The Book eh? (bible, God, Christians, Christ, religion)

[michel]

PART QUOTE :Stellar [Christianity is one of (if not) the most hippocritical religions in the world. I say this because it teaches of love and forgiveness in every other word, but 0% of its members actually practice the preceding even half the time. I have a friend that attends a Christian high school, and he decided that he would like to put his hair into dread locks. The school was so outraged by this...that they nearly expelled him because of it. How is this teaching acceptance? Love for all? It's not. My friend here is a straight A student, very respectful, no detentions or trouble, I mean squeaky clean. Yet, the representatives here at a decidedly Christian institution view an augmentation of one's appearance is unacceptable. I can't believe God would be this way, for to believe that is to believe in damnation.]

I'm not sure that you have understood the difference between man's interpretations of the Bible, and his own subjectiveness, compared to the Bible per se.

[sandy whitelinger]

"But it is undeniably and ridiculously obvious that there is an overwhelming chance that this is not true in the slightest."

What a strange statement. Are you at all familar with the Bible. The history of the Bible is accurate. For example were you aware that when Jerico was excavated that it was discovered that the city walls were found to have fallen outward as described in the Biblical account?

The prophecy of the Bible is accurate. Were you aware that when Alexander the great returned from his conquest and approached Jerusalem to conquer it that he was met at the city gates by the high priest and shown his military career outlined in the book of Daniel, written hundreds of years earlier? Alexander was impressed enough to leave Jerusalem untouched.

The science of the Bible is accurate. Were you aware that in the book of Job (the oldest book in the bible) that it was presented that the earth was round and that the heavens had depth?

There are countless example that the Bible is indeed amazingly accurate rather than as you say, "not true in the slightest."

Futher more, one reason why Christians (well, some Christians) accept the Bible is that without it man is left to come up with his own image of God. One only need to look around and see all of the directionless and suppository concepts of God in order to understand that we can't be left alone to decide on the image of God through our own imagination.

[Master Vigil]

Like I always say, "I'm sitting at my computer at 6:46 pm on March 8th, 2005 in greensburg pennsylvania having tea with a dragon, and his wife, the unicorn."

Now, that is historically correct, I am indeed sitting at my computer at 6:46 pm on March 8th, 2005. But that does not in any way shape or form prove that I am having tea with a dragon and his unicorn wife.

[Prima]

*offers the dragon a scone*

I personally believe that the Bible is so blindly believed because a lot of people think it is the only 'true' source of knowledge. Christians believe in Christ - but Christ is dead! oh noes! That means that unlike other religions that are more modern and have more (and more accurate) writings, Christianity's basis is SOLELY the Bible.

[Stellar042]

Originally Posted by Prima

I personally believe that the Bible is so blindly believed because a lot of people think it is the only 'true' source of knowledge. Christians believe in Christ - but Christ is dead! oh noes! That means that unlike other religions that are more modern and have more (and more accurate) writings, Christianity's basis is SOLELY the Bible.

Thank you sir (ma'am?). That's precisely what I am trying to point out. So many Christians believe that their religion is all about the Bible when that's nothing in the grand scheme. It's just a touchy subject for most...hence my starting of this thread

[Prima]

Ma'am works

Well, don't get me wrong, I'm not putting down the Bible in any way. But it's like Kindness for Dummies, really. It's a starting point. The Qu'uran does a lot more in the way of 'this is EXACTLY how you should be kind' but the Bible lets you figure it out by yourself. So of course everyone has their own interpretation of it - and people love to defend their own opinions

I think another reason it's a touchy subject is because of the changes in it over time. Again, the Qu'uran is not allowed to be translated - to keep it pure. The Bible was stuck together by a bunch of old monks with bad eyesight and ink all over their hands It was translated over and over, edited, some parts were taken out, some were added, some that were taken out were put back in...etc. It's not really a 'stable' book.

[No*s]

Originally Posted by Prima

I think another reason it's a touchy subject is because of the changes in it over time. Again, the Qu'uran is not allowed to be translated - to keep it pure. The Bible was stuck together by a bunch of old monks with bad eyesight and ink all over their hands It was translated over and over, edited, some parts were taken out, some were added, some that were taken out were put back in...etc. It's not really a 'stable' book.

Your statement implies massive editing. Now, I'm most familiar with the NT, so I'll stick with it. Can you demonstrate you proof of "crusty old monks" putting it together, and with their bad eyesight peicing it together and modifying it? I'll admit some redaction, especially in the Gospel of John, but I'm not about to concede the level of redaction you're talking about in the NT.

In the OT, I use the LXX, so I doubt there'll be much discussion .

[Natural Submission]

at one time about a conference held in which whole books were thrown out of the Bible

Yes this was the Council of Nicea. Then they decided to burn and destroy all and any books that challenged their agenda and Pagan dogma. This is why the majority of the books of the so-called "New" Testament were written by Paul the Imposter.

[No*s]

Originally Posted by Natural Submission

Yes this was the Council of Nicea. Then they decided to burn and destroy all and any books that challenged their agenda and Pagan dogma. This is why the majority of the books of the so-called "New" Testament were written by Paul the Imposter.

Document this.

The histories I have read paint a very different picture, and much of it is constituted by primary sources.

[Prima]

True, Natural Submission.

No*s, it's impossible to deny the existence of the Apocrypha (which is in my Bible, me being Catholic) and the other gospels. I study Catholic history, and the Church, not the writers decided what to put in. In some cases, they took some of one writing, but not all of it.

The best examples of massive editing are in the four main gospels.

*five minutes later*

Oh, for heaven's sake. I can't for the life of me find what I wanted to quote, so I'll have to summarize.

The Gospel of Luke, for example. Christian Scholars believe that it was written originally by one person (supposedly Luke) and then was edited by two others. I believe Luke was the one that was left unfinished, and then was finished by someone else - supposedly his assisstant, since the writing style was similar. One other person edited that definitely changed some things - one way they can tell is because of the word choice.

And damn it, when I find those books I'm going to type parts of them on here. It was a Bible study I did - absolutely spectacular. All the work was done by Christian scholars - ones who weren't out to prove that the Bible didn't matter, but were just interested