Originally Posted by admin
You may want to re-invent the wheel about what "FAITH" is and isn't, but you can't argue with definitions.
faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs.
There was a reason why I highlighted the word "FAITH" in my response to your post. FAITH is in fact the cornerstone of Religion and therefore CAN NOT be LOGICALLY explained as you are trying to do.
if the bible wasn't printed until around the 15th century then hold old is it? How is it "FIRST HAND" accounts of what happened. They have collections of written works dating back to BC. What would you chalk that up to be? Not first hand accounts. From what i've found Moses didn't write anything until 1445 bc, according to the bible. So what do you call ancient works by the eygptians, greeks, romans pre Jesus period??? Is all of that fake? Some of these works still exsist today.
That's where you're wrong. The bible wasn't printed in the 15th century, it was TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH in the 13th century by a man named John Wikcliffe. It was later "revised" or further made understandable in English by William Tindle in 1535.
What you are referring to is the "King James" version which came out in 1611. That version was written by 47 scholars from Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster. Not too shabby of schools, eh??? Reason why it was "written" by scholars from such prestigious and highly recognized institutions??? Because they had to have a huge knowledge in the GREEK language and related dialects in order to propertly and more importantly ACCURATELY transcribe the 66 books, 39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New, of the then GREEK Bible. 22 of those books are Historical , 5 are poetical, 18 are prophetical, 21 are epistolary. So you see, the "King James" version was in fact TECHNICALLY "written" by these scholars although they were merely accurately translating it.
The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and the New Testament was written in Greek. There are no original ancient Hebrew manuscripts older than the 10th century. Does that mean the bible "began" in the 10th Century? No. We do have however original manuscripts that were translated from Hebrew to Greek in a language called Septuagint that date back to atleast 300 years BEFORE Christ. So tie the dots....Old Testament was written BEFORE Christ in Hebrew (but the original transcripts are long gone) but before they were "gone" it was translated into Septuagint (which the documents DO exist) and those documents are dating back to atleast 300 BC and then THOSE documents were translated from the GREEK dialect it is to the ENGLISH we now today in two different times by more than 50 people as a combined effort between the 12th and 16th centuries.
Furthermore, of the Greek New Testament there are several ORIGINAL manuscripts dating back to 350 A.D. One of which is sitting in a British MUSEUM right now. There is also another one in the Vatican that has been dated back to between 300-325 A.D. Finally there is yet another in Russia that was found in a Convent on Mt. Sinai. How's that for tangible "proof" that something or someone did in fact EXIST?????
So to summarize: It goes Old Testament written by Hebrews before Christ+first hand accounts from when Christ WAS here to take care of business+more accounts from people that were there AFTER he died on the cross+translations from language to language=Bible you know today.
How right or wrong, how accurate or not, how much you believe or not all boils down to FAITH that what happened did in fact happen. THIS is why you will ALWAYS get an answer of FAITH when you ask a Christian to explain their beliefs LOGICALLY to you. BECAUSE "logic" by definition has NOTHING to do with FAITH. So you are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
BTW, my only reference to aethiesm was because you said us "Christians" always try and refute the "beliefs" of NON-believers. I merely pointed out that is an oxymoron. You can't argue with someone over "beliefs" they don't have about a God they don't think exists. I didn't infer that you were one way or the other. I was merely being a smart ass.....
Reply With Quote