dwEEziL March 13, 2008 Share dwEEziL Member March 13, 2008 It's been shown that the NASB (New American Standard Bible) is the most technically correct translation of the Bible from it's original writings (of Hebrew, Koine Greek, and Aramaic). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unclean March 13, 2008 Author Share Unclean Member March 13, 2008 Sorry you feel this thread is pointless, Tyranus. You're entitled to your thoughts, though. And who were you directing your comments to (such as 'you only want to feel better about your decision'/'you are superhuman'/etc)? I personally think this thread has been great... other people's perspectives fascinate me (like Leveller, Preacher, and yours), and quite a few of the topics that were raised here have given me a lot to think about. Not sure about the rest of you, but This thread was originally created to get thoughts/perspectives on the bible... and we've seen quite a few of those. It's delved a little into religion in general, but it still ties back to the bible. What were you expecting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwEEziL March 13, 2008 Share dwEEziL Member March 13, 2008 I wish I had gotten in on this topic at the ground floor. I know it's only a day old, but there's just too much reading to be had for this (pseudo-)ADD-riddled head to sit down and actually read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unclean March 13, 2008 Author Share Unclean Member March 13, 2008 It's not too late, dwEEz... jump right in! Anything at all about this thread jump out at you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Preacher March 13, 2008 Share Preacher Member March 13, 2008 I keep trying to steer it back to the Bible, but questions of faith are fine too, I just wish we could separate that to another thread. How about questions? "What proves, to you, that the Bible is fundamentally false?" "What specific things do you see as errors in the text?" "If the Bible is true, what would that change for you?" The third one is optional but I would like the other side to answer at least the first two please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unclean March 13, 2008 Author Share Unclean Member March 13, 2008 Great questions! You asked about "the other side", and I'm not sure if I qualify or not (since I'm agnostic). But here goes anyway... "What proves, to you, that the Bible is fundamentally false?" This is a bit of a loaded question, so I'll have to qualify it first. I don't think the Bible is fundamentally false, it just hasn't been proven to be true. If it was, everyone would be a follower. From a conceptual level, I can think of a few ways that would prove the Bible is fundamentally false: 1. Another religious text is proven true 2. Supernatural intervention (a higher being comes out and says "knock if off already guys... the Buddhists got it right.") 3. Additional texts/proof are discovered that indicate the bible was a fabricated story, a forgery, or some other fraudulent document "What specific things do you see as errors in the text?" I haven't found any errors/contradictions in the text that can't be reconciled. And I've searched for 'em! "If the Bible is true, what would that change for you?" It wouldn't change my values too much... there are a few that I'd have to reconcile though. Like a church billboard I drive past reads: "Biblical truths are not always politically correct" /Edit: Tyranus, you mentioned you are retiring from this conversation, so please take no offense to me not replying to your last post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly March 13, 2008 Share dragonfly Member March 13, 2008 It's been shown that the NASB (New American Standard Bible) is the most technically correct translation of the Bible from it's original writings (of Hebrew, Koine Greek, and Aramaic). Actually there's a new one out in the last little while. Preach probably knows... RESV maybe? Something like that. Yeah, it's super hard to separate faith from the Bible. And from the outside, I can really see how Christians and non would look very similar, each claiming to be right, each willing to die for their faith. My motivation doesn't come from within me though. It's about grace and a changed heart. I am a very needy guy, and it honours God to have me depend on Him. Some say Christianity is a crutch, I say it's more like a wheelchair. I do appreciate this thread unclean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwEEziL March 13, 2008 Share dwEEziL Member March 13, 2008 (edited) Ok, you asked for it. Well one thing that sticks out is that regardless of what you believe, you have "faith" in something, whether you want to admit it or not...even the hard-fast atheist. Faith isn't a specifically religious idea. Most associate it with that because the term "religion" has been widely accepted in our culture as to be referring to a small subset of belief systems. Believing that God doesn't exist in and of itself is a religion and it takes as much faith to believe that (some might say more) then it does to believe He exists. Is the Bible inerrant? Is it the Word of God breathed into life by the God-inspired writings of man? Is it a collection of interesting "stories" and "allegories". Is it's many translations from the original sources a trick of Satan (who may or may not exist depending on your faith system) to cause people to stray away and burn in hell? I'll tell you one thing, the Bible is one of the most (if not the most) enduring books in history. Also, if you care to do a little legwork, you'll find that most of the "biblical stories" that people have discredit for one reason or another have later been supported with archeological finds and such. But what is the Bible? Fact? Fiction? These are not things I can say for you. You make up your own decisions on these. My question to you is, have you ever read the Bible in it's entirety? If you have, you may have noticed, while there are some drastic differences in tone from the Old Testament (OT) to the New Testament (NT), there is a thread that binds each book with one another and builds on it. Get lost in semantics if you want. Get lost in debates over the literal translation of one word or another, but don't lose track of the theme. More wars have been fought over a disagreement on the Bible than I care to think of. Whatever you believe of the origin of the Bible's inspiration, it's intent was to show the Judeo God and His love and ever-reaching arm to His People. Argue semantics if you like, trust me, I did for many years, not even caring if I were right or wrong, just doing it to push the buttons of those people in my life who did believe it. I soon came to realize that what I was being told and what I was reading made sense. I mean, it was teaching good, moral things (please don't bring up those zealots who believe they are doing the will of God with their bigotry and hate. As someone already stated kind of incorrectly earlier in here or another thread, There is only one judge between God and man, that is Christ but instead of judging us, He is seated at the right hand of God interceding (praying) for us instead). Whatever I wanted to believe about God and Christ and the Bible, I started to feel like a better person for it, and not in a prideful way, but in a humble, "I'll do what I can because I can" sort of way. The way people argue over the Bible today remains me of the phrase, "Can't see the forest through all the trees" (or something like that). I had a professor who describe the Bible as God's lover letter to his children. The theme tied through out the entire thing is that God reaches out to his children and provides them life. Believe what you want, but read it first. I don't need you to be converted for me to appreciate you as a friend and have discussions over it's content. Two differing opinion's just go up against each other and will help both parties to really think through what they believe. If one's belief can't stand up to a friendly debate, then how worthy is it of your faith? So the discussion here really shouldn't be "what do you think of the origin of the Bible" but rather "What has changed about you since you've read the Bible"? But as for the original questions... What are your thoughts on the bible? Is it the literal word of god, inspired word by god, or a book written by man for an ulterior motive? If it's one of the first two, do you believe the bible is all literally true, or parts are fables/allegories meant to convey a message? I believe the Bible is the literal Word of God. I believe it was written by man and inspired by God. I believe the Bible is literal and inerrant (without fault). This does not mean I don't think some things in the Bible are false. For example, in Job, the many things quoted by Job's supposed friends about the nature of God are false. But while what was said was false, the quoting of it was correct. I believe that when a story was conveyed in context as being a parable, then that's what it was. But if it's written as a historical account, that's what it was. Remember, just because we don't understand something doesn't mean it's not true. Somethings in this world/universe/galaxy/etc are too big to be put in a box. I take pleasure in the fact that my God can't be contained. How do you put everything into a box anyway when the box is part of everything? Edited March 13, 2008 by dwEEziL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly March 13, 2008 Share dragonfly Member March 13, 2008 As I read your last post Unclean, I'm curious... You say that you've looked for errors/contradictions, but you cant find any that cant be reconciled when reading in context. But like Preacher has said, it's been written by over 200 people over hundreds (just over 1400) of years, and yet there remains a thread of reconciliation between God and humanity throughout the whole thing. It starts RIGHT after Adam and Eve get the boot, and become clearer right up to Jesus arrival/work, and is explained even further AFTER His departure. Purely analytically, if all of those statements are true, wouldn't it at least point to a guiding hand? Heh, even consider, who ever in history writes bad things about their favourite leaders??? But David, Moses, and many others have their mistakes recorded as well. Preacher: in response to #3, what it DID change for me was that I realized that Christianity is NOT something I add onto my already pretty good life. It's something far bigger than that. <3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly March 13, 2008 Share dragonfly Member March 13, 2008 Heh, I never realized I could not agree more with someone who likes spiderman so much (dwEEziL) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwEEziL March 13, 2008 Share dwEEziL Member March 13, 2008 Great questions! You asked about "the other side", and I'm not sure if I qualify or not (since I'm agnostic). But here goes anyway..."What proves, to you, that the Bible is fundamentally false?" This is a bit of a loaded question, so I'll have to qualify it first. I don't think the Bible is fundamentally false, it just hasn't been proven to be true. If it was, everyone would be a follower. It has been widely accepted, along with much medical research, that smoking can cause cancer and other issues. Your statement about "if it was, everyone would be a follower" must be true then cuz no one smokes anymore. /me goes out to have a cig From a conceptual level, I can think of a few ways that would prove the Bible is fundamentally false:1. Another religious text is proven true 2. Supernatural intervention (a higher being comes out and says "knock if off already guys... the Buddhists got it right.") 3. Additional texts/proof are discovered that indicate the bible was a fabricated story, a forgery, or some other fraudulent document Even from a conceptual standpoint, it seems silly to believe like this. I mean this is what it sounds like to me. "I'm not going to accept this as true because I see the possibility of things that could later be shown true that would discredit this." This sounds like the same kind of "devil's advocate", circular reasoning I used to use on my sister to just get her goat. "What specific things do you see as errors in the text?" I haven't found any errors/contradictions in the text that can't be reconciled. And I've searched for 'em! So you haven't found any errors that can't be reconciled? Sounds like you're on "our team" now "If the Bible is true, what would that change for you?" It wouldn't change my values too much... there are a few that I'd have to reconcile though. Like a church billboard I drive past reads: "Biblical truths are not always politically correct" That billboard sounds true to me. It's not so much what Christians believe that get them in trouble, it's how they choose to act on that. As a Christian, I feel it is wrong to judge anyone for their chosen way of life (and we can get into the debate of genetic disposition versus conscious choice some other time). As I stated before, that's Jesus' job and even know, he chooses to hold off on it and instead pleads to God on our behalf. Who am I to judge then? Do I think I'm better than Jesus? I don't think so. But many people out there feel they are doing God's work when they spout hate and bigotry. Another passage in the Bible speaks to them. After dying, a man comes up to God and says "I did great works in your name, I cast out demons, healed the sick, raised the dead" and God responded "Get away from me, I never knew you". People who speak words of hate and hurt are not doing the will of God. But if I simply make the statement "God says the homosexual lifestyle is wrong", that is very un-PC, but that's what is said in the Bible. Another phrase I've heard (which I honestly don't care for but it sums this "believe but don't judge" thing up) is "Hate the sin but love the sinner". And before you ask who's a sinner and who isn't..."For ALL have sinned and have fallen short of the Glory of God". I'll let Preacher look up the biblical references for me as I'm too lazy...Oh slothfulness...my only vice (yeah right). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly March 13, 2008 Share dragonfly Member March 13, 2008 (edited) Hey dwEEziL, CS Lewis said he could never understand how that quote, "love the sinner, hate the sin" made sense at all. He just couldn't get his head wrapped around it, just like if you said "homosexuality is wrong" then you are automatically labeled as a hater of homosexuals in university circles. He said one day it dawned on him, that he did it to himself every day. He hated what he did when he sinned, but he still loved himself despite the sin. I guess that's also for others reading that think that that saying is ridiculous. PS - thanks guys from the homework distraction - I love not getting it done Edit: dwEEziL, you should know that reference! I'll give you a hint: Romans 3:2_ Edited March 13, 2008 by DarkArchon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Preacher March 13, 2008 Share Preacher Member March 13, 2008 (edited) Well your slothfulness with send you straight to hell sinner!! lol Just like there are car salesmen out there who suck at selling, some who cheat and lie and some who do an honest job and work hard honorably, the same can be said for those of any religion. I have known corrupt Christians, pastors and leaders of churches. I have watched as a church was destroyed by a person who let their sinful life become more important that the mission God put out for them to do. I have also known people who in spite of how unworthy they were, God was able to use them to help thousands of people. Put 10 people in a room and one will steal your wallet if given the chance. This is from an old study done by Jung (psychologist) that basically said no matter what group of people you sample from you never get perfection in morality. He sampled church people, atheists and folks off the street. In churches you have groups made up of real people with real flaws. Some go to church for the appearance of being a good person. What I am trying to say here is that we're not perfect, we will screw up and that not everyone who labels themselves Christian is being honest. Nothing bothers me more than political correctness. I am a decent person who is not out to hurt people or offend them, but if you listen to me long enough you will be able to manufacture, in yourself, offense at something I will say. My best friend is a black minister in Florida and as long as we've been friends, there has never been a racial issue between us or hurt feelings in that area. That being said I have been called out publically for using the term "black guy or black person" instead of "African American". My friend does not find offense at being black or being called black but he does find it strange that, having never been to Africa, he has to be called this in public. The funniest part is that it has always been white people to call me out on this. I won't walk on eggshells to avoid offending people because some people are just out seeking to be offended so they can cry foul and try to discount your relevance. One of the definitions of true is that it cannot be proven false. So we have established here that the Bible is completely true lol unless you got something else? Edited March 13, 2008 by Preacher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unclean March 13, 2008 Author Share Unclean Member March 13, 2008 First off, I agree with ya on the faith part - everyone has faith, no matter what they believe in. It has been widely accepted, along with much medical research, that smoking can cause cancer and other issues. Your statement about "if it was, everyone would be a follower" must be true then cuz no one smokes anymore./me goes out to have a cig Good point - I guess I could bring up statistics about the smoking rate decline as it's trended over time, but I see your point. People will still be people. Even from a conceptual standpoint, it seems silly to believe like this. I mean this is what it sounds like to me. "I'm not going to accept this as true because I see the possibility of things that could later be shown true that would discredit this." This sounds like the same kind of "devil's advocate", circular reasoning I used to use on my sister to just get her goat. It's actually the concept of falsifiability. I don't want to turn this into a science vs. religion thing though. My suggestions were just within the context of "what would it take"... not saying any of those are probable. And those possibilities are not what's holding me back from being a believer. To sum up my belief: I don't think the bible has been fully disproven, but I don't think it has been fully proven either. So you haven't found any errors that can't be reconciled? Sounds like you're on "our team" now Heh, funny. I'm sure we could find lots of fictional books that don't have errors; that doesn't make them non-fiction though. For Dark's point, the bible was written over hundreds of years and maintained over thousands. What guarantee is there that man, which we'd all agree is imperfect, has not modified it at one time or another for personal gain? What's your take on the "missing years" of Jesus? Was that an example of someone making a decision to omit part of the bible? Are there other religious texts the Vatican maintains but does not release to the public? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwEEziL March 13, 2008 Share dwEEziL Member March 13, 2008 (edited) Oh, I could find the references, I just didn't (I used many, some paraphrased so much or merely alluded to that you might have missed it. For instance, the comment about the "two differing opinions" is from Proverbs 27:17) Edited March 13, 2008 by dwEEziL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwEEziL March 13, 2008 Share dwEEziL Member March 13, 2008 First off, I agree with ya on the faith part - everyone has faith, no matter what they believe in. It has been widely accepted, along with much medical research, that smoking can cause cancer and other issues. Your statement about "if it was, everyone would be a follower" must be true then cuz no one smokes anymore./me goes out to have a cig Good point - I guess I could bring up statistics about the smoking rate decline as it's trended over time, but I see your point. People will still be people. Yeah, that was my whole point. Glad I got it across as I know I tend to make sense to myself more often than others. Even from a conceptual standpoint, it seems silly to believe like this. I mean this is what it sounds like to me. "I'm not going to accept this as true because I see the possibility of things that could later be shown true that would discredit this." This sounds like the same kind of "devil's advocate", circular reasoning I used to use on my sister to just get her goat. It's actually the concept of falsifiability. I don't want to turn this into a science vs. religion thing though. My suggestions were just within the context of "what would it take"... not saying any of those are probable. And those possibilities are not what's holding me back from being a believer. To sum up my belief: I don't think the bible has been fully disproven, but I don't think it has been fully proven either. And then we come full circle back to faith So you haven't found any errors that can't be reconciled? Sounds like you're on "our team" now Heh, funny. I'm sure we could find lots of fictional books that don't have errors; that doesn't make them non-fiction though. Fair enough. For Dark's point, the bible was written over hundreds of years and maintained over thousands. What guarantee is there that man, which we'd all agree is imperfect, has not modified it at one time or another for personal gain? What's your take on the "missing years" of Jesus? Was that an example of someone making a decision to omit part of the bible? Are there other religious texts the Vatican maintains but does not release to the public? There are actually many religious texts (some should be easily available if one knows where to look...I don't though ) that didn't make the canon of the Bible. If you look at step 4 of the Introduction of the link below, it gives a good brief summary of what was required for canonization (I have not read the page in it's entirety so I am not saying I believe what it says as a whole, but the part regarding canonization is a good brief summary). http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/bible/bible_02.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly March 13, 2008 Share dragonfly Member March 13, 2008 Unclean: I'm not gonna lie, I'm not part of the roman catholic church, and my scriptures are slightly different than theirs because of it. I don't want to get into that whole debate though I'm pretty sure it was John who said that if we were to write down everything Jesus did there wouldn't be enough parchment in the world (too bad they didn't have pc's back then to store it all digitally! ) so I dont really worry about that stuff. Like, when they claimed to have found Jesus' bones, my atheist friend asked me if I was worried about that at all. I just laughed and said, "No, cause He left after He came alive again, and there were hundreds of witnesses." Anyone can make a claim, but not everyone's claim can withstand severe scrutiny unless it's founded on something solid. As for being written/maintained, I can't prove to you 100% that nothing has ever been changed in the Bible ever. I can give you an example of someone changing the text for their own purposes though - the JWs do it to show that Jesus is not God. I can also tell you how they used to copy it back then - ever time they wrote YHWH's name they'd burn the pen because they had that much respect for it. They'd count the words and/or letters, and if after a copy was done they had a different number then before, then they'd burn the parchment. There was so much emphasis on getting it right because they believed it was the very words of God, spoken through the prophets, etc. I believe that somehow you could still know about God even without a Bible. Take Job for example: he was God's friend, yet the Bible hadn't even been written in his day. Same thing with Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the list continues. I only say that because there are a billion "what if's", which really only allow you to wander in circles. If the Bible's wrong, then my whole life is a huge waste, there's no reconciliation between me and God, and I may as well kill myself now. There's no hope at all. Wow, this is a lot longer than I meant for it to be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly March 13, 2008 Share dragonfly Member March 13, 2008 dwEEziL - that was a good read. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaftiel March 13, 2008 Share shaftiel Member March 13, 2008 One of the definitions of true is that it cannot be proven false. So we have established here that the Bible is completely true lol unless you got something else? Well... you can't prove the Koran is false, or The Rigveda from the Hindus, The Diamond Sutra from the Buddhist's. If fact you can't prove almost any of the religious books false. So, does that mean they are all completely true? Shaftiel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leveller March 13, 2008 Share Leveller Member March 13, 2008 (edited) I'd like to add another question to Shaftiel's above, we're certainly not questioning anyone's religious beliefs, but there does appear to be a very blurred line between what people are saying their faith is in. Th below is probably contentious, but it is me questioning as I'd really like to understand something that seems quite blurred to me. If someone had never read the bible, or it didn't exist, would they still have faith in God? Or is their faith purely in the words in the book that they read? Surely your faith is the strength, not the belief in the validity of a book that we all agree was written by mortal hand? The two questions above may seem really controversial and they are NOT intended to question anyone's faith or beliefs, it's just that the very tight bond being made between people's Christian beliefs and the Bible spurred another thought/question from me as it's something I've had difficulty for several years getting my head around. I'm not expecting the answer to be perfectly logical, but I'm really curious. As stated before I think the bible is a wonderful literary work, with some great life lessons and a code of conduct that it would in general do none of us harm to live our lives by, I genuinely don't know if it was God's word written by man's hand as this is something that is literally impossible to prove or disprove, but if you were to take away the Bible, where would these people's faith come from? Edited, to change the you and your to they and their, the above is not aimed at anyone in particular, just spilling out thoughts I'm having. (I think any question about the Bible is going to have a controversial tone when debated by those who strongly believe it's authenticity as God's word and those who question it). Edited March 14, 2008 by Leveller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clueless March 13, 2008 Share Clueless GC Alumni March 13, 2008 The other issue for me other than the historical data about the people responsible at the time AND their objectives, is the fact that many of the stories in the bible are verbal accounts of things that happened MANY MANY years before the story was written, and we as humans know how a story can get blown out of proportion AND how people write a story from a certain perspective depending on what side they are on and what they are trying to accomplish. The book is just an accumulation of words on paper, it is the PEOPLE responsible for writing it that are human and have the same downfalls as we still have today. There are a few scriptures out there that I found to be re-worded but plagerized(spelling?) none the less, I will have to search later, but I am sure that from the tone here, it is pointless because no one can look objectively. If there was a new written account found from Peter or John or anyone else saying that they lied and wrote the stories as fiction..Preacher would then just say it was a forgery, not attacking you, just saying it like it is, so there is no real way to discuss the POSSIBILITIES of the bible being less than what people think it is. I am not saying that god doesnt exsist, I dont believe he does, but I would be just as happy to be proved wrong, but I thought we were just discussing the bible itself, not faith and belief which everyone seems to feel is being threatened by this topic. It is very hard to believe for me though that no one can objectively even CONSIDER that humans could have written and or changed/edited this book to serve their needs, especially knowing the state of the people of that time. I mean hell...we do it now to this day, look at the media and politics...religion was basically both back then, so it only seems logical that there was some self serving going on back then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clueless March 14, 2008 Share Clueless GC Alumni March 14, 2008 One more thing before I go out for a bit, afterwards I will try to put together more specific things that I find questionable. Mithra was mentioned twice in this topic and no one has commented back about it, has anyone researched this and read it? It is very interesting that it predates christ yet holds an AMAZING amount of similarities. I am sincerely interested in hearing what other people think about this...objectively of course. Ok, be back later Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly March 14, 2008 Share dragonfly Member March 14, 2008 One more thing before I go out for a bit, afterwards I will try to put together more specific things that I find questionable. Mithra was mentioned twice in this topic and no one has commented back about it, has anyone researched this and read it? It is very interesting that it predates christ yet holds an AMAZING amount of similarities. I am sincerely interested in hearing what other people think about this...objectively of course. Ok, be back later I have heard of, but never researched for myself. I've done research and taken classes on Buddhism, Hinduism, JWs, Catholicism, Sikhism, Islam, as well as assembly language programming. Honestly, AL is the furthest from God by far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clueless March 14, 2008 Share Clueless GC Alumni March 14, 2008 Ok, I have not had the time that I had hoped I would tonight, but in the meantime, I would still be interested in hearing people's opinions about Mithraism. And another thing to read into would be the writings of Flavius Josephus, I touched on him earlier, but he was a very well known and well respected author and historian of the time. He was in all the right places and at the right time, yet he mentioned NONE of the miracles and happenings that the bible dictates about Christ EXCEPT the one single paragraph out of his MANY volumes of work that seems to clear it all up and add weight to the story for the Christians since it supposedly came from the respected historian. But the paragraph in question did NOT appear in the original works, it wasnt until the 4th century that it showed up. It is "alledged" that the paragrah was added later by the Christians. Read more about that in my post above, but here is the paragraph itself : "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." There are a great many of other writers of the time that never made mention of anything related to the bible stories, and in that day and age, it surely would have been something to write about. These are examples of the "human" element that make me wonder about the validity of the bible. Again, I always feel like I have to add a disclaimer to my posts so that no one thinks I am challenging their faith in god, it is human history that fascinates me so that is the perspective that I have when I study these things. It is not at all hard to believe that people would write things to suit them..I mean look at the Catholic church now...re-writing the 7 deadly sins? *addition* It should also be noted that many records and writings were destroyed intentionally during that time, which has also been historically noted, yet it is also "alledged" that the survival of this one piece that was written by a Jewish historian is questionable in itself and convenient that it confirmed the christian stories, albeit in a very shady way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clueless March 14, 2008 Share Clueless GC Alumni March 14, 2008 Sorry I keep making additions...or should I say disclaimers, but I am trying not to be offensive to the many that hold strong faith in the bible. I am not saying that the bible doesnt have a good message, it does, and the teachings in it are certainly worthy of patterning a way of life after, but the debate here is not whether or not it is a good book, because it is, but rather to discuss its value as historical fact. A good message does not have to be true to be good. Ok...setting sv_disclaimers to 0 now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.