Is that what you are doing? Well, that's your decision of course. I would rather read and study all of the Bible. Col
So you believe everything in bible? You cant have it both ways. Either you believe everything it says or you cherry pick, They are the only two options you have.
Yes. Confirmed. I do believe everything that is written in the Bible. However, I know what you are getting at. We have been down this road before, more than once. My belief in what is written is based on years of study and research. Not just from the Bible, but many other resources. Even scientists and their resources. There is no point in reading the Bible cover to cover and saying "what a load of rubbish". It's never meant to work that way. It's a book made from 66 books, 40 authors and over a period of 1600 years. Wider reading and research is required to back up the thousands of things, points, events and prophecies that are mentioned in the Bible. Therefore, it is impossible to "cherry pick" without having a foundation to build the "cherry picking" on. The Bible can be "cherry picked" of course. Even you have done so. However, "cherry picking" carries little weight against the weight of the the theme of the entire Bible. You can accuse me all you like of "cherry picking" from the Bible. However, I have responded to your accusations even when you have called me a "liar". I can only hope you can remain calm and be at least reasonable in your efforts to correspond to these matters discussed. Regards, Col
So you suffer from double think then? You possess the remarkable ability to hold two conflicting ideas in your head symultaneously while completely believing both. Even if we ignore science completely and only focus on the text of the bible there are enough contradictions in there that it would make it impossible to believe everything it says without having some kind of brain malfunction to help you. The text of the bible alone makes believing all of it impossible. because to believe one part you have to disbelieve another part. do you want to know what's so sad about this.... I don't think you even realize how it's impossible to believe two contradicting ideas.
I am sorry. I completely lost you there. How are your comments to do with anything I just posted? Double thinking?? Never heard of it. Did I say I completely believe science? No. Therefore, how can you say that I do? You say there are contradictions. Of course, there are contradictions that can be found in absolutely anything. This is called "philosophy". All according to "opinion". Everyone has the right to an opinion, be it right or wrong. I just can't see your objective or gain in trying to bring me down by labeling me or saying I have a brain malfunction. Please don't be sad. There's no need to be sad for me. For I am quite happy. My beliefs are based on knowledge. However, there are many whose beliefs are based purely on faith. Surely, you are confused that I am tarred with the latter brush? Regards, Col
doublethink. It's the main driving force of most religions. I didn't say you do. I said we can make a case for it being impossible to believe everything in bible even if we ignore science completely. This is the entire point i'm making. If you admit to there being contradictions in the bible how can you possibly believe "everything that is written in the Bible". Can you seriously not see how it's impossible, Philosophy or not, To believe two contradicting points? This is doublethink. You are doing it right now and you can't even see it. it's impossible to believe two contradicting points symultaneously. Let me give you a hypothetical situation. If, after claiming to believe everything the bible says, You encounter two passages. One says John was 6 foot, brown hair and thick set. The other says John was a skinny bald midget. Do you not admit that to believe both of these statements as being true would border on insanity?
Let's clear this up. I said (mistakenly) there are contradictions in the Bible. What I should have said was "others say there are contradictions in the Bible". I do believe all that is written in the Bible no matter what contradictions "others" may find. There is nothing the "others" have found that can not be explained, in regards to Bible teachings. You could probably say the same for science. However, what you call "science" or "scientific" in relation to Bible verses may be looked at differently by others. You would have to agree to that. This is no different in two people looking at the clouds. One sees the shape of a dog, the other a cat. However, scientifically, we know it's just clouds in that shape. To conclude. There are many areas in the Bible where an event is written about or spoken of by two different people, The four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are clear evidence of this. Some may see this as contradictory when John may write about one event and Luke might not write about that event at all or write it from a different angle. To illustrate this. Let's say there is a car crash and there are 4 eye-witnesses. All 4 are interviewed. The basics of the crash will be the same. However, each will be slightly different and explained differently, pointing out different aspects. If you had a 5th person that saw the crash on a video camera. It is quite likely that 5th person might call one of the 4 witnesses a liar because of a contradiction found in the evidence. I hope you see my point. People can believe what they want to believe and see what they want to see. You know the saying "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"? Well, that's where I lay. I can lead people to find out what the Bible really teaches. But I can not force them to believe in it. That's a decision only for the individual. Regards, Col
The contradictions in the bible are like people seeing a crash and not agreeing on the day it happened, where it happened, how many cars were involved and what colours they were. The contradictions in the bible are so obvious and huge that it's not a case of misinterpretation, It's a case of it being almost completely made up. But let's assume that what you say makes the slightest bit if sense. What makes you so sure that your interpretation is the correct one? If i look at a cloud and i see a building and someone looks at the cloud and sees a dog are we both not wrong, Since what we are actually looking at is a cloud? What i'm saying is, If it's so open to interpretation are you not ignoring the obvious? A cloud is a cloud. The bible is just a story book. Shouldn't the word of god be a little less open to interpretation than shapes in clouds? As for science, It has the ability that no religion has. It has the ability to change it's mind. Science is about understanding reality and truth, Religion is about twisting reality to make it fit in with what you already believe. Science starts with evidence and it comes to a conclusion based on evidence. Religion starts with a conclusion, Then it frantically searches for any shred of evidence that may support the presupposed conclusion. anyway, I'm going to bed. it's quarter to 4.
Yes. Science has that ability. Whereas the Bible does not have the ability. What is written is written. It can not be changed no matter how many humans try to do so. This is my point exactly. Many have changed, twisted and lied about the Bible that it has confused billions worldwide for decades, if not centuries. However, it is up to us as individuals to discern what the original transcripts are and translate it as accurately as possible. Walk in Westcott & Hort. They started things off. Well, Luther did really a long time ago. However, some had their own agenda. Hence, why there are so many different translations today. Col
Now here is a good example of a sentence or two taken out of context. Try reading the rest of the post. Especially, the part about the original transcripts. It is the original transcripts that can not be changed. That is what I was referring to. Col
You are asking the question? I think you might already know the answer to that. Why don't we stop playing cat and mouse and get to the nitty gritty. Again. What's your point? You are obviously trying to say something. Col
Originally I was confused about two statements that I thought were contradictory. You felt that I took you out of context and referred me to the point about "original transcripts". I could argue that I don't think I took you out of context but that would be pointless, because you feel that I did. Instead I would rather learn more about these "original transcripts". I am not a biblical scholar. I may have an idea what you might say, but I am not going to put words in your mouth. You could very well know a lot more on the subject than I do. If you don't feel comfortable saying what you feel the "original transcripts" are that is fine. If you would like to discuss them, since you brought them up, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts. But before we can discuss them it would help to know what you are referring too.
Here are the basics of what happened with the original transcripts and how we come to what we know as the Bible today. There's a heap more information available as well if this is a bit too simplistic. It's just to give you an idea of the chain of events: HAS THE BIBLE BEEN CHANGED? But you may ask: ‘How can we be sure that our Bibles today have the same information that the Bible writers received from God?’ With the copying and recopying of the Bible books over hundreds and even thousands of years, have not mistakes crept in? Yes, but these mistakes have been discovered and corrected in modern translations of the Bible. Today the information is the same as God provided to those who first wrote it down. What proof is there of this? Well, between 1947 and 1955 what are known as the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. These old scrolls include copies of books of the Hebrew Scriptures. They date from 100 to 200 years before Jesus was born. One of the scrolls is a copy of the book of Isaiah. Before this was found the oldest copy of the book of Isaiah available in Hebrew was one that had been made nearly 1,000 years after Jesus was born. When these two copies of Isaiah were compared there were only very small differences in them, most of which were small variations in spelling! This means that in more than 1,000 years of copying there had been no real change! There are more than 1,700 ancient copies of the various portions of the Hebrew Scriptures available. By carefully comparing these many very old copies, even the few mistakes copyists made can be found and corrected. Also, there are thousands of very old copies of the Greek Scriptures, some of which copies date back nearly to the time of Jesus and his apostles. Thus, as Sir Frederic Kenyon said: “The last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed.â€â€”The Bible and Archaeology, pages 288, 289. This does not mean that there have not been attempts to change God’s Word. There have been. A notable example is 1 John 5:7. In the King James Version of 1611 it reads: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.†Yet these words do not appear in any of the very early copies of the Bible. They were added by someone who was trying to support the Trinity teaching. Since it is clear that these words are not really part of God’s Word, corrections have been made and the words do not appear in newer Bibles. So anyone who says that the Bible does not contain the same information as when it was originally written simply does not know the facts. Jehovah God has seen to it that his Word has been protected not only from mistakes copyists made but also from attempts of others to make additions to it. The Bible itself contains God’s promise that his Word would be kept in a pure form for us today.—Psalm 12:6, 7; Daniel 12:4; 1 Peter 1:24, 25; Revelation 22:18, 19. Col