is the bible real or just some verry old story?

[gryphon]

Again, any appologies if it seemd I ment the whole Bible, it has been a bit unclear. Some parts of The Bible where written in Griek. Although older parts have been translated from Hebrew to Griek about 200 years bc. This also at a time it was inapropriate for Jews [ who where bi or tri langual at that time, al lot of them it seems but it was a "sin" to learn Griek according to some Rabbis ]. And as those parts had to be translated later on into Griek [ as almost non of the origionall manuscript has survived time ], Jews whern't the best translators. It turned out that the translators of the Bible [ again, the word "Bible" has been used for ease of thongue, where it's refering to just the early books of it ] wern't even Christians [ or Jews for that matter my appologies for the frequent dual usage of those terms ]. That was al I was saying. :)

And how would you be able to describe the fact that things are just created out of nothingness to a 5th century farmer.. .. .And God created the univers and everything in it.

Describing the function, the need for life to that farmer, you tell him evry thing will be alright and life will go on after this one.

Complexety doesn't only apply to the mathematical and phisical things, ut also to the lack of social insight they had at that time.

[sneezer3]

I personly don't believe the Bible has any conterdictions, if you guys thank you know of any though i'd be happy to look into it. I'l try not to go off topic to much. As long as its King James, I myself have found a conterdiction in the NIV. If you don't have a King James, just go to www.unboundbible.net

Again, any appologies if it seemd I ment the whole Bible, it has been a bit unclear. Some parts of The Bible where written in Griek. Although older parts have been translated from Hebrew to Griek about 200 years bc. This also at a time it was inapropriate for Jews [ who where bi or tri langual at that time, al lot of them it seems but it was a "sin" to learn Griek according to some Rabbis ]. And as those parts had to be translated later on into Griek [ as almost non of the origionall manuscript has survived time ], Jews whern't the best translators. It turned out that the translators of the Bible [ again, the word "Bible" has been used for ease of thongue, where it's refering to just the early books of it ] wern't even Christians [ or Jews for that matter my appologies for the frequent dual usage of those terms ]. That was al I was saying.

People have tryed to argue about the Bible being changed over time. But the "dead sea scrolls" as they call them. Where books of the old testament put away in a cave, latter found proveing the books we have now are unchanged from the old ones from years and ago. I take th Bible for what it says. I don't believe they have been edited. I don't know greek and hebrew so i can't argue my point like some people could. But, the Bible itself claims to be unedited, or "pure"

Psalms 12:6

The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Psalms 12:7

Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

[Acriku]

Just because the book says its pure, doesn't mean it is. Of course it was changed from the first edition. Not the bible as a single thing, but the books in it. Before written, they were orally told. That is a good way to change things. And being translated into different languages so much bounds to bring change to the words. Some words can't be translated equivalently, so they pick the next best thing. It'd be foolish to think it's the same throughout the 2 milleniums.

[gryphon]

again sorry, I didn't mean to claim that the Bible's content has been changed over the years, mearly that the book which is the foundation of one religion, could in a certain point in time not be translated let alone been read by most people from that religion. An ironical thing I though when I was toled that at first. Nothing more.

[ although any resemblense with the Bible and other religous books can be partially explained by that, I wasn't refering to that, not the fact that it most likely will have been altered slightly in the translation during the ages. Or especially the early days bc. and maby adjusted for the personall use after that a few times. But again, that has not been te point of my remark :) ]

[thomas]

hmmm I have one question if you really are a true atheist acriku why do you care about other people religion and the bible? I mean I have a couple of friends that are atheist and they dont care about people believing in god they dont care if they have to go to church (for school, my schools catholic oh boy! ::) ) they just beleive we evolved from a jar of sea monkeys millions of millions of millions of years ago, but you seem like one who just wants to detroy the bible, I may be wrong and I dont care, hell I dont give a donkeys ass what people beleive in. The "6 days" in the bible is more like 6 epochs, days being meant as stages, but I dont care, I mean hey I'm a "casual christian" I hardly go to church (to damn boring) and I dont like youth groups of any of the "super-christian" events but hey I dont beleive I was created from a jar of monkey snot.

um yeah ???

[sneezer3]

And being translated into different languages so much bounds to bring change to the words. Some words can't be translated equivalently, so they pick the next best thing. It'd be foolish to think it's the same throughout the 2 milleniums.

Obviously it depends on your viewpoint, I would suggest you research into the "Dead sea scrolls".

[TMA_1]

the bible is real because it exists. The events mentioned in the bible cannot be proven, but must be taken by faith. There are those of you who disagree, and that is okay. It is that simple people!lol

[gryphon]

the bible is real because it exists. The events mentioned in the bible cannot be proven, but must be taken by faith.

in the first part, so you just mean the physical Bible, the book or the regilion with it ? If the book I agree. If the religion, it's an old story that exists long enough for people to have forgotten if it is true or not. Even "followers" of that religion have other interpretations about the contents, taking some parts as litteral and real and other parts as an just an indication. Believers can't even make out omongst themselfs if they whole thing is litteral or is not. And mearly they fact that it has survied history doens't mean it is true, the story of Santacluas in his ship full of black people comming to The Netherlands every years is one of those stories to. ...

And it must be taken by faith. . . no it should [ or can ] be taken by faith. No other way, and with that the Bible is clear, you are a believer or not. You are not a believer becuase you must. You have the change of not believing it.

So it's not as simple as people who disagree with it and those who don't. It's a simple as people ho take it by faith, and people who don't.

[ Although I slightly disagree that the Bible can strictly be taken by an act of faith as you mentioned. It can be taken by "scientiffic" contents. ]

[TMA_1]

it is that simple. Let me put it this way. There are many physicists who have disagreements over various issues concerning the theories that are out there. there are multipule theories for different situations. I am not even talking about the pseudo scientific ones, I am talking about theories that are reputable. An educated scientist who disagree's with another scientist does not mean that the man isnt a scientist. Same with christians. You arent any less of a christian if you have differing views with another one. Just because one sect believes differently does not mean that the other sect is any less faithful to christ. Because of this we who believe in christ are christians no matter what. The Bible speaks for itself, it is the imperfection of man that creates the multipule theories about the things partaining to the bible. Just because people disagree largely on something doesnt mean that the something at issue is flawed.

So it is that simple. The bible has to be taken by faith, and there are those who believe in christ and follow the bible (in many different fashions) and there are those who dont. It really is simple.

[fremfedeliteNIAC]

but what can be proven? in a sense everything is faith, its just a matter of what is more likley

[TMA_1]

but if everythinng we percieve is of faith, then how do we know what choice is more likely? It is an individual choice. You cant disprove or prove matters of a higher order. We choose what is "more likely" to us based on our own biases and opinions. A person who grows up in a home that stresses conservitive morals will be concervitive. If that person hears of liberal ideals and is swayed towards libralism, he has made a choice to simply switch biases.

[Acriku]

Everything we perceive of is not faith, since faith by definition does not deal with any evidence, and we have evidence of our perceptions. Things can be proven, but not if it is taken by faith. Because you must prove it with evidence, and with faith it is contradictory.

[gryphon]

So it is that simple. The bible has to be taken by faith, and there are those who believe in christ and follow the bible (in many different fashions) and there are those who dont. It really is simple.

and the rest of that post ;)

ok, I get what you mean and can't agrue with that. :)

just the last [ quoted ] part, when you say they Bible has to be taken by faith .. I assume you mean that applies when you are a believer of it or want to be ? As I don't take the Bible for anything more then a story [ so to speak ] and a thing that give a lot of people meaning in there lifes. Although I do not take the contens by faith, nor do I want to. Your statement seemd a bit commanding, that evry one needs to take it by faith, no matter what your believes may by.... ?

[fremfedeliteNIAC]

everything revolves around faith and odds(and *occationally* mathematical certainty), and faith usually revolves around odds(depending on the person...)

for example you are told that you have to bet on a horse. one has been given a 1:2 chance of winning, the other has a 1:100 chance of winning. obviously u would think that the fist horse would win, but this dosnt mean that he would win, its just more likley. there might not even be a race....

[gryphon]

everything revolves around faith and odds(and *occationally* mathematical certainty), and faith usually revolves around odds(depending on the person...)

You should have been here during the first religion topic. ... ;)

[Dunenewt]

lol

You mean the one with 50 pages?

[Dante]

Emprworm's monster wasn't it? One of the reasons PRP was created... :)

[Acriku]

He was the in the last stage, there were 10 other stages in that thread before him.

[Dante]

Oh yeah, you're right. I was thinking of "Spew all about Politics here." (24 pages)

[fremfedeliteNIAC]

im lost..... :- what religion topic?

[Acriku]

Check out the extra stats, it's the second most posted in thread.

[Lord J]

One of the first topics I ever posted in... *Gets misty-eyed* Ahh, those were the days.

I think it's festering in the Dungeon now.

[ordos45]

No its on the last page of close to it of this forum last I checked. Did you realize I still have the power to unlock it?

[Lord J]

Gob forbid it.

Edit: Or, I should say, Please!!! Gob forbid it ;)

[fremfedeliteNIAC]

44 pages... heh