It appears you have copied and pasted some text. If you didn't copy and paste then let me know. If you did, do you stand behind ALL of what you just posted as your own opinion?
Yes. The paragraphs are from resources I have to study with. I do stand by what it says. Otherwise, I would not have posted it. As I said, there is much more information than this on this particular subject. Col
The only specific "transcripts" I see been referred to are the Dead Sea scrolls. Did I miss a specific reference to any other "transcript"? Also, was there a specific mention of any "transcripts" from the New Testament?
The Dead Sea Scrolls were used to measure against the earliest transcripts we had on hand at the time. Some parts of Isaiah from the scrolls married up with what we had almost word for word. There were just a few minor differences. This is when the rest of the translation started in the right direction. Here's a little information about the Greek Scriptures (The New Testament): MAKING THE BIBLE AVAILABLE TO ALL If only the original writings were available, how could everyone read God’s Word? They could not. So Jehovah arranged that copies of the original Hebrew writings be made. (Deuteronomy 17:18) The man Ezra, for example, is called “a skilled copyist in the law of Moses, which Jehovah the God of Israel had given.†(Ezra 7:6) Also, many thousands of copies of the Greek Scriptures were made. Do you read Hebrew or Greek? If not, you cannot read the early handwritten copies of the Bible, some of which are still in existence. Therefore, for you to read the Bible, someone had to put the words into a language you know. This translating from one language to another has made it possible for more persons to read God’s Word. For example, about 300 years before Jesus lived on earth, Greek became the language most people began to speak. So the Hebrew Scriptures were put into Greek, beginning in 280 B.C.E. This early translation was called the “Septuagint.†Later, Latin became the common language of many people, so the Bible was translated into Latin. But, as the centuries passed by, fewer and fewer people spoke Latin. Most people spoke other languages, such as Arabic, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, German and English. For some time the Catholic religious leaders fought to keep the Bible from being put into the language of the common people. They even burned at the stake persons possessing the Bible. They did this because the Bible exposed their false teachings and bad practices. But, in time, these religious leaders lost the fight, and the Bible began to be put into many languages and distributed in large numbers. Today the Bible can be read, in its entirety or in part, in over 1,700 languages! As the years went by, many different translations of the Bible were produced in the same language. For example, in English alone there are dozens of Bible translations. Why? Would not just one be enough? Well, over the years a language will change a great deal. So if you were to compare older Bible translations with newer ones, you would note changes in the language. While they almost always give the same thought, you will notice that the translations printed in more recent years are generally easier to understand. So we can be thankful for new Bible translations, since they put God’s Word into the common, easy-to-understand language of the day. Col
I can see youre an intelligent person. However I refuse to beleive in bullshit. Hahaha. Hopefully in the future maybe a few hunmdred years people will be able to look back and laugh on this. Just like people laugh at the fact that everyone used to beleive strongly the world was flat. Religion is simple. It is a lie people have been scared into believing. And fear is a very powerful method of persuading.
I'm trying to understand this. The Dead Sea Scrolls are or are not earlier then "the earliest transcripts" that you mention? From your post it seems the Dead Sea Scrolls are the earliest "transcripts" available. Can you refer me to the original copies? "Jehovah arranged that copies of the original Hebrew writings be made" If you have a reference to the original that the copies were made from, I would be interested.
I agree. Religion is a lie. However, what I believe in is a way of life. It's not a temporary thing just for Sundays or things like that. I don't expect you would understand it. However, I am not scared into believing. I only have fear of God. Not the fear you have when someone is about to kill you. The fear as in in awe. Awe inspired fear is something quite different. What you believe in is completely up to you. That is called the Septuagint. Read this about that book (it's very interesting): The Greek Septuagint. The most important of the early versions of the Hebrew Scriptures, and the first actual written translation from the Hebrew, is the Greek Septuagint (meaning, “Seventyâ€). Its translation began about 280 B.C.E., according to tradition, by 72 Jewish scholars of Alexandria, Egypt. Later, the number 70 somehow came to be used, and thus the version was called the Septuagint. Evidently it was completed sometime in the second century B.C.E. It served as Scripture for the Greek-speaking Jews and was used extensively down to the time of Jesus and his apostles. In the Christian Greek Scriptures, most of the 320 direct quotations and the combined total of perhaps 890 quotations and references to the Hebrew Scriptures are based on the Septuagint. There are still available for study today a considerable number of fragments of the Septuagint written on papyrus. They are valuable because they belong to early Christian times, and though often just a few verses or chapters, they help in assessing the text of the Septuagint. The Fouad Papyri collection (Inventory No. 266) was discovered in Egypt in 1939 and has been found to be of the first century B.C.E. It contains portions of the books of Genesis and Deuteronomy. In the fragments of Genesis, the divine name does not occur because of the incomplete preservation. However, in the book of Deuteronomy, it occurs in various places, written in square Hebrew characters within the Greek text. Other papyri date down to about the fourth century C.E., when the more durable vellum, a fine grade of parchment generally made from calf, lamb, or goat skins, began to be used for writing manuscripts. It is of interest that the divine name, in the form of the Tetragrammaton, also appears in the Septuagint of Origen’s six-column Hexapla, completed about 245 C.E. Commenting on Psalm 2:2, Origen wrote of the Septuagint: “In the most accurate manuscripts THE NAME occurs in Hebrew characters, yet not in today’s Hebrew [characters], but in the most ancient ones.†The evidence appears conclusive that the Septuagint was tampered with at an early date, Ky′ri·os (Lord) and The·os′ (God) being substituted for the Tetragrammaton. Since the early Christians used manuscripts containing the divine name, it cannot be supposed that they followed Jewish tradition in failing to pronounce “THE NAME†during their ministry. They must have been able to witness to Jehovah’s name directly from the Greek Septuagint. There are hundreds of vellum and leather manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint still in existence. A number of these, produced between the fourth century C.E. and the ninth century C.E., are important because of the large sections of the Hebrew Scriptures that they cover. They are known as uncials because they are written entirely in large, separated capital letters. The remainder are called minuscules because they are written in a smaller, cursive style of handwriting. Minuscule, or cursive, manuscripts remained in vogue from the ninth century until the inception of printing. The outstanding uncial manuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries, namely, the Vatican No. 1209, the Sinaitic, and the Alexandrine, all contain the Greek Septuagint with some slight variations. Frequent references are made to the Septuagint in the footnotes and comments in the New World Translation. If you have a reference to the original that the copies were made from, I would be interested. Col
Evidence that consensus science isn't really science? Hopefully others reading this can read with comprehension. So, what cause gave rise to your Non-existent Nothing in the Sky that created everything? I see you have not read the cosmological arguments. Hopefully others following these threads will. More insults I see when you have nothing solid to stand on.
Col, Not sure why you believe the earth was here millions and billions of years when the Bible and evidence contradict that belief. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp
I'm guessing that he believes that because it is true. Am I take assume that you are a true creationist?
Well, he said he believes it because "science tells me" so. I don't understand that. Yes, I am a creationist in that I believe God has the ability to create things fully formed. Fully formed whales, fully formed people, fully formed ecological systems, fully formed and integrated self healing digestive, muscular, bone, nervous, circulatory, sensory, linguistic, etc systems, fully formed planets, fully formed solar systems, fully formed universes, etc. And I believe He did it that way because the Bible, other ancient history, and evidence tells us He did. Here are some of the links again, now that I can make them active, just to make it easier for everybody. Cosmological Argument http://www.themoorings.org/apologetics/theisticarg/cosmolarg/cosmol.html Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy) http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html More on these arguments... http://www.godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Young Earth http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp
I did some reading at answersingenesis.org, and it all reads like a desperate perversion of the truth for the purpose of belief maintenance. I personally believe that evolution is above debate - creationism is simply not possible as far as the earth itself is concerned as it is presented by known religions.
I respect your personal beliefs even though they make no sense to me. What is "the truth" you speak of? Of course since you believe Evolution is above debate you probably don't care to debate it...
Evolution, the age of the planet, the age of many galaxies outside of our own, the lifespan of stars, our own terra findings - the list of hard, factual proof of the age of our earth, evolution and a complete lack of any creator is more then enough for me and any other clear thinking person. Are you contending that the earth is closer to 6,000 years in age as opposed to 4 billion years?
I am well aware of this link and many others. The fact of the matter is. Aging does not lie when it comes to the crust of the earth. Science shows us how the crust has aged and with all the tools available to us we can see clearly the approximate amount of years how old our planet is, give or take a few hundred million years. However, a close look at some words used in the Bible supports this. Especially, when terms are used for God himself like "Ancient of Days". If your views on this are still sticking with 6000 years. Then you must believe the whole universe was built 6000 years ago too. Now, we both know that is not correct. You would be wise to do some further wide reading on this subject. There's plenty of resources to do this. Col
I went to the website and looked at the questions. All were questions that at some time I have posed. All I have found answers to using the Bible and Bible study aids. I never answer anything in blind anger, but I must say that prejudice of any kind is insidious and destructive. The thread you posted brought out a lot of prejudice and stereotyping wouldn't you say? And interestingly, the most insulting and prejudiced were the atheists. It is a precarious position, one of denying the existence of our creator, because it places ...wait for it....MAN as the pinnacle. Yes mankind has been SO successful in achieving peace, prosperity,promoting kindness and love, solving problems like poverty, family breakdown,terrorism, sickness, pollution and answering all the puzzling question that humans ask. By promoting science as the answer you are putting your trust in , yet again, man, whose history has shown him incapable of governing himself or anyone else successfully. There are indeed many questions that the religions of Christendom have failed to answer, and also religions have brought God into disrepute by their conduct...again who do we blame for that? mankind or God? The Bible contains a record of mankind's history whilst NOT being ruled by God. However the advice contained therein, if followed, will give you a hope for the future, the ability to have peaceful dealings with your fellow humans, learn to act in a way that is acceptable to our Creator AND answer all those questions at the website you mentioned.
While I'm glad that you're one of those Christians who focuses and acts on the positive messages in the Bible your views still limit you to a life of service to a "god" who simply doesn't exist. On the other hand, if all Christians were as positive as you, I wouldn't have such a problem with your kind. In the end, your beliefs are simply self-important foolishness and wishful thinking. I truly believe that if you simply humbled yourself for just a minute, you'd realize that you don't know anything at all about the potential for an intelligent creator or all-knowing being - none of us do. Christians lack humility across the board, even if they think the opposite is true of themselves. Period.
I don't feel self important at all. I am humbled by the power of love the organization I belong to has. This power only God can provide. I have never see any other organization so well structured across the entire earth, all for the sake of love and giving credit where credit is due. You are correct in saying we don't know enough about our creator. However, we do believe we know his qualities and what he wants us to do, all for the benefit of ourselves. True. Many so called "Christians" lack humility. What did Jesus say about this? he said “For there is not a fine tree producing rotten fruit; again there is not a rotten tree producing fine fruit. For each tree is known by its own fruit. For example, people do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they cut grapes off a thornbush. A good man brings forth good out of the good treasure of his heart, but a wicked man brings forth what is wicked out of his wicked [treasure]; for out of the heart’s abundance his mouth speaks." (Luke 6:43-45). Col
I didn't say that we don't know enough about our creator - I said that we know nothing. In fact the use of the word "creator" is empty in itself. If you believe that you know "his" qualities (does it even begin to make sense that "god" is referred to as a male?) then you can't claim to be humble at the same time. That's an extraordinary claim that you can't begin to prove and I believe that it shows a gaping hole where your humility and humanity should be. False. All Christians lack humility - it comes with the territory when you believe that you know something about the wonders of our universe when it is simply made up. In the end you believe in "god" because another man (your equal) told you about "him". The fact that you (and all other religious subscribers) believe other men when they tell you that they understand "god" simply shows that you have been mislead. If there were a single intelligent creator and that creator were in our form, how could it not be a woman's form? Mother creates, not father. Mother gives birth to life, not father. If this is true in every species on Earth, why isn't it true for your "god"? Simply because the story was made up in a time of extreme sexism. I'll add that anyone who believes in an almighty creator and then continues on to refer to that creator as "him" is not only mislead in spiritual matters, but it also a bully and oppressor of the same magnitude that existed during the dark time when all of these myths came together to create Christianity. Explain why nearly every "god" in history, including those who far pre-date Christianity were born on December 25th. Explain why so many of these deities were born to a virgin mother? The list goes on and you can't explain these things in the context of your faith; it isn't possible. For the record, the birth date is simply an astrological myth that the Egyptians held long before Christianity was even thought of. The virgin mother in all of these cases is due to the fact that backwards thinking people had and have yet to free themselves from the thought that sexual intercourse is dirty and to be disdained as opposed to the beautiful and life creating act that it is.
I am afraid you have contradicted yourself there. You state emphatically that God does not exist, then go on to say that I am so lacking in humility that I cannot imagine how great an intelligent creator being could be??? Are you saying that the intelligent creator being is not God? Semantics.