but a survey of mankind and the bible tells us what Jesus said, that all that self discipline only amounted to pride, a white washed tomb that was no better. So another way, the good news is that we give up this dead end road and take hold of the good news, that we don't have to be good enough. We put our faith in Jesus trusting that he is able to keep that which we have entrusted to him. "How shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation?" One of the best reds I ever read, "When I saw him". My only reservation was a few trinity comments in one chapter.... that I did not agree with. But still in the top 5 I have ever read. Atheists should invest the time to check this out, not to be converted, but to understand what the core of the faith is...... because the world has forever muddied the correct understanding.



AAAAAGAIN.  BINGO!

And I agree wholeheartedly about atheist reading the Bible.  If you are gonna offer an opinion, particularly a derogatory one, on something you haven't even read, you deserve to look as ignorant as you sound.  I know many self-proclaiming Christians haven't read the Bible, so I would expect many atheist haven't either.  Sadly it doesn't stop either from making fools of themselves.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 13, 2015)

1gr8bldr said:


> These are 10 of 100's. Many of what they have pointed out have escape routes. I usually don't bring up the ones that can be disputed. Plenty of others that have no justification. But..... Even knowing this, the simple gospel is found within all the embellishments


First thank you for an honest, realistic response that isnt dominated by emotion and denial.
And Im not suggesting that a Christian should "throw the baby out with the bath water" because these descepenies exist.
However it does speak to -
1. A Christian handing you a Bible and claiming it is the Word of God.
Well no not really. At minumum, not completely.
2. That agendas whether at the individual or at the sect level undeniably played a part in what the Bible says as it exists today.
3. That back then the Bible was not handled or treated as though it was the Word of God to be protected, unchanged, revered. See #2 above.
4. Lends support to the belief of a person such as myself who reject the Bible as being man made and man inspired by those with an agenda.


> But..... Even knowing this, the simple gospel is found within all the embellishments


Which I think would be fine if it was presented as -
"This is what WE in Christianity have come up with to represent our beleifs".
The problem there is then you lose the God is against gay marriage and God is against this and God is against that line of argument.
An omni-everything God thought it was a good idea to let man handle his Word?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 13, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> And I've seen many a child use caricatures and outright lies in place of facts.  Never mind what that says about the company YOU keep,what does it say about atheism as a belief system that it's supporters have to revert to such in order to defend it.
> 
> I'll answer that for you.  Atheism is a lie.  It is in fact, the very antithesis of truth.  It  has no intelligible defense therefore it's supporters (as a whole) have no choice but to revert to lies, caricatures, and denigration of the truth and those who subscribe to the truth.   THAT, my friend IS Athiesm.


Here is where you run off the rails -


> It is in fact, the very antithesis of truth


On a subject that is based on belief and opinion it makes your claims about Atheism personal opinion. 
No more and no less.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 13, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Here is where you run off the rails -
> 
> On a subject that is based on belief and opinion it makes your claims about Atheism personal opinion.
> No more and no less.



Actually the more I learn about Athiesm, the more unintelligible and untenable it appears.  It's to the point that I can't understand how from a strictly intellectual standpoint one could find it plausible ........at all. 

 What I see with my eyes when I look at the belief as a whole, is tHe vast majority of atheist are bitter with religion, religious people, or even God, and to them it's more of an emotional stance than an intellectual one.  I think this explains the bitterness, the denigration, the caricatures, and lies that they are quick to engage in as their FIRST response.  Honestly, you don't see that level of emotion when people are discussing say.......theories of plate tectonics, or (and I'm being a bit provacative here) unicorns.  

The intellectual cost of holding to Athiesm is tremendous, to the point of absurdity, and the only explaination I can fathom for someone being willing to pay that cost is exactly what I have pointed out; namely anger.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 13, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Actually the more I learn about Athiesm, the more unintelligible and untenable it appears.  It's to the point that I can't understand how from a strictly intellectual standpoint one could find it plausible ........at all.
> 
> What I see with my eyes when I look at the belief as a whole, is tHe vast majority of atheist are bitter with religion, religious people, or even God, and to them it's more of an emotional stance than an intellectual one.  I think this explains the bitterness, the denigration, the caricatures, and lies that they are quick to engage in as their FIRST response.  Honestly, you don't see that level of emotion when people are discussing say.......theories of plate tectonics, or (and I'm being a bit provacative here) unicorns.
> 
> The intellectual cost of holding to Athiesm is tremendous, to the point of absurdity, and the only explaination I can fathom for someone being willing to pay that cost is exactly what I have pointed out; namely anger.


Thats a rather large pile of dung.


> Actually the more I learn about Athiesm, the more unintelligible and untenable it appears.  It's to the point that I can't understand how from a strictly intellectual standpoint one could find it plausible ........at all.


Its really simple once you remove your emotion from it.
When noone can prove a God exists its quite plausible that one doesnt. 


> vast majority of atheist are bitter


Im not familiar with your travel habits or your other forum participation habits but, and Im just guessing here, you havent talked to even a minute fraction of the Atheists that exist. That makes your "vast majority" analysis just a little suspect.
Do some number of Atheists exist that are bitter with religion and religious people? Im sure there are. Particularly the ones that forget to get Sunday beer.


> or even God


Kinda doubt an Atheist is bitter with God. If he is, he isnt an Atheist.


> Honestly, you don't see that level of emotion when people are discussing say.......theories of plate tectonics, or (and I'm being a bit provacative here) unicorns.


Read your post above if you want to see a real big dose of emotion.


> The intellectual cost of holding to Athiesm is tremendous


How do you figure?
There are no talking donkeys to justify or any genocide to justify or ladders to heaven or people turning into pillars of salt or my God exists and yours doesnt, scripture means this but it doesnt mean that............
We get it, you believe in the Christian God and dont understand how someone else cant.
But the rest of that nonsense? Dung.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 13, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> First thank you for an honest, realistic response that isnt dominated by emotion and denial.
> And Im not suggesting that a Christian should "throw the baby out with the bath water" because these descepenies exist.
> However it does speak to -
> 1. A Christian handing you a Bible and claiming it is the Word of God.
> ...


Bart Erhman used to be what he calls "a born again Christian". His stories show him as a young zealous Christian. But after time, his realizing these issues, he had problem with 2 things. Suffering from a loving God, and If God gave us his word... then why would he not have protected/preserved it without the stain of man's influence.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 13, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Shhhhhh. That's gonna ruin their perfectly bad caricatures.





> I would agree your caricature IS circular





> have no choice but to revert to lies, caricatures,





> Ahhh. Another caricature,



Somebody learned a new word. 

Anyway, nice response. I just gave my opinion of the core message of the bible. 
I was going to post different ideas of the core message from Christians but, we should all know (except you) that there are lots of interpretations. 

That is my honest opinion of the Bible. And yes, I have read the Bible. That was ONE of the catalyst that started me on the road to 'nirvana'. 

If you want, you can call me an idiot in capital letters. I don't mind. It would be better than your thinly veiled attempts thus far. 

Remember, I am not the one that believes in a world wide flood, man living in fish, talking donkeys, walking on water, raised from the dead, woman from a rib, man from dust, and the list goes on with other  moments as Deuteronomy 23:1.

Yep, if I have to believe the bible in order to be considered intelligent, well, color me an idiot. 

How blessed will be the one who seizes your young children and pulverizes them against the cliff! 
 --Psalm 137:9 

See, one of the great things about the bible, it provides its own caricatures.

Now, protect those 'family jewels' so you can go to heaven.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 13, 2015)

1gr8bldr said:


> Bart Erhman used to be what he calls "a born again Christian". His stories show him as a young zealous Christian. But after time, his realizing these issues, he had problem with 2 things. Suffering from a loving God, and If God gave us his word... then why would he not have protected/preserved it without the stain of man's influence.


Yep both legitimate questions. And not just suffering. The flood was the only solution an omni-everything loving God could come up with? 
Lots and lots of contradictions. I guess how one deals with those contradictions is a personal choice.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 13, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Well let's make it even simpler. What do YOU think is the core message. ( I'm assuming you've read it.  Lot of people haven't.)



I have, it's been a while, but I have. And the question isn't whether a non-believer can define the core message. It's whether a believer can define it with 100% accuracy. Remember you're the one who said a literate child could do it, so it should be no challenge for you. 

I, self-deprecation having been admitted in the original challenge, would be willing to say on national TV that I am not smarter than a 5th grader if you can stumble on a core message that no one of Christian faith disagrees with, and even went so far as to limit myself to only those sources on this forum; forgoing the obviousness that Google could return results on such a query before I'd even finish typing it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 13, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> If I might,
> 
> the core message, the entire narrative ,the entire purpose is the redemption of sinful beings and the reconciliation of Heaven



Errnt. Those who subscribe to the theory of the elected disagree with you, and I didn't even have to step out of the AAA to show you that.


----------



## formula1 (Aug 13, 2015)

*Re:*

The central theme of the Bible which I have read through several times over the years is the Gospel (good news). The good news is God loved the men and women He created so much that when they fell into sin through their own choice, He wanted  to restore them all to Himself.

He sent His only son, Jesus(Yeshua), who lived a sinless life to take on our sin by His sacrificial death on a cross.

God through the ridiculous notion of belief in the finished work of Christ's death for our sin, forgave us and exchanged our sinfulness for His righteousness.  Now, we who believe are alive as if we never sinned, though we still do.

God became our Father and adopted us as His children and gave us His Spirit to help us live this life in Him!  Inasmuch as we listen to Him, we are successful! And as we fail to listen to Him, we still pay the price for our sin on this earth. But overall, as we turn from our sin, it does not rule us anymore.

Those that do not choose to believe this ridiculously good news are still in sin and separated from God.  You can call that darkness, or He$$, or just on the outside looking in! Whatever it is, If God is true and the good news is true and eternal life is true, then it would truly be awful to be on the outside looking in!  And yes, I know that's from my perspective!

We as Christian say there is a God, He will require every man to pay for His sin one way or the other, but He also gave every man the right to choose the 'good news' and find his way out of payment for that sin through Christ.

Everyone!

I don't post often here but in reading through this thread I am compelled to.  I understand almost no one here believes this 'good news'!  But there is no one here that I don't want to know it.  

Belief and faith are ridiculous notions to many! But whether or not they are real, each one must decide!!!  

I leave you one scripture from the book of John not listed in the OP's article said to be Jesus' words to an unbelieving disciple:

“Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

My hope for all of you is that one day you will remember this post and come to understand and believe the Gospel at some point in your life!

Wishing all of you the best!


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 13, 2015)

formula1 said:


> The central theme of the Bible which I have read through several times over the years is the Gospel (good news). The good news is God loved the men and women He created so much that when they fell into sin through their own choice, He wanted  to restore them all to Himself.
> 
> He sent His only son, Jesus(Yeshua), who lived a sinless life to take on our sin by His sacrificial death on a cross.
> 
> ...



Sincere thanks for the well wishes.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 13, 2015)

formula1 said:


> Wishing all of you the best!



Thank you and right back at ya.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 13, 2015)

formula1 said:


> The central theme of the Bible which I have read through several times over the years is the Gospel (good news). The good news is God loved the men and women He created so much that when they fell into sin through their own choice, He wanted  to restore them all to Himself.
> 
> He sent His only son, Jesus(Yeshua), who lived a sinless life to take on our sin by His sacrificial death on a cross.
> 
> ...



Then as long as we have faith that the central theme is true we can see what we call contradictions and try to solve those with other scriptures. 
It is OK as 1gr8bldr touched on to see the work of man within writing these various interpretations. 
We can question their usage of wrong English words and even their adding their touches to certain verses.
That perhaps they were influenced by their indoctrination or government. 
And that some of the books were left out by man's mistake. Perhaps some of the Gospels were copied by each other to some effect.

If God can divinely give someone on a small island or inner jungle village the Gospel message, someone that has never heard the written gospel, then he can allow us the same gift of truth of his Gospel even with the written Gospel's influence by man.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 13, 2015)

formula1 said:


> The central theme of the Bible which I have read through several times over the years is the Gospel (good news). The good news is God loved the men and women He created so much that when they fell into sin through their own choice, He wanted  to restore them all to Himself.
> 
> He sent His only son, Jesus(Yeshua), who lived a sinless life to take on our sin by His sacrificial death on a cross.
> 
> ...


First, I do and always have respected the way you express your beliefs.
Having said that -


> He also gave every man the right to choose the 'good news' and find his way out of payment for that sin through Christ.


Im sure you are aware that some here believe you are elected prior to the creation of the earth. You are either on the list or you arent regardless of the choices you make.
Some are CREATED for Heaven, some are CREATED for He11. 
Seems like thats a pretty core or central belief (1 example).
Hence our statements that different people come up with different core beliefs.
And best wishes to you.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 13, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> First, I do and always have respected the way you express your beliefs.
> Having said that -
> 
> Im sure you are aware that some here believe you are elected prior to the creation of the earth. You are either on the list or you arent regardless of the choices you make.
> ...



Some even believe that God didn't elect them at the foundation of the world but using his foreknowledge he saw who would choose his path to salvation.

Either way it would be hard to change this predestination by God's election or foreknowledge.
That's a mystery that I've just about decided is best left up to my faith.


----------



## formula1 (Aug 13, 2015)

*Re:*



WaltL1 said:


> Im sure you are aware that some here believe you are elected prior to the creation of the earth. You are either on the list or you arent regardless of the choices you make.
> Some are CREATED for Heaven, some are CREATED for He11.
> Seems like thats a pretty core or central belief (1 example).
> Hence our statements that different people come up with different core beliefs.
> And best wishes to you.



My view on this is really simple in that God predestined a plan for all to come to Him, which is the Gospel.  All who receive His plan are "elect" as a result of their belief! .  Many might think there is some sort of 'exclusivism' in the Gospel.  They might even try to prove it with some scriptures.  But the simple truth is no one is excluded who believes! And I can't honestly with good conscience as one who believes exclude anyone from it's offer except on the grounds of continuing unbelief.  

People are very good at getting things wrong all the time and casting more doubt on the truth of the Gospel.  But the parts we get wrong should not exclude anyone from believing its truth.  In fact, the Gospel is all about just how wrong we all are and how we all can be restored to right relationship with God! 

Well, that's the way I view your concern!  You already have my core beliefs! I hope it helps you in some way!


----------



## bullethead (Aug 13, 2015)

formula1 said:


> The central theme of the Bible which I have read through several times over the years is the Gospel (good news). The good news is God loved the men and women He created so much that when they fell into sin through their own choice, He wanted  to restore them all to Himself.
> 
> He sent His only son, Jesus(Yeshua), who lived a sinless life to take on our sin by His sacrificial death on a cross.
> 
> ...



That is a nice,long well thought post. Thank you.
But SFD would have us believe that pretty much every literate child would post the same thing.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 13, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> And I've seen many a child use caricatures and outright lies in place of facts.  Never mind what that says about the company YOU keep,what does it say about atheism as a belief system that it's supporters have to revert to such in order to defend it.
> 
> I'll answer that for you.  Atheism is a lie.  It is in fact, the very antithesis of truth.  It  has no intelligible defense therefore it's supporters (as a whole) have no choice but to revert to lies, caricatures, and denigration of the truth and those who subscribe to the truth.   THAT, my friend IS Athiesm.



Sounds as though it is your personal opinion without facts to back it up.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 13, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> AAAAAGAIN.  BINGO!
> 
> And I agree wholeheartedly about atheist reading the Bible.  If you are gonna offer an opinion, particularly a derogatory one, on something you haven't even read, you deserve to look as ignorant as you sound.  I know many self-proclaiming Christians haven't read the Bible, so I would expect many atheist haven't either.  Sadly it doesn't stop either from making fools of themselves.


In my short list of atheists, agnostics and believers that I have had conversations with, I have found that the majority of Agnostics and Atheists are more well read on the Bible than the believers have been. 
It has been the case in here time and time again.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 13, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Actually the more I learn about Athiesm, the more unintelligible and untenable it appears.  It's to the point that I can't understand how from a strictly intellectual standpoint one could find it plausible ........at all.
> 
> What I see with my eyes when I look at the belief as a whole, is tHe vast majority of atheist are bitter with religion, religious people, or even God, and to them it's more of an emotional stance than an intellectual one.  I think this explains the bitterness, the denigration, the caricatures, and lies that they are quick to engage in as their FIRST response.  Honestly, you don't see that level of emotion when people are discussing say.......theories of plate tectonics, or (and I'm being a bit provacative here) unicorns.
> 
> The intellectual cost of holding to Athiesm is tremendous, to the point of absurdity, and the only explaination I can fathom for someone being willing to pay that cost is exactly what I have pointed out; namely anger.


Pot/Kettle


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 13, 2015)

formula1 said:


> My view on this is really simple in that God predestined a plan for all to come to Him, which is the Gospel.  All who receive His plan are "elect" as a result of their belief! .  Many might think there is some sort of 'exclusivism' in the Gospel.  They might even try to prove it with some scriptures.  But the simple truth is no one is excluded who believes! And I can't honestly with good conscience as one who believes exclude anyone from it's offer except on the grounds of continuing unbelief.
> 
> People are very good at getting things wrong all the time and casting more doubt on the truth of the Gospel.  But the parts we get wrong should not exclude anyone from believing its truth.  In fact, the Gospel is all about just how wrong we all are and how we all can be restored to right relationship with God!
> 
> Well, that's the way I view your concern!  You already have my core beliefs! I hope it helps you in some way!



I like your view. It does show us even more why we need Jesus.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 13, 2015)

One could say the Christian is required to defend God and spread his Gospel but the Atheist is just doing it for fun, spite, bitterness, and on and on.

I don't see it this way at all but I do wonder how much of our discussions is based on Pride? This being from believers and non-believers. Not just this forum but the Christian forum too.
Do we ever get involved in a discussion for selfish reasons, not really trying to teach or learn?  Do we ever do it to show ourselves approved to ourselves? Just to one up the opponent.? Just to argue? Mostly just for selfish reasons with no willingness to accept why the other person believes what he does?
Just to prove that you are right and he is wrong? That somehow you are the one with knowledge of the truth and the other person isn't.
I'm not talking about strictly Atheist or Christians but pro science vs anti science, Trinitarain vs Oneness, Freewill vs Predestination.

It was pointed out to me that I might need to check  some of my responses as it appears my "self" is getting in they way of my responses. In that vain I'm just passing along these thoughts and trying to better myself in not just discussing for the sake of selfish pride. To be more humble in my responses and try to understand that not everyone believes as I do. 
I see a lot of bitterness and arrogance, from both sides now. I've looked at clouds from(sorry, I digressed). I see both sides sometimes attacking the person instead of his opinion. The Political forum is good at that.
If we want respect from each other, we have to offer respect to the others. We can't expect others to value our beliefs if we can't value theirs. You don't have to believe what they believe but understand that to them it isn't foolishness.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 13, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> AAAAAGAIN.  BINGO!
> 
> And I agree wholeheartedly about atheist reading the Bible.  If you are gonna offer an opinion, particularly a derogatory one, on something you haven't even read, you deserve to look as ignorant as you sound.  I know many self-proclaiming Christians haven't read the Bible, so I would expect many atheist haven't either.  Sadly it doesn't stop either from making fools of themselves.



http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...gnostics-know-more-about-bible-than-religious


----------



## 660griz (Aug 13, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> One could say the Christian is required to defend God and spread his Gospel but the Atheist is just doing it for fun, spite, bitterness, and on and on.
> 
> I don't see it this way at all but I do wonder how much of our discussions is based on Pride? This being from believers and non-believers. Not just this forum but the Christian forum too.
> Do we ever get involved in a discussion for selfish reasons, not really trying to teach or learn?  Do we ever do it to show ourselves approved to ourselves? Just to one up the opponent.? Just to argue? Mostly just for selfish reasons with no willingness to accept why the other person believes what he does?
> ...



Good post sir. 
I am for sure guilty of this as well. I have my reasons/excuses. Years of hiding what I felt so as to not offend or be outcast. Hours of discussion for no apparent resolution. Finally, a forum where I can say exactly what I feel. 
AND, I get a little carried away. While I don't apologize for what I say. I do apologize for the way I say it. 
I am 'multitasking' at work and don't put the time into responses that I should. Also, I let my perceived tone of responses affect mine. I probably shouldn't. 
Some of my closest friends are Christians, and a pastor or two. (That sounds like, "I'm not racist, I have a black friend )I don't bring up my feelings and they don't bring up theirs. I don't expect to ever change their mind and they don't expect to change mine.


----------



## East River Guide (Aug 13, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> One could say the Christian is required to defend God and spread his Gospel but the Atheist is just doing it for fun, spite, bitterness, and on and on.
> 
> .....
> 
> We can't expect others to value our beliefs if we can't value theirs. You don't have to believe what they believe but understand that to them it isn't foolishness.



I can't attest to everyone's motive, but I don't think most people care who does what privately.  But when you start publicly pronouncing your beliefs, promoting the civic adoption of those beliefs, or advocating public policy based on those beliefs, it's not inappropriate to subject those beliefs to scrutiny.   I don't think the issue is as much anyone targeting religion, it's that religious people want their positions to be exempt from scrutiny just because it's a "religious" belief.  And sometimes it is just "foolishness".


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 13, 2015)

East River Guide said:


> I can't attest to everyone's motive, but I don't think most people care who does what privately.  But when you start publicly pronouncing your beliefs, promoting the civic adoption of those beliefs, or advocating public policy based on those beliefs, it's not inappropriate to subject those beliefs to scrutiny.   I don't think the issue is as much anyone targeting religion, it's that religious people want their positions to be exempt from scrutiny just because it's a "religious" belief.



Very well said.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 13, 2015)

East River Guide said:


> I can't attest to everyone's motive, but I don't think most people care who does what privately.  But when you start publicly pronouncing your beliefs, promoting the civic adoption of those beliefs, or advocating public policy based on those beliefs, it's not inappropriate to subject those beliefs to scrutiny.   I don't think the issue is as much anyone targeting religion, it's that religious people want their positions to be exempt from scrutiny just because it's a "religious" belief.  And sometimes it is just "foolishness".



Ooooo! That's a good one too...meanie.  J/K


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 13, 2015)

East River Guide said:


> I can't attest to everyone's motive, but I don't think most people care who does what privately.  But when you start publicly pronouncing your beliefs, promoting the civic adoption of those beliefs, or advocating public policy based on those beliefs, it's not inappropriate to subject those beliefs to scrutiny.   I don't think the issue is as much anyone targeting religion, it's that religious people want their positions to be exempt from scrutiny just because it's a "religious" belief.  And sometimes it is just "foolishness".



What if the majority doing as you say are Christians or Muslims? Should the majority rule? If and when the US becomes a Muslim country do you think Christians will still feel the same about religion influencing government?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 13, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> What if the majority doing as you say are Christians or Muslims? Should the majority rule? If and when the US becomes a Muslim country do you think Christians will still feel the same about religion influencing government?



It's one thing for religion to govern an individual's morality and thoughts on government. It's quite another to let religion run the collective morality of the entire government. The latter being a theocracy.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 13, 2015)

660griz said:


> http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...gnostics-know-more-about-bible-than-religious


Thats gonna leave a mark


----------



## bullethead (Aug 13, 2015)

660griz said:


> http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...gnostics-know-more-about-bible-than-religious


I missed this up top but thanks.
Facts trump and expose opinions yet again.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 13, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I have, it's been a while, but I have. And the question isn't whether a non-believer can define the core message. It's whether a believer can define it with 100% accuracy. Remember you're the one who said a literate child could do it, so it should be no challenge for you.
> 
> I, self-deprecation having been admitted in the original challenge, would be willing to say on national TV that I am not smarter than a 5th grader if you can stumble on a core message that no one of Christian faith disagrees with, and even went so far as to limit myself to only those sources on this forum; forgoing the obviousness that Google could return results on such a query before I'd even finish typing it.



Again I contend it's not a matter of being a believer or unbeliever, but one of reading comprehension.  

I think the core message has been enunciated already by two of our members. I would say John 3:16 sums it up in a nutshell as well.  As far as the 100% accuracy part, I guess you can define that to exclude everyone and maybe that's your purpose, but I've never heard that was a requirement to attain salvation so I find your stipulation a bit of a red herring.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 14, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Again I contend it's not a matter of being a believer or unbeliever, but one of reading comprehension.
> 
> I think the core message has been enunciated already by two of our members. I would say John 3:16 sums it up in a nutshell as well.  As far as the 100% accuracy part, I guess you can define that to exclude everyone and maybe that's your purpose, but I've never heard that was a requirement to attain salvation so I find your stipulation a bit of a red herring.



You can find it however you like, and that's the point. That two otherwise rational people can read the same text and come to different meanings. I placed a sincere challenge, and you think I'm trying to game you into something. I'm just asking you to confront the reality of your assertion. 

You made a simple statement, that the core message of the Bible is so simple that any literate child could divine it, and yet there are faithful adults in here, and other boards, who can't agree on it betwixt themselves. Let's not toss in non-believers at this point, that would indeed be a red herring. If the Bible is so simply understood that a child could grasp it, why are there denominations and why are there people in this very subforum that can't agree on salvation by redemption, salvation by Christ, salvation by election or salvation for all? Let's start with John 3: 16 if you so desire. 

http://biblehub.com/john/3-16.htm

20 different Bibles, and they all say explicitly that whoever believes in Christ shall have eternal life. Simple enough, right? Hold on a second, how does that square with election and redemption? 3:16 would have me believe that all I have to do is believe in Christ, not live a good life, not repent, and not be elect, and I live eternally. 

Either they're overthinking it, or it's not as simple as you said. It's a straight condition statement, so which is it? 

I'm trying to get you to admit, at the very least to yourself, that the Bible is full of Catch-22's that make simple belief in Jesus and God not the only criteria upon which one gains entrance to Heaven. Yeah, 3:16 is very simple, and so is a legal document, if you remove the one sentence from it you like and ignore the rest.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 14, 2015)

bullethead said:


> In my short list of atheists, agnostics and believers that I have had conversations with, I have found that the majority of Agnostics and Atheists are more well read on the Bible than the believers have been.



Even if true, and I doubt it's the case, what's you're point,  partial ignorance is better than more ignorance?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 14, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You can find it however you like, and that's the point. That two otherwise rational people can read the same text and come to different meanings. I placed a sincere challenge, and you think I'm trying to game you into something. I'm just asking you to confront the reality of your assertion.
> 
> You made a simple statement, that the core message of the Bible is so simple that any literate child could divine it, and yet there are faithful adults in here, and other boards, who can't agree on it betwixt themselves. Let's not toss in non-believers at this point, that would indeed be a red herring. If the Bible is so simply understood that a child could grasp it, why are there denominations and why are there people in this very subforum that can't agree on salvation by redemption, salvation by Christ, salvation by election or salvation for all? Let's start with John 3: 16 if you so desire.
> 
> ...




Hey!  You're the one moving the goalpost.  I simply contended that the CORE concept of the Bible is intelligible to anyone who is literate.  You are the one who is now backtracking and adding criteria( 100% agreement, catch -22s).  You're a very intelligent man, yet you hesitate to answer my question regarding what you gather as the Core message of the Bible.  Why is that?  I ask point blank:  Is it because your answer will undermine the contention that you are supporting.  If it isn't then answer the question.

Yeah 3:16.  So simple a child can grasp it yet we adults can't.  It's exactly what Christ was talking about when he said "
Luke 10:21-24New International Version (NIV)

"At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do."

Btw.  You're a very intelligent man.  Is the reason you won't answer my question regarding you're take away as the core concept of the Bible because it will undermine you're position.?  Be honest.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 14, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Let's start with John 3: 16 if you so desire.
> 
> http://biblehub.com/john/3-16.htm
> 
> ...



To me, John 3:16 is a one verse summary of the entire Bible, but it is _not_ the entire Bible.  Likewise, you could say the preamble to the Constitution is a summary of the Constitution, but it is not the entire Constitution.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 14, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You can find it however you like, and that's the point. That two otherwise rational people can read the same text and come to different meanings. I placed a sincere challenge, and you think I'm trying to game you into something. I'm just asking you to confront the reality of your assertion.
> 
> You made a simple statement, that the core message of the Bible is so simple that any literate child could divine it, and yet there are faithful adults in here, and other boards, who can't agree on it betwixt themselves. Let's not toss in non-believers at this point, that would indeed be a red herring. If the Bible is so simply understood that a child could grasp it, why are there denominations and why are there people in this very subforum that can't agree on salvation by redemption, salvation by Christ, salvation by election or salvation for all? Let's start with John 3: 16 if you so desire.
> 
> ...



I've had a really bad day. A day so bad that I should blame God yet I praise him. Sometimes I feel the "core" is all a about the flesh. Can the flesh change in order to please God? Will the flesh resurrect? Will the flesh go to Heaven?
While the answer may be yes, I'm seeing things more spiritual tonight. I can't explain it but it's peaceful easy feeling.(Eagles)
In relation to all of this, I believe that salvation is that easy.
If you believe that you are this wretched individual who can't live good enough to please God, you qualify.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 15, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Even if true, and I doubt it's the case, what's you're point,  partial ignorance is better than more ignorance?


My point is you were wrong with your made up wanna be facts. Post #55 backs me up.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 15, 2015)

bullethead said:


> My point is you were wrong with your made up wanna be facts. Post #55 backs me up.



For some Christians, they are content knowing that Jesus died for their sins, yet others like me want to know every minute detail.
I would assume most are somewhere in between. If I was a believer and started having doubts, I'd want to make sure I knew everything about the Bible before I eventually made up my mind to not believe anymore.

My daughter had a Russian friend in college that knew more about American History than most Americans. When I moved to Augusta, the Confederated city, I learned more about it than most native Augustians. 
Maybe it's something along these lines. 
When I see a sign that says Warm Springs, Windsor Springs, Story Mill Road, or Stocks Dairy Road, I have an urge to inquire exactly where these places are or were.
Others are content to live in Warm Springs without actually knowing where the actual springs are located.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 15, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> For some Christians, they are content knowing that Jesus died for their sins, yet others like me want to know every minute detail.
> I would assume most are somewhere in between. If I was a believer and started having doubts, I'd want to make sure I knew everything about the Bible before I eventually made up my mind to not believe anymore.
> 
> My daughter had a Russian friend in college that knew more about American History than most Americans. When I moved to Augusta, the Confederated city, I learned more about it than most native Augustians.
> ...



Cheers to you AD.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 15, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Thats gonna leave a mark



Statistically there is a problem with the "facts" used in the Pew Study. The population of responding Atheist and Agnostics is much smaller than the population of  Catholics and Protestants and Jews the results of the survey are skewed.  The sample sizes would  have to be adjusted to compare the results as they did.

The key and sad statement is key



> American atheists and agnostics tend to be people who grew up in a religious tradition and consciously gave it up, often after a great deal of reflection and study, said Alan Cooperman, associate director for research at the Pew Forum.



It says they "gave it up"..This is a evidence of corruption of the Truth and the frustration of those who try to understand more than is being presented in the church. They are asking questions  the church does not have the answers. The answers exist.


----------



## East River Guide (Aug 15, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Statistically there is a problem with the "facts" used in the Pew Study. The population of responding Atheist and Agnostics is much smaller than the population of  Catholics and Protestants and Jews the results of the survey are skewed.  The sample sizes would  have to be adjusted to compare the results as they did.



Maybe your statement is just inarticulate but you don't seem to understand statistics.  You don't need equal size pools for each group, just enough participants from each group to make it statistically reliable for that group.  And they seem to have done that.  From the report:

_These are among the key findings of the U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey, a nationwide poll conducted from May 19 through June 6, 2010,* among 3,412 Americans age 18 and older, on landlines and cell phones, in English and Spanish. *Jews, Mormons and atheists/agnostics were oversampled to allow analysis of these relatively small groups.*_


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 15, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Statistically there is a problem with the "facts" used in the Pew Study. The population of responding Atheist and Agnostics is much smaller than the population of  Catholics and Protestants and Jews the results of the survey are skewed.  The sample sizes would  have to be adjusted to compare the results as they did.
> 
> The key and sad statement is key
> 
> ...


Now there is 2 marks.
No to YOU its evidence of all that nonsense.
This guy seemed to come up with a different thought -


> American atheists and agnostics tend to be people who grew up in a religious tradition and consciously gave it up, often after a great deal of reflection and study, said Alan Cooperman, associate director for research at the Pew Forum


Funny how far apart your opinions are.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 15, 2015)

East River Guide said:


> Maybe your statement is just inarticulate but you don't seem to understand statistics.  You don't need equal size pools for each group, just enough participants from each group to make it statistically reliable for that group.  And they seem to have done that.  From the report:
> 
> _These are among the key findings of the U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey, a nationwide poll conducted from May 19 through June 6, 2010,* among 3,412 Americans age 18 and older, on landlines and cell phones, in English and Spanish. *Jews, Mormons and atheists/agnostics were oversampled to allow analysis of these relatively small groups.*_



not equal size pool groups,  but statistically equivalent sampling  not oversampling.  That is the opposite direction.

That is what they do to skew political poling,  if everybody is negative on their candidate , they asked more to get the results they want.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 15, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Now there is 2 marks.
> No to YOU its evidence of all that nonsense.
> This guy seemed to come up with a different thought -
> 
> Funny how far apart your opinions are.



That is what I quoted. 

Why did they give it up? I submitted the traditional teachings did not make sense to them who gave it up.

Why are you disagreeing with that statement?


----------



## East River Guide (Aug 16, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> not equal size pool groups,  but statistically equivalent sampling  not oversampling.  That is the opposite direction.
> 
> That is what they do to skew political poling,  if everybody is negative on their candidate , they asked more to get the results they want.



Again, I don't think you understand statistics.   Each group in the study was measured on its own.  Doesn't matter how many people are in each group as long as there are enough to get the right confidence level.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 16, 2015)

no, I completely understand this problem with statistics and the Pew polls. You are right they were examined on their own, but the sampling/population ratio is much larger for the  smaller population.

Do you think they sampled anywhere equivalent sample of Christendom?  No, So they extrapolated the small sampling to the entire population in billions. 



The confidence level is based upon the variability of the answers not the sampling size.


----------



## East River Guide (Aug 16, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> but the sampling/population ratio is much larger for the  smaller population.
> 
> Do you think they sampled anywhere equivalent sample of Christendom?  No, So they extrapolated the small sampling to the entire population in billions.



Yes, that is the way survey statistics work.  Once you have a sufficient sample size you can extrapolate to large groups.  You seem to think that you have to sample equal percentages.  I don't think that's the way it works


_The mathematics of probability proves the size of the population is irrelevant unless the size of the sample exceeds a few percent of the total population you are examining. This means that a sample of 500 people is equally useful in examining the opinions of a state of 15,000,000 as it would a city of 100,000. For this reason, The Survey System ignores the population size when it is "large" or unknown. _

http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

Try playing with the sample size calculators

Here's another one.  Let's look at the correlation between sample size and population:

http://fluidsurveys.com/university/calculating-right-survey-sample-size/

If I want a 90% confidence level and a 5% margin of error for a population of 1,000 people, the sample size is 213.   

If my population was 100,000, your logic says the sample should be 21,300.  But it is not, for the same confidence levels it is 269.  And if the population was 10,000,000, guess what, the sample size is... the same, 269.  Your argument about Christians being a large group is irrelevant.

But you still need to have a certain number of responses.  If you population is 100, you don't need just 2-3 responses as you suggest, you need 74 to hit the same levels.  So it's about appropriate sample size, not population size, which is why the survey appropriately seeks a certain minimum number of responses from each group.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 16, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Thats gonna leave a mark








> On questions about Christianity – including a battery of questions about the Bible – Mormons (7.9 out of 12 right on average) and white evangelical Protestants (7.3 correct on average) show the highest levels of knowledge.





> On the full battery of seven questions about the Bible (five Old Testament and two New Testament items) Mormons do best, followed by white evangelical Protestants.



Sometimes, just sometimes, an author of an article will print a headline that is somewhat misleading.  And sometimes, just sometimes, someone will see that headline and reference it to add validity to their argument without ever reading the actual data, because if they had actually READ the data they would have realized that it directly contradicted the point they were trying to make.

Yep.  It does leave a mark doesn't it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 16, 2015)

formula1 said:


> My view on this is really simple in that God predestined a plan for all to come to Him, which is the Gospel.  All who receive His plan are "elect" as a result of their belief! .  Many might think there is some sort of 'exclusivism' in the Gospel.  They might even try to prove it with some scriptures.  But the simple truth is no one is excluded who believes! And I can't honestly with good conscience as one who believes exclude anyone from it's offer except on the grounds of continuing unbelief.
> 
> People are very good at getting things wrong all the time and casting more doubt on the truth of the Gospel.  But the parts we get wrong should not exclude anyone from believing its truth.  In fact, the Gospel is all about just how wrong we all are and how we all can be restored to right relationship with God!
> 
> Well, that's the way I view your concern!  You already have my core beliefs! I hope it helps you in some way!




As always, well said.


----------



## East River Guide (Aug 16, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> the actual data



It looks to me that the actual data says aggregate AA (6.7) exceeded the "Bible and Christianity" knowledge score of general Christians (6.2) and even the general category protestant Christians (6.5).   While there were a couple of subsets within christiandom that did better as you pointed out, my guess is you could find a subset of atheists that would do better than the aggregate atheist score as well, which is by definition a combination of more and less knowledgeable subgroups.

But really I don't think it matters much, it's kind of like arguing over medicine and a couple of groups of wiccans score higher than the MDs on the "spells, voodoo and curses" questions.   At the end of the day it's still gibberish.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Sometimes, just sometimes, an author of an article will print a headline that is somewhat misleading.  And sometimes, just sometimes, someone will see that headline and reference it to add validity to their argument without ever reading the actual data, because if they had actually READ the data they would have realized that it directly contradicted the point they were trying to make.
> 
> Yep.  It does leave a mark doesn't it.


The headline specified Religion.


> Survey: Atheists, Agnostics Know More About Religion Than Religious


The score confirmed that.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 16, 2015)

Interesting presentation I watched today on C-SPAN 2.  Skip to about the 26 minute mark to hear comments relating to the Bible:


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Interesting presentation I watched today on C-SPAN 2.  Skip to about the 26 minute mark to hear comments relating to the Bible:


Not suprising.
The less of a role Christianity plays, particularly among young people, the less they read it, the less they know about it.
I would guess you would find the exact same scenario with the OT vs NT.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 17, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> The headline specified Religion.



I'm aware of that,BUT the contention here originated from Bullet and was that Atheist were more knowledgeable about THE BIBLE, not religion in general.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 17, 2015)

I think it is proven that atheist know more or just as much as most Christians. Some of the reasons given for Christians not reading the Bible.

"The simple truth is this; the more someone knows about religion, the more likely they will reject it as mythology."

"Most Atheist tend to be critical thinkers and as such are not just going to snap their fingers and *POOF* become Atheists. We need proof and assuming you or anyone else is willing to read the bible critically, without bias and know/use some scientific and historical knowledge to use as reference, reading one's holy book is the best way to turn a believer into an Atheist I have found."

“I have heard many times that atheists know more about religion than religious people,” Mr. Silverman said. “Atheism is an effect of that knowledge, not a lack of knowledge. I gave a Bible to my daughter. That’s how you make atheists.”


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 17, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm aware of that,BUT the contention here originated from Bullet and was that Atheist were more knowledgeable about THE BIBLE, not religion in general.


To me, "knowing about the Bible" is a little too generic anyway. What constitutes "knowing about the Bible"?
Is it memorizing scripture?
Is it knowing how it was produced?
Is it knowing what stories in the Bible have corresponding stories in other religions?
Is it knowing where certain stories in the Bible actually originated from?
Is it knowing what contradicts with what?
Is it knowing what stories are scientific impossibilities?
Is it knowing what scripture appears in what book?
Is it knowing what the details are about the authenticity of that book?
Is it..............
Depending on what "knowing about the Bible" is defined as, the results will vary.
For example I would fail miserably at identifying what scripture is attributed to who but would do pretty well at indentifying what stories have corresponding stories etc in other religions/beliefs.
Both are "knowing about the Bible".


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 17, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Not suprising.
> The less of a role Christianity plays, particularly among young people, the less they read it, the less they know about it.



... and the less they know about the founding of this country.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 17, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> ... and the less they know about the founding of this country.



Yep. Those were the good ol days. Left the mother country because of religious persecution. Settled a new land and came up with laws based on the Old Testament. 

Seventeenth-Century Laws of Massachusetts

1. FIRST, blasphemy, which is a cursing of God by atheism, or the like, to be punished with death.

2. Idolatry to be punished with death.

3. Witchcraft, which is fellowship by covenant with a familiar spirit, to be punished with death.

4. Consulters with witches not to be tolerated, but either to be cut off by death or banishment.

5. Heresy, which is the maintenance of some wicked errors, overthrowing the foundation of the christian religion; which obstinacy, if it be joined with endeavour to seduce others thereunto, to be punished with death; because such an heretick, no less than an idolater, seeketh to thrust the souls of men from the Lord their God.

6. To worship God in a molten or graven image, to be punished with death.

7. Such members of the church, as do wilfully reject to walk, after due admonition and conviction, in the churches' establishment, and their christian admonition and censures, shall be cut off by banishment.

8. Whosoever shall revile the religion and worship of God, and the government of the church, as it is now established, to be cut off by banishment. _ Cor. 5:5.

9. Wilful perjury, whether before the judgment seat or in private conference, to be punished with death.

10. Rash perjury, whether in public or in private, to be punished with banishment. Just is it, that such a man's name should be cut off from his people who profanes so grosly the name of God before his people.

11. Profaning of the Lord's day, in a careless and scornful neglect or contempt thereof, to be punished with death.

12. To put in practice the betraying of the country, or any principal fort therein, to the hand of any foreign state, Spanish, French, Dutch, or the like, contrary to the allegiance we owe and profess to our dread sovereign, lord king Charles, his heirs and successors, whilst he is pleased to protect us as his loyal subjects, to be punished with death. Num. 12:14, 15.

13. Unreverend and dishonorable carriage to magistrates, to be punished with banishment for a time, till they acknowledge their fault and profess reformation.

14. Reviling of the magistrates in highest rank amongst us, to wit, of the governors and council, to be punished with death. I Kings 2:8, 9, & 46.

15. Rebellion, sedition, or insurrection, by taking up arms against the present government established in the country, to be punished with death.

16. Rebellious children, whether they continue in riot or drunkenness, after due correction from their parents, or whether they curse or smite their parents, to be put to death. Ex. 21:15, 17. Lev. 20:9.

17. Murder, which is a wilful man-slaughter, not in a man's just defence, nor casually committed, but out of hatred or cruelty, to be punished with death. Ex. 21:12, 13. Num. 35:16, 17, 18, to 33. Gen. 9:6.

18. Adultery, which is the defiling of the marriage-bed, to be punished with death. Defiling of a woman espoused, is a kind of adultery, and punishable, by death, of both parties; but if a woman be forced, then by the death of the man only. Lev. 20:10. Deut. 22:22 to 27.

19. Incest, which is the defiling of any near of kin, within the degrees prohibited in Leviticus, to be punished with death.

20. Unnatural filthiness to be punished with death, whether sodomy, which is a carnal fellowship of man with man, or woman with woman, or buggery4, which is a carnal fellowship of man or woman with beasts or fowls.

21. Pollution of a woman known to be in her flowers5, to be put to death. Lev. 20:18,19.

22. *****dom of a maiden in her father's house, kept secret till after her marriage with another, to be punished with death. Deut. 22:20, 21.

23. Man-stealing to be punished with death. Ex. 21:16.

24. False-witness bearing to be punished with death.

Oh, and rape...that's a fine._


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 17, 2015)

660griz said:


> Yep. Those were the good ol days. Left the mother country because of religious persecution. Settled a new land and came up with laws based on the Old Testament.
> 
> Seventeenth-Century Laws of Massachusetts
> 
> ...


_


We're not governed today by 17th century Massachusetts law, and the guy in the video is not pining for the "good old days" when we were.  He's just making the point that the Bible is an important book in our history and a well-educated American should be familiar with it._


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 17, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> ... and the less they know about the founding of this country.


Not sure about that. One can know the role that Christianity played in our history, both good and bad, without being a Bible expert 
Would at least a basic knowledge of Christianity allow a bettter understanding?  Yeah I'll go along with that.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 17, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> We're not governed today by 17th century Massachusetts law,


 Really? Thanks. I can finally practice witchcraft in peace. 





> and the guy in the video is not pining for the "good old days" when we were.  He's just making the point that the Bible is an important book in our history and a well-educated American should be familiar with it.



I agree that a well-educated American should be familiar with it. However, I don't see the importance. Religion, Christianity, but not specifically the Bible. 
You can be well versed in our founding and not have to know anything about the Bible, except that is what the Christians used...for various purposes. (See above laws.)
This points to life experiences in that era. 

However, I am open. How is the Bible important in the history of our founding?  

You mean like this?
The bible continued to shape american history. Some Americans saw the great push westward as fulfilling the Lord’s plan for the United States, modeled on Israel’s settlement of the holy land.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 17, 2015)

660griz said:


> Really? Thanks. I can finally practice witchcraft in peace.
> 
> I agree that a well-educated American should be familiar with it. However, I don't see the importance. Religion, Christianity, but not specifically the Bible.
> You can be well versed in our founding and not have to know anything about the Bible, except that is what the Christians used...for various purposes. (See above laws.)
> ...


What is ironic is that translating and producing the Bible into English was punishable by death. And yes the sentence was carried out.
If the Church had continued to get its way Americans wouldnt even have been able to read it.
So much for the "Lord's plan" for the United States  
Fun facts


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 17, 2015)

660griz said:


> However, I am open. How is the Bible important in the history of our founding?



Did you watch the video?  You don't have to watch the entire ninety minutes.  The "Bible guy" only talks for a fraction of the time.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 17, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Did you watch the video?  You don't have to watch the entire ninety minutes.  The "Bible guy" only talks for a fraction of the time.



Ok. I watched it. 
I covered most of it. Laws and culture of the founding groups shaped by the Bible. Folks related themselves to the Israelites, etc.
I did leave out literacy which I agree the Bible did play an important role. I am glad they read something. 
There was a lot of opinion and conjecture intertwined with facts. 

While folks may say Manifest Destiny was fulfilling God's plan, I contend it had more to do with greed than biblical text. Biblical text could be used to justify it. Just like it was used to justify slavery, and other 'mistakes' of our past.


----------

